Posted on 06/11/2023 9:59:25 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Not a peep out of the execrable Mitch McConnel. He is as corrupt as Chomo Joe.
Weissman’s plan is here:
https://www.justsecurity.org/86771/model-prosecution-memo-for-trump-classified-documents/
CTH covered it:
THESE ARE THE LEGAL POWERS BEHIND THIS ENTIRE JOKE!
Weissman, and his sidekick, Eisen.
Biden and Hillary have their mansions and high lifestyle - and no one can figure out how they do it on the salaries they’ve earned.
Lucky for them the roughest challenge DC liberal press bimbos had to deal with was when daddy wouldn’t buy them the $8,000 purse for the 9th grade dance. So it all seems normal to them how Joe the big guy and Hillary the nut case live so well o what little they’ve earned.
What do you say to the claim that the subpoena IS the linguistic trick that makes it impossible to follow?
CTS alleges that the subpoena asks for all documents "with classified markings," not "classified documents."
President Trump alleges that they turned over all "classified documents," and what remains are either documents that have been declassified but still contain "classified markings," or documents "with classified markings" that are lower than top secrets (e.g., confidential).
Do you have an opinion on the claims by Sundance?
-PJ
I think you provide exactly what they ask for. Note the ones you declassified and counter claim to get them back.
The fact they asked, got bebuked; subpoenaed and got some docs; asked a third time and got more—with a statement that there was no more—only to do the search to find even more. That many trips to the well to have the subpoena filled is not a good sign.
The bullshit about Trump “waving his hand” which was taken as “make it go away” won’t amount to anything.
I think they were looking for the documents he supposedly waved around—and it wasn’t in the first couple of batches, so that could be where they pin him on obstruction.
The storage issues aren’t really going to amount to much. My guess is they pile that stuff on to negotiate away later. But Trump isn’t going to plead, so he runs the risk of getting dinged on them.
If this were anyone else, they would sit down, take the deal, and have this wrapped up by next week. At least that’s what their lawyers would say.
Do you have any comments on that?
-PJ
There’s a bunch of William F. Friedman - father of American cryptology publications on the Internet all NSA declassified & archived with “ classification markings” still on them that you can download. So, “classification markings “ have little meaning if the document has been declassified.
Legitimacy of indictments including those against Trump fully depends on reasonable evidence of PROBABLE CAUSE that Trump committed a crime for which he is accused (”indicted”). The U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV.
The U.S. Constitution. Remember that?
Without PROBABLE CAUSE, the indictments must be thrown out and very possibly prosecutorial misconduct considered.
First, the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution:
The 4th Amendment begins with confirming that one has the right to be secure in his person and his belongings from government interference (unless there is probable cause (PC) of committing a crime). (The 4A doesn’t grant the right, it simply confirms the right with which the Declaration of Independence (DOI) has declared we are endowed by God upon birth.
The body of the Constitution, in which the states ratified the transfer of certain limited and enumerated powers from the States and the people to the central government, does not transfer that power from individuals to the federal government so the 4A simply confirms that this right of security from the government belongs to the individual - true with all first eight amendments which are wrongly called a “bill of rights”).
So, based on our basic God-given right to security from the government, in order to even start an investigation, the government must have legitimate reasonable suspicion (RS) that a crime was committed. Reasonable suspicion requires articulated and specific reasons why the prosecution believes the defendant committed a crime. “Hunch” or something other than facts that can be articulated are not good enough to detain or investigate.
Probable cause (PC) goes a step further. PC goes from “possible” (RS) to “probable” (PC), again requiring articulation of facts that a crime was PROBABLY committed, enough that prosecution could reasonably believe a judge would issue a warrant.
Next, the facts of the case:
I don’t know the facts or the specific federal law well enough to judge in this case.
However I will say that the Leftist Congress and Biden and his administration including the DOJ & FBI, have broken the law many times in having NO articulated reasonable suspicion BEFORE they begin their investigation, much less PC to formally accuse (”indict” or “impeach”). I think it is safe to presume that these actions of this rogue and corrupt government are also absent RS or PC.
It’s not a linguistic trick. They wanted everything marked Classified. If they were marked, but declassified, there would be a record of that. Send it to them, and file to get it back.
I’ve worked with subpoenas. They are very specific.
Yeh, its called lawfare. Lawyers hits the wall when its time to actually show evidence.
If they were marked, but declassified, there would be a record of that.
I think this is where the disagreement is.
If the President uses his plenary powers to declassify something "on the spot," then how would there be a record of it unless this was done post hoc?
If the President did this on his last day in office and then took the documents with him, then how would there be a record of it?
The argument is that the act of taking it as President was sufficient to consider it declassified from that point forward.
The question then becomes does the government have the right to ask for it back? If the answer is yes but the former President declines to return it claiming past precedent, is that criminal? I think many people believe it is not criminal (the Presidential Records Act has no criminal charges attached to it), but that it is being levied arbitrarily against President Trump for political reasons.
-PJ
Trump says that. And it’s technically true.
But, think it through. He has to tell someone, to make a note of it so other people know it’s declassified. Otherwise, no one else would know. Does he just wave his hand over it and say nothing aloud?
There is a process that’s followed. That’s the part Trump leaves out of his “defense.” And that defense is irrelevant to the subpoena.
It addresses your point about "There is a process that’s followed. That’s the part Trump leaves out of his “defense.”"
You say that President Trump is "technically true." Isn't that enough of a defense?
You say that there is a process that's followed. Constitutionally, that process is for lower-level staffers who are delegated the classification powers from the President. The Supremacy clause in the Constitution says that there is no "process" that binds the President on the matter of declassification.
Would you agree with that statement?
Where it gets murky is when the "process" goes after a President once he leaves office. At that point, he no longer has plenary powers, but it seems to me that the process is being applied ex post facto to President Trump to make criminal what was not criminal when the act occurred.
-PJ
ping
That’s right, if Trump were actually go to prison the liberals would celebrate in the streets, if the cases get thrown out and ends his political career, mission accomplished
.
Gag orders are to protect the defendant against the prosecution.
Any government gag order against a defendant is unconstitutional.
Perhaps but when has that stopped the Democrats and was the last ex-President prosecuted and millions of followers with each post he makes repeated by the media
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.