If it's so obvious to you, then it certainly should be obvious to Cannon.  Instead of arguing with you I'll just wait and see what she does.  It'll take up much less of my time.

Just one question--had Cannon already seen the unredacted documents or is all of these "bombshells" news to her?

Well now that you mention it there is one brain dead bitch that would probably like to figure out just how to do that.

LOL .

Title 44?  

I don't recall Title 44 of the USC conferring criminal penalties if a president doesn't keep good track of stuff and things.  

With respect, it may be that you don't understand how the administrative portions of the USC work.

I would not claim mastery, or even a solid working knowledge base of the of the US, but my man, I don't think that statute has the force you presume.  

Who would that ( candidate) be..?

Attached File

Who said he was being prosecuted under that statute?

I just used that as an example of how it's very well understood, to the point of it actually being written in the law, that if the President takes an official act he's supposed to document it.  You know, so everybody who it affects can actually know about it...?

I've never claimed to be an expert about any of this, but I'm not the one with the unreasonable position--that would be the people who are saying with a straight face that the documents are all now unclassified because Trump decided it to be so, in his mind, without telling anybody, while he was still President.

You know, the same documents that he never had until Biden's minions dropped them on his doorstep long after he left office.

Oh, so a recommendation type statute?  With the force of meh?  A toothless suggestion on it's own with the force of nothing to back it up?

My point, obviously, is that a statute with no penalty has, maybe, some persuasive power but no real teeth.

Again, the problem with all of this is the unprecedented nature of these coordinated proceedings against a party opponent.  It seems you have great faith in the system and think that Trump is the worst.

I have a good friend who is irrational in all things Trump and still believes the Trump/Russia hoax.  And, in spite of us watching the Feds fuck up cases and generally be the worst example of law enforcement transparency and professionalism, thinks all the Trump prosecutions are 100% legit and they will get him this time.  

Likewise I know people who are completely bamboozeled by Trump and think he's the greatest, in spite of a plethora of evidence to the contrary.    

What I have noted is that neither side can let go emotionally.  It is obvious that a certain percentage of Feds were willing to ignore their oaths to "get Trump."  Only a fool would think some of those people don't still work at the DOJ/State and Administrative suites of the federal government.  Only a fresh babe in the woods would think the feds do a good job of crime scene documentation.  

So maybe, but you are betting on people being professional and unbiased and not fucking their own case because of their bias and prejudice.  Tough bet.

As much as I dislike Mr. Trump, I have yet to see why this case required a heavy hand; a heavy hand right before the election.  

Remember That Infamous Photo from the Trump Mar-a-Lago Raid? The FBI Staged It

It was a photo that instantly became one of the most infamous in presidential campaign history: The FBI's snapshot of "Top Secret" documents seized in its unprecedented raid on former President Donald… pic.twitter.com/KXJAdVyyiI

Kyle Becker  (@kylenabecker) May 4, 2024

Remember That Infamous Photo from the Trump Mar-a-Lago Raid? The FBI Staged It

It was a photo that instantly became one of the most infamous in presidential campaign history: The FBI's snapshot of "Top Secret" documents seized in its unprecedented raid on former President Donald Trump's office at Mar-a-Lago.

The Mar-a-Lago classified documents photo instantly became a media sensation and kicked off a wave of political prosecutions of the former president.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has become the tip of the spear for the Biden administration's election interference campaign against Biden's rival, finally admitted in a filing before Judge Aileen Cannon that the photo was effectively staged.

Justice reporter
@julie_kelly2
, in a lengthy thread, explained how the so-called Department of Justice staged the photo to effectively be a campaign ad against the former president.

"Remember the photo of 'classified docs' strewn on the floor with scary looking cover sheets to depict the classification level of various papers?" Kelly asked. "It appears those cover sheets, or slip sheets, were produced and used by the FBI after the raid."

Kelly deduced that those cover sheets are not the standard for such classified documents for a president's usage.

"The cover sheets do not represent the format in which the records were found--an intentional misrepresentation in the court docket for special master lawsuit and by the media," Kelly remarked.

"Jack Smith finally admitted yesterday the FBI used those sheets as placeholders (I mean, you can't really say 'props' to help stage a 'stunt') in his filing last night. Then laughably claimed FBI found so many classified records they ran out of stunt covers/slip sheets," she added.

This is the critical admission in the court filing:

"If a box did not contain potentially privileged documents, the filter team provided the box to the investigative team for on-site review, and if the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet.

"The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose, until the FBI ran out because there were so many classified documents, at which point the team began using blank sheets with handwritten notes indicating the classification level of the document(s) seized."

This information reveals that the infamous spread of "classified" documents was presented to the media in misleading fashion.

There is previous reporting that suggests the Mar-a-Lago raid was a "fishing expedition" to seize potentially damning "Crossfire Hurricane" documents.

As CNN reported in December 2023:

A binder containing highly classified information related to Russian election interference went missing at the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, raising alarms among intelligence officials that some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the US and its allies could be exposed, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Its disappearance, which has not been previously reported, was so concerning that intelligence officials briefed Senate Intelligence Committee leaders last year about the missing materials and the government’s efforts to retrieve them, the sources said.

In the two-plus years since Trump left office, the missing intelligence does not appear to have been found.

At the same time as the Mar-a-Lago raid, President Joe Biden was covering up his own classified documents scandal, which only became public knowledge after the 2022 midterm elections.

On Thursday, President Trump has filed a motion for dismissal in the classified documents case based on "selective and vindictive prosecution."

"With one exception there is NO RECORD of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is President Trump," the filing argues.

"The basis is his politics and status as President Biden's chief political rival. Thus, this case reflects the type of selective and vindictive prosecution that cannot be tolerated."

Special Counsel Hur's report on President Biden's classified documents scandal found that "Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen."

Biden was never prosecuted, due to Hur's subjective belief that no jury would find him guilty since he appears to be "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

The director of the National Archive’s Information Security Oversight Office told the House Intelligence Committee in March 2023 that NARA has found boxes of classified information in unclassified containers from every administration since the Reagan Administration.

Donald Trump is the only one of the alleged offenders to be prosecuted, despite being a president with ultimate declassification authority.

Apply that to any former gov official. Why does any former director or high ranking official like maybe brennen get to keep theirs? Plenty of former obammy folks still maintain security clearances with a job in gov.

You're making my point. The people who got their clearance independent of their job retain it when they leave.  The people who only have it because they got elected lose it when they leave.

False.

Those who do not understand what they are seeing find it easy to see conspiracy everywhere.

MAGA Media is quite happy to monetize the phenomenon.

You keep saying that. Yet you never back it up.

You said "word is". Word is from who? Spit it out. Simple question, please give a simple answer

Have you read the indictment? Do you know the details of what is alleged? Are you willing to consider the possibility that an unprecedented situation can force a justified unprecedented reaction?

If we were talking about Obama or Biden or Clinton, would your perspective be a little different?

Trump forced all of this, he was given many opportunities to do the right thing, he was given great leniency, and he chose to not do what any reasonable person would do.  That's not the government's fault, that's on him.

To not respond would do far more damage. Either the president (and former presidents) are above the law or they are not.  Which do you want?

Some here sound like they want him to be a king.  I'm pretty sure our ancestors fought a war about that question. The ignorant arrogance of those who think they know better than those intellectual giants is a bit terrifying.

What ever happened to the classified documents that the potato had in his garage from when he was a senator?  Was that conveniently swept under the rug?

What is it that Navy vs Egan said that you think is relevant?

You don't get to just say "Navy vs Egan says you're wrong and I'm right".

Prove it.

Show me anything with any authority that supports that assertion.

Oh that ? That's different

Am having a hard time following this , have little legal knowledge . Redactions and new developments like a frame up being exposed VS charges from an original Indictment contrived to entrap Trump ?  As previously mentioned ,  "Fruit of the poisonous tree ".

Why has the judge not declared a Mistrial ?

He couldn’t remember when major events in his life happened , so he was deemed mentally incompetent for a trial. Something to that effect.

Dems through a fit due to the wording.

Yes, swept under the rug

Pedo Joe said he declassified them and that’s good enough for government

Nixon resigned over less.

The fbi has been a criminal enterprise of the govt since it's inception.

It's not up to a prosecutor what trump's "need to know" is on the documents he decided to take with him. It's irrelevant except for playing politics. Remember when obammy cleaned out a bunch of records and refused to return any? Where was your outrage then?

Why do they have them? what is their need to know?

Depends on how long you have been away and the type of clearance.

Thanks for repeating the narrative set by the child molesting, foreign bribe taking, treasonous politicians and bureaucrats. Do they pay you or are you auditioning for a membership? That narrative is full of shit and has been disproven.

ETA: Why repeat the bullshit narrative? It basically hits a refresh button and then people will be going over each bullshit point of the bullshit narrative again. This allows him to engage in the back and forth again rather than getting cock smacked with facts and precedents that follow the back and forth comments. When cornered the bullshit narrative will be regurgitated again.

Provide your cites first.

desantis. there are prolly others also. folks are gonna vote AGAINST trump and not for bidet. give the middle someone to VOTE FOR and see what happens.

You don't understand; Mr. Miller is "sure" that the FBI has handled, and is handling, this case "meticulously."  He has no actual knowledge of this, but he's "sure" of it.  In other words, since ha has no actual firsthand knowledge, he's taking it on faith.  He believes that there are no hidden motives, no prejudices at work.  His faith in the FBI seems to be unshakable.  Good for him.  Most of the rest of us live in the real world, though.

Weird?
How do you explain a friend applying for a Gov job as a Fed Police Officer obtaining a TS Clearance as part of the background hiring process, even  though he is not employed by Fed Gov yet and has not received a start date or a conditional offer of employment?

The MAL document case is over.  Even if the judge doesn't dismiss this, the DOJ has admitted that the evidence has been tainted, and there is a strong appearance of a setup in the court documents that the Special Council tried to keep secret.  The trial would need to be moved to DC for Trump to be convicted now.

How do I know it is over?  The media has pivoted to the NY hush money case. The documents case was seen as the strongest and the NY hush money case was considered the weakest.  The media has put all of their eggs into the NY hush money basket.

Once again, you do the same thing you accuse others of.

I asked you to respond to specific questions. You stated you had already replied previously somewhere in the previous 37 page thread and I should go look for the answers there,(even though I was asking about newly released information). Now when Cincinnatus points out Navy v Egan, you want him to clue you in specifically.

You’re a hypocrite who can’t live by the same rules you hold others too.
Go google Navy v Egan and read the SCOTUS decision to see what happened.
I did.

Spoiler alert,(Kennedy did not participate).

OK, check this out, this is what answering questions looks like, more or less in order:

Yes.  Yes. Yes.

No.  Indeed, though I think Mr. Holder should have been responsible for selling guns to cartels which were used to kill American law enforcement, I understand why, as a country, we might not want to prosecute a popular former president.  Looks weak.

You and I have no idea if your twin assertions in paragraph three are true.  I, for one, would remind you that the DOJ, Intel folks, and the administrative state have managed to let their myopia guide them to fuckery so far, so... my bet is on fuckery.

Again, no clue if paragraph 4 1st sentence is true but it looks to be wild speculation.  This is especially true when you consider the sentence that comes next.  So far, every other president and former president has been above the law.  Only Trump has been targeted with lawfare by party opponents.  Mostly I think no one should be above the law.  But I also understand that presidents have to make hard decisions that could be seen as illegal.  I also understand that there's some value in not looking like a silly banana republic to the rest of the world.  As noted above when discussing fast and furious, this is a complicated question.

I'm not sure what to do about your breathless take on "some here" but I too can make an over-wrought emotional argument.  

Observe:

Some here would rather nameless, unelected, bureaucrats determine whether constitutional officers can act in their official capacity.  They would replace oaths to the constitution with oaths of fealty to party benefactors and the corporations/NGOs that pay the bills.   They would trample the founding documents, authored by the founders because their petty bureaucratic fiefdoms should rule over the plebs.

Emotionalism now turned off.

Our ancestors?  What do you mean by that?  That's an interesting choice of words with some odd assumptions.  

I think until one has encountered the FBI professionally it's excusable to believe that our nation's premier law enforcement agency would process a crime scene with great care, attention to detail, and utmost integrity.  After?  Nope.  Maybe the poster just doesn't have experience with the Feds.

So, I understand, given the propaganda about the FBI in popular entertainment.  

I do talk some shit about the FBI.  

However hear this too: I know a couple excellent, thoughtful, amazing FBI agents who did their best to get bad guys, shared information and would take calls on weekends from a small town nobody.  Great people deserving of anyone's respect an admiration.  They are out there, so keep an open mind.

@mcculver5 thank you for the serious response.  I think of all my interactions on these topics your responses may have been the most reasonable and most worth engaging.  I suspect I would enjoy spending time with you in person discussing these things.

Yes, I am starting with the assumption that the FBI/DOJ is still a serious operation worthy of deference until proven otherwise.  Yes, I'm starting with the assumption that when a prosecutor brings an indictment against a former president he's not going to put something in there that isn't fully supported by evidence.  If somebody disagrees with those assumptions there's really nothing worth talking about, because anything one doesn't want to be true can be easily categorized under corruption and conspiracy.  If we can't appeal to a common set of facts then we are wasting our time talking about anything.

None of that means that I think the government in general is virtuous, has never done anything wrong, that there are not many problems that need to be addressed, etc.  but we are talking about very specific things here, not broad generalities.  



For the record, the bureaucrats just start the process--the determinations will come from a jury and judges.

Anyway, I was using "ancestors" as a general term--forefathers, founders, whatever term you prefer is fine.  The point is that when very wise people live under a king, choose to take up arms and fight a war for independence, and then spend many years struggling to figure out a better system under which to proceed, to today declare that actually what we need is to make the President even more powerful and unaccountable to the law is rather audacious.

Sorry if I missed a question I was supposed to answer from you, I'm losing track of what's worth responding to and what isn't.

I just went and read the entire Navy vs Egan decision to make sure I wasn't missing something.

I am legitimately confused--it's a case about what recourse an employee should have when fired because he couldn't get a security clearance.  The justices are arguing about how far an independent board can go in reviewing the decision, versus a different appeals process inside the agency itself.

What does any of that have to do with the questions we are talking about here?  None of this is about questioning the authority of the president while he is in office.

I'm not asking @Cincinnatus to clue me in, I'm giving him the opportunity to explain himself before I tell him why I think he's wrong.

ETA: I was hoping there was something I was missing, but it appears he's just playing the red herring game again.  I'm talking about the question of whether Trump declassified something, and how that is established, and he wants to talk about whether Trump had the authority to declassify something (when NOBODY is actually questioning that).