Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history - MORE TAPES!!!

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, T master said:

 

So what's the update it's been long enough to know BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT if these supposed documents were as sensitive as the American politicians have become to anything surrounding this matter .

 

Like a infamous poster here use to reply all the time "Where's the Proof" common BT lets see it so we can get past it we know you never will because you live in the past but i want this POS to go to jail seeing as you must have something that can prove i too be true ..

 

Put up or shut up ...

Justice is rolling along. Will you cry when he is locked up? 

[Westside]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

How could there be one of him born every minute, Ned?  That's vaginically impossible. 

Thank God for small favors! 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Multiple vaginitis producing similar suckers? 

Tibs - seems your autocorrect algorithm is trending towards a word you must use often texting

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Justice is rolling along. Will you cry when he is locked up? 

 

You mean like the 50 other times...

[Tiberius]

37 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You mean like the 50 other times...

The GOP senate won’t be the jury this time 

[ChiGoose]

20 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It's a shame, really, that this is happening.  Had the government been more diligent and disciplined in their approach, they could have avoided the appearance of impropriety and tyranny at work.   Turns out they can get court permission to storm the castle, organize and dispatch law enforcement officials armed to the teeth, spend hours on site, photograph documents purported to be classified, provide them to the press, and yet still gather an enormous number of documents unrelated to the seizure.   

 

On top of that, they resist any objective review of the seized documents by an independent third party, in essence stating "You just gotta trust us.".  

 

 

That is not at all what happened here and grossly distorts the facts and the law. 
 

Not only did Trump’s lawyers not even allege that the search was in any way improper, but when the judge asked if they could find a single previous case that supported their positions they could not. 
 

Simply put, you are not entitled to what Trump is asking for in the pre-indictment phase. Once indicted, you have expanded rights and access, but not before. 

[SoCal Deek]

21 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

That is not at all what happened here and grossly distorts the facts and the law. 
 

Not only did Trump’s lawyers not even allege that the search was in any way improper, but when the judge asked if they could find a single previous case that supported their positions they could not. 
 

Simply put, you are not entitled to what Trump is asking for in the pre-indictment phase. Once indicted, you have expanded rights and access, but not before. 

Goose, it’s obvious you’re a lawyer or in the legal profession. I have to ask. If they search your home on a warrant, are they entitled to take anything other than what the warrant was for? Not trying to be political here…I really don’t know. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

That is not at all what happened here and grossly distorts the facts and the law. 
 

Not only did Trump’s lawyers not even allege that the search was in any way improper, but when the judge asked if they could find a single previous case that supported their positions they could not. 
 

Simply put, you are not entitled to what Trump is asking for in the pre-indictment phase. Once indicted, you have expanded rights and access, but not before. 

We keep having the same discussion, Chi.  I’m not a lawyer, I don’t work for the government and am simply a citizen looking at what has happened.  
 

In your world, at least as far as Trump is concerned, it seems to me you’ll bend over backwards to defend practice without regard to optics and damage it does to the national psyche.  
 

In my world, if the DOJ is going to go to the extreme and raid the guys house, they should have the professionalism to avoid the appearance of impropriety and not seize documents outside the scope allowed.  If it takes 10 hours, spend 10 hours.  If it’s 40 hours to do the job “right”, spend 40 hours.   If 75 people are needed, get 80. 
 

From a legal perspective, it seems reasonable to me that the law considers the appointment of a Special Master and a pause in review while things get worked out.  Again, I’m not a lawyer, but a judge considered the argument and allowed for it to happen.   Was this an egregious example of judicial misconduct, or an opinion allowed within the scope of the law? 
 

DOJ disagrees, within the context of the law, appeals and wins.  The story there is “Trust us, all is fine.”. 
 

If you’re going to raid a guys house after 4 years of trumped up scandals, political manipulation and innuendo, do it right.  
 

I understand this barnyard explosion can happen legally, I just don’t think it should happen.  

Edited December 3, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose, it’s obvious you’re a lawyer or in the legal profession. I have to ask. If they search your home on a warrant, are they entitled to take anything other than what the warrant was for? Not trying to be political here…I really don’t know. 

Bigger question imo, is was it within their control to limit what they took to the documents they were authorized to seize?  They had complete control of the area being searched, empowered to detain, arrest or dispatch anyone who did not comply or got aggressive.  
 

I believe Chi is a proponent of application of Occam’s Razor…in the calm light of day, the DOJ seized documents outside the scope of the investigation (some purported to include documents protected under attorney-client privilege) and is fighting tooth and nail to avoid an objective review of documents.  
 

What seems more likely….an “Oops” or “the full weight and power of the United States government” coming down on a political figure? 
 

 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 
 

What seems more likely….an “Oops” or “the full weight and power of the United States government” coming down on a political figure? 
 

 

Regardless of what it really is it absolutely has the look of the latter.  Bad optics all around.  

[T master]

21 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Justice is rolling along. Will you cry when he is locked up? 

 

Not even 1 tear !! But you can bet if there isn't enough evidence to put him there you will continue your vendetta by continuing to bring up BS just because that's what you & BT do .

 

Neither of you can move forward your always looking in the rear view which tells us why you voted the way you did ...

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Not even 1 tear !! But you can bet if there isn't enough evidence to put him there you will continue your vendetta by continuing to bring up BS just because that's what you & BT do .

 

Neither of you can move forward your always looking in the rear view which tells us why you voted the way you did ...

He is a serial criminal. He is the political leader of the GOP. 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

59 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Regardless of what it really is it absolutely has the look of the latter.  Bad optics all around.  

Yes, exactly.

 

 

 

45 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He is a serial criminal. He is the political leader of the GOP. 

 

 

He’s nearly 80 years old.  He may be the most crafty serial criminal in the history of mankind.  

[Doc]

21 hours ago, Tiberius said:

The GOP senate won’t be the jury this time 

 

Huh?  He can't be impeached again (at least, right now).

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose, it’s obvious you’re a lawyer or in the legal profession. I have to ask. If they search your home on a warrant, are they entitled to take anything other than what the warrant was for? Not trying to be political here…I really don’t know. 

They are supposed to take what is within the bounds of the search warrant.

 

However, law enforcement personnel aren’t lawyers. So if the warrant says “documents” they are going to grab any documents that could possibly be relevant. If there are personal documents intermingled with government documents, those personal documents would actually be in scope because they could show intent to a jury. However, if the agents took something way out of scope, like a car, that would be something that Trump might be able to get back (more on how in a bit).
 

From there, the prosecutors will do a review of what was seized. In this case, they also used a filter team (also known as a “taint” team). These are DoJ lawyers who are not involved with the Trump case but understand the law and potential privilege. They will review documents for potential privilege and flag anything that should not be passed to the prosecution.
 

Once the prosecutors have the evidence, they can review it, talk to witnesses, etc. Eventually, they will have to make an indictment decision. If they decline to indict, they have to return everything. If they indict, that opens Trump up to additional rights as a criminal defendant. At that point, there is an official case on a judicial docket and his layers can file motions seeking to bar certain evidence from the trial. If something was seized improperly, this is when his lawyers would argue that before a judge in an effort to have it excluded from trial and/or returned to Trump’s possession.
 

Between when the search is conducted and when an indictment is issued, people have very few rights to get their stuff back. That seems unfair (and maybe it is) but part of the rationale is that if targets knew where the investigation was headed, they could seek to conceal additional evidence or tamper with potential witnesses before the DoJ could talk to them. You would need a REALLY good reason to get it back (like if you weren’t the target but instead a third party who was tangentially related and some of the items taken are critical to your business). 
 

If, however, the search was egregious, the target can file a motion to that effect. To be successful, they need to meet the four Richey elements. The first and foremost is a callous disregard of constitutional rights. 
 

If the search was not egregious, but the government seized property and has held it without resolution (indictment or declination) for a long period of time, the target can file a Bivens motion alleging that the delay is an infringement on their rights. 
 

In Trump’s case, his lawyers did not allege a callous disregard of constitutional rights, as is required by Richey. Nor did they file a Bivens motion. I don’t think they even challenged the legitimacy of the search warrant itself (which is good because they would lose that one pretty quickly). They are apparently trying to assert that Trump has the rights of an indicted person during the pre-indictment phase solely because he is a former president. 
 

When pressed by the 11th circuit panel (two Trump appointed judges and one from George W. Bush), Trump’s attorneys could not cite a single case that backed their theory. That is a *really* bad look before an appellate court. Case precedent is incredibly important, and not having a single precedent in your favor means you’re probably going to lose.

 

Basically, all of the legal precedent and facts were on the side of the DoJ here. In fact, the 11th Circuit stated in its opinion:

 

”In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test, drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option.”

 

So now, Trump has exactly the same rights you or I would have in this situation. If and when he’s indicted, he will be granted additional rights and privileges including discovery to obtain what the government has and depose its witnesses. He will also be able to argue that certain evidence should not be admissible at trial. All of this would happen before a judge in criminal court. 
 

If the DoJ does not indict him, they will have to return all of his stuff (he will never get the government docs back as they are not his). If they drag their feet for a while (at least a year), he can file a Bivens motion to get it back. 
 

Instead of Trump being treated differently or targeted for politics, this is actually a very straightforward case of a legal search warrant being executed against a private citizen. 
 

The mainstream media will screw up the reporting because that’s how they do, but when you look at the pleadings and rulings, this one is pretty simple. Trump will either get his stuff back at the declination decision, or be able to challenge the evidence when he is indicted. He’s just not allowed to jump the gun like he is trying to now. 

[BillStime]

The greatest security risk in US history...

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:45 AM, ChiGoose said:

They are supposed to take what is within the bounds of the search warrant.

 

However, law enforcement personnel aren’t lawyers. So if the warrant says “documents” they are going to grab any documents that could possibly be relevant. If there are personal documents intermingled with government documents, those personal documents would actually be in scope because they could show intent to a jury. However, if the agents took something way out of scope, like a car, that would be something that Trump might be able to get back (more on how in a bit).
 

From there, the prosecutors will do a review of what was seized. In this case, they also used a filter team (also known as a “taint” team). These are DoJ lawyers who are not involved with the Trump case but understand the law and potential privilege. They will review documents for potential privilege and flag anything that should not be passed to the prosecution.
 

Once the prosecutors have the evidence, they can review it, talk to witnesses, etc. Eventually, they will have to make an indictment decision. If they decline to indict, they have to return everything. If they indict, that opens Trump up to additional rights as a criminal defendant. At that point, there is an official case on a judicial docket and his layers can file motions seeking to bar certain evidence from the trial. If something was seized improperly, this is when his lawyers would argue that before a judge in an effort to have it excluded from trial and/or returned to Trump’s possession.
 

Between when the search is conducted and when an indictment is issued, people have very few rights to get their stuff back. That seems unfair (and maybe it is) but part of the rationale is that if targets knew where the investigation was headed, they could seek to conceal additional evidence or tamper with potential witnesses before the DoJ could talk to them. You would need a REALLY good reason to get it back (like if you weren’t the target but instead a third party who was tangentially related and some of the items taken are critical to your business). 
 

If, however, the search was egregious, the target can file a motion to that effect. To be successful, they need to meet the four Richey elements. The first and foremost is a callous disregard of constitutional rights. 
 

If the search was not egregious, but the government seized property and has held it without resolution (indictment or declination) for a long period of time, the target can file a Bivens motion alleging that the delay is an infringement on their rights. 
 

In Trump’s case, his lawyers did not allege a callous disregard of constitutional rights, as is required by Richey. Nor did they file a Bivens motion. I don’t think they even challenged the legitimacy of the search warrant itself (which is good because they would lose that one pretty quickly). They are apparently trying to assert that Trump has the rights of an indicted person during the pre-indictment phase solely because he is a former president. 
 

When pressed by the 11th circuit panel (two Trump appointed judges and one from George W. Bush), Trump’s attorneys could not cite a single case that backed their theory. That is a *really* bad look before an appellate court. Case precedent is incredibly important, and not having a single precedent in your favor means you’re probably going to lose.

 

Basically, all of the legal precedent and facts were on the side of the DoJ here. In fact, the 11th Circuit stated in its opinion:

 

”In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test, drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option.”

 

So now, Trump has exactly the same rights you or I would have in this situation. If and when he’s indicted, he will be granted additional rights and privileges including discovery to obtain what the government has and depose its witnesses. He will also be able to argue that certain evidence should not be admissible at trial. All of this would happen before a judge in criminal court. 
 

If the DoJ does not indict him, they will have to return all of his stuff (he will never get the government docs back as they are not his). If they drag their feet for a while (at least a year), he can file a Bivens motion to get it back. 
 

Instead of Trump being treated differently or targeted for politics, this is actually a very straightforward case of a legal search warrant being executed against a private citizen. 
 

The mainstream media will screw up the reporting because that’s how they do, but when you look at the pleadings and rulings, this one is pretty simple. Trump will either get his stuff back at the declination decision, or be able to challenge the evidence when he is indicted. He’s just not allowed to jump the gun like he is trying to now. 

Thanks for the very thorough explanation. I didn’t see it until just now. It’d be easier to find if BillStime would show some restraint instead of dumping his daily Twitter garbage into each and every thread. 

[Chef Jim]

59 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks for the very thorough explanation. I didn’t see it until just now. It’d be easier to find if BillStime would show some restraint instead of dumping his daily Twitter garbage into each and every thread. 

 

Put him on ignore.  Then you can pick and choose which comment of his you want to actually open and read.  

[SCBills]

These people are leading our military and you believe Trump is our greatest security risk?

 

I’ll go ahead and start learning Mandarin…

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[ChiGoose]

22 hours ago, SCBills said:

These people are leading our military and you believe Trump is our greatest security risk?

 

I’ll go ahead and start learning Mandarin…

 

 

 

Our diverse military is currently helping Ukraine beat the ever loving piss out of the super manly Russian army that Ted Cruz loves so much. 

 

 

You're on the wrong thread, BTW. All of your Putin bootlicking comrades are in the Ukraine thread.

 

[Andy1]

23 hours ago, SCBills said:

These people are leading our military and you believe Trump is our greatest security risk?

 

I’ll go ahead and start learning Mandarin…

 

 

I hate to break the news to you, but gay people have been in the military for as long as we have had a military. Why would it have any impact on the ability of a person to do their job?

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

Are you actually quoting someone who  lost his job due to making up stuff about Trump? Wby not take the word of Jussie Smollett on MAGA people 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:45 PM, ChiGoose said:

They are supposed to take what is within the bounds of the search warrant.

 

However, law enforcement personnel aren’t lawyers. So if the warrant says “documents” they are going to grab any documents that could possibly be relevant. If there are personal documents intermingled with government documents, those personal documents would actually be in scope because they could show intent to a jury. However, if the agents took something way out of scope, like a car, that would be something that Trump might be able to get back (more on how in a bit).
 

From there, the prosecutors will do a review of what was seized. In this case, they also used a filter team (also known as a “taint” team). These are DoJ lawyers who are not involved with the Trump case but understand the law and potential privilege. They will review documents for potential privilege and flag anything that should not be passed to the prosecution.
 

Once the prosecutors have the evidence, they can review it, talk to witnesses, etc. Eventually, they will have to make an indictment decision. If they decline to indict, they have to return everything. If they indict, that opens Trump up to additional rights as a criminal defendant. At that point, there is an official case on a judicial docket and his layers can file motions seeking to bar certain evidence from the trial. If something was seized improperly, this is when his lawyers would argue that before a judge in an effort to have it excluded from trial and/or returned to Trump’s possession.
 

Between when the search is conducted and when an indictment is issued, people have very few rights to get their stuff back. That seems unfair (and maybe it is) but part of the rationale is that if targets knew where the investigation was headed, they could seek to conceal additional evidence or tamper with potential witnesses before the DoJ could talk to them. You would need a REALLY good reason to get it back (like if you weren’t the target but instead a third party who was tangentially related and some of the items taken are critical to your business). 
 

If, however, the search was egregious, the target can file a motion to that effect. To be successful, they need to meet the four Richey elements. The first and foremost is a callous disregard of constitutional rights. 
 

If the search was not egregious, but the government seized property and has held it without resolution (indictment or declination) for a long period of time, the target can file a Bivens motion alleging that the delay is an infringement on their rights. 
 

In Trump’s case, his lawyers did not allege a callous disregard of constitutional rights, as is required by Richey. Nor did they file a Bivens motion. I don’t think they even challenged the legitimacy of the search warrant itself (which is good because they would lose that one pretty quickly). They are apparently trying to assert that Trump has the rights of an indicted person during the pre-indictment phase solely because he is a former president. 
 

When pressed by the 11th circuit panel (two Trump appointed judges and one from George W. Bush), Trump’s attorneys could not cite a single case that backed their theory. That is a *really* bad look before an appellate court. Case precedent is incredibly important, and not having a single precedent in your favor means you’re probably going to lose.

 

Basically, all of the legal precedent and facts were on the side of the DoJ here. In fact, the 11th Circuit stated in its opinion:

 

”In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test, drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option.”

 

So now, Trump has exactly the same rights you or I would have in this situation. If and when he’s indicted, he will be granted additional rights and privileges including discovery to obtain what the government has and depose its witnesses. He will also be able to argue that certain evidence should not be admissible at trial. All of this would happen before a judge in criminal court. 
 

If the DoJ does not indict him, they will have to return all of his stuff (he will never get the government docs back as they are not his). If they drag their feet for a while (at least a year), he can file a Bivens motion to get it back. 
 

Instead of Trump being treated differently or targeted for politics, this is actually a very straightforward case of a legal search warrant being executed against a private citizen. 
 

The mainstream media will screw up the reporting because that’s how they do, but when you look at the pleadings and rulings, this one is pretty simple. Trump will either get his stuff back at the declination decision, or be able to challenge the evidence when he is indicted. He’s just not allowed to jump the gun like he is trying to now. 

This all seems logical enough.  And, when everyone trusts everyone else to do the right thing, it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, no one trusts anyone here, and the DOJ actions really read like this:

 

The government set the rules of engagement, and the rules clearly favor the interests of the government:

• They set the standard as to how the raid was carried out.  Who, what, when and for how long. 
• They set the standard as to what can be taken, who can enter the home, what can be seized and why;
• When they gather documents that they should not be gathering, of course "...they aren't lawyers..." which, if trust is missing, simply means they can grab anything they like under the theory that "...they aren't lawyers...".  At the same time though,  the DOJ certainly has the capacity to have proper oversight to ensue that only the correct documents are seized;
• They control the team that reviews what was taken, presumably much more efficiently than  the team that had to grab anything they might feel is warranted because the DOJ was apparently unable to control the scope of what was taken to begin with, even though the have the location locked down under their control; 
• The taint team, staffed by members of the DOJ, which was unable to limit the search to that which they were authorized to take, theoretically renders an unbiased opinion on what should/should not have been seized;
• The law provides for the appointment of an objective Third Party to protect the interest of the person who's house has been raided, the judge assigned to the case saw a need for just that type of oversight, and in this case, assigned someone to do just that. 
• The DOJ clearly does not want an objective third party review of the documents inappropriately seized, and appeals to keep everything in house.  They prevail. 

 

The reality here is that Trump is not an ordinary citizen. Politicians and powerful people rarely get the treatment average folks get in our system.   An argument can be made he's been the victim of political persecution over several years, and the DOJs actions certainly should be viewed with suspicion.  

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

42 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This all seems logical enough.  And, when everyone trusts everyone else to do the right thing, it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, no one trusts anyone here, and the DOJ actions really read like this:

 

The government set the rules of engagement, and the rules clearly favor the interests of the government:

• They set the standard as to how the raid was carried out.  Who, what, when and for how long. 
• They set the standard as to what can be taken, who can enter the home, what can be seized and why;
• When they gather documents that they should not be gathering, of course "...they aren't lawyers..." which, if trust is missing, simply means they can grab anything they like under the theory that "...they aren't lawyers...".  At the same time though,  the DOJ certainly has the capacity to have proper oversight to ensue that only the correct documents are seized;
• They control the team that reviews what was taken, presumably much more efficiently than  the team that had to grab anything they might feel is warranted because the DOJ was apparently unable to control the scope of what was taken to begin with, even though the have the location locked down under their control; 
• The taint team, staffed by members of the DOJ, which was unable to limit the search to that which they were authorized to take, theoretically renders an unbiased opinion on what should/should not have been seized;
• The law provides for the appointment of an objective Third Party to protect the interest of the person who's house has been raided, the judge assigned to the case saw a need for just that type of oversight, and in this case, assigned someone to do just that. 
• The DOJ clearly does not want an objective third party review of the documents inappropriately seized, and appeals to keep everything in house.  They prevail. 

 

The reality here is that Trump is not an ordinary citizen. Politicians and powerful people rarely get the treatment average folks get in our system.   An argument can be made he's been the victim of political persecution over several years, and the DOJs actions certainly should be viewed with suspicion.  

 

 

 

 

So you have a couple of things wrong in your account, but I'd like to mainly just address the concerns of bias.

 

In the scenario you're laying out, Trump does have recourse. If and when he's indicted, he can get evidence that was improperly seized excluded from trial. 

 

To set an example, let's pretend that, in the course of the search, one of the FBI agents took a ficus plant from Trump's office even though it clearly wasn't a document. Later, when examining the evidence, agents removed the plant from its pot and found a bag of cocaine. On that bag was a name, like "H. Maddas," so the agents began searching for this person and were able to find them. Mr. Maddas had documents proving that Trump was selling our nuclear secrets to the Saudis, so the FBI takes them, deposes Maddas and then files additional charges against Trump for possession of illegal drugs and selling our nuclear secrets.

 

Looks bad!

 

However, Trump's attorneys would then file motions to exclude any evidence obtained from the ficus plant from trial as the plant was seized illegally because it was not within the scope of the warrant. They are going to win that motion. Now, the DoJ has a charge against Trump for possession of cocaine but they cannot tell the jury that they found cocaine in his possession. The judge will toss out this charge on a motion from Trump's attorney as the DoJ cannot meet even the basic prima facie case for possession with the admissible evidence.

 

Additionally, Trump's lawyers will file a motion to exclude any evidence around H. Maddas and his evidence of Trump selling secrets. This is called "fruit of the poisonous tree" which bars evidence, even if found legally, if it originally derived from an illegal search. There was nothing illegal about the FBI going to talk to H. Maddas and getting the additional evidence, but the only reason the FBI was even there was because they originally conducted an illegal search of the ficus plant. So the court is going to prevent the H. Maddas evidence from being presented at trial as well. The selling secrets charge will also be dismissed for lack of admissible evidence.

 

The bottom line is that Trump isn't being treated differently* than how anyone else would. This is not a political prosecution but exactly the prosecution you would expect if anyone did what Trump did. Under the law, Trump actually is an ordinary citizen. That's the beauty of the American system: we have regular people elected to lead our country and then they step down and become regular people again (as far as the law is concerned). The 11th Circuit, in overturning Judge Canon's ridiculous order, explicitly stated that Trump is to be treated as anyone else would in his position and rejected the idea of a special exception in the law for ex-presidents.

 

*I suspect that the DoJ is using prosecutorial discretion to avoid charging Trump until they have fully fleshed out the case. If you or I were in Trump's shoes, we'd already have been indicted. This is the singular instance in which Trump is being treated differently than anyone else would be in this case.

Edited December 9, 2022 by ChiGoose

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

So you have a couple of things wrong in your account, but I'd like to mainly just address the concerns of bias.

 

In the scenario you're laying out, Trump does have recourse. If and when he's indicted, he can get evidence that was improperly seized excluded from trial. 

 

To set an example, let's pretend that, in the course of the search, one of the FBI agents took a ficus plant from Trump's office even though it clearly wasn't a document. Later, when examining the evidence, agents removed the plant from its pot and found a bag of cocaine. On that bag was a name, like "H. Maddas," so the agents began searching for this person and were able to find them. Mr. Maddas had documents proving that Trump was selling our nuclear secrets to the Saudis, so the FBI takes them, deposes Maddas and then files additional charges against Trump for possession of illegal drugs and selling our nuclear secrets.

 

Looks bad!

 

However, Trump's attorneys would then file motions to exclude any evidence obtained from the ficus plant from trial as the plant was seized illegally because it was not within the scope of the warrant. They are going to win that motion. Now, the DoJ has a charge against Trump for possession of cocaine but they cannot tell the jury that they found cocaine in his possession. The judge will toss out this charge on a motion from Trump's attorney as the DoJ cannot meet even the basic prima facie case for possession with the admissible evidence.

 

Additionally, Trump's lawyers will file a motion to exclude any evidence around H. Maddas and his evidence of Trump selling secrets. This is called "fruit of the poisonous tree" which bars evidence, even if found legally, if it originally derived from an illegal search. There was nothing illegal about the FBI going to talk to H. Maddas and getting the additional evidence, but the only reason the FBI was even there was because they originally conducted an illegal search of the ficus plant. So the court is going to prevent the H. Maddas evidence from being presented at trial as well. The selling secrets charge will also be dismissed for lack of admissible evidence.

 

The bottom line is that Trump isn't being treated differently* than how anyone else would. This is not a political prosecution but exactly the prosecution you would expect if anyone did what Trump did. Under the law, Trump actually is an ordinary citizen. That's the beauty of the American system: we have regular people elected to lead our country and then they step down and become regular people again (as far as the law is concerned). The 11th Circuit, in overturning Judge Canon's ridiculous order, explicitly stated that Trump is to be treated as anyone else would in his position and rejected the idea of a special exception in the law for ex-presidents.

 

*I suspect that the DoJ is using prosecutorial discretion to avoid charging Trump until they have fully fleshed out the case. If you or I were in Trump's shoes, we'd already have been indicted. This is the singular instance in which Trump is being treated differently than anyone else would be in this case.

I sincerely appreciate the time and effort that goes into your replies, and acknowledge the pain it must cause when a simple country boy like myself takes a position that goes contrary to what is probably an articulate summary of the law as it exists. I do not doubt for a minute that the deck is stacked in favor of the government. It always is. 

 

The thing is...I don't care that they can do it, I simply question why Garland chose this particular path.  You've been vocal on the fact that Trump has rights here, when and if the time comes to assert a defense or question egregious behavior, and that's true.  However,  the principle obstacle to victory is the 1000 Ton Elephant known as the  United State Government, which will always have the means and personnel to fight tooth and nail every step of the way.  There is no downside in doing so.  A million dollars?  10 million dollars?  $100 million dollars?  There's always more money and more people on one side than the other.  

 

I follow your ficus analogy, and followed the one where they seized the 1994 Chrysler K car in your prior note, but respectfully that's not at all what people would be concerned with.  If they grab the "World's Best Boss" mug sandwiched between the folder marked "Nuclear Codes for Xi Jin Ping" and "Battle Movements 3rd Infantry Division-hold for Val", no one cares.  But sure, if a hapless aw shucks well-intentioned but under-managed agent inadvertently grabs 4 years of tax returns and 200 pages of correspondence outlining strategy with his legal team, forgive people who pay attention to politics of being a tad concerned that "Scouts Honor" is what separates legitimate search for justice and tyranny.   

 

Who Chi, who would ever look at the process as it is laid out and be thrilled as a target of an investigation that the government held all the cards to crush you, and the ones you could play to tell your tale will bankrupt you to pursue?  This isn't a new theory, and sensible and reasonable people know this to be true.   

 

You mentioned I was wrong in a couple spots, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.  Is it that the Taint Team are not members of the DOJ?  The standard(s) as established were not set by the government (and by this, let's assume I mean lawmakers)? 
If I was a betting man, I'd say it had something to do with my characterization of the appointment of the Special Master.  I don't believe Judge Cannon acted illegally, or outside the scope of her authority, but correct me if I'm wrong.  It seems to me the law allows for consideration of same, which means there are times when it makes sense to have the third party review, and she felt strongly enough to assign one.  The DOJ said quite loudly "We don't want an independent review of the data we seized".   

 

At the risk of repeating myself, Trump is not the average guy on the street, the action undertaken by the Garland justice department is not a run-of-the-mill case, and there is ample evidence that Trump has been a victim of political persecution.  AG Barr said as much.  The simple reality is that people in power do not live by the same rules as you and I, deals are struck and some people are simply above the law.  In addition, power corrupts, bias is a problem and absent a deep dive into the actions of prior presidents as it relates to confidential information, we have no idea what precedent exists.  

 

Anyway, you trust without question. I do not. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that when the raid was planned, they considered the appearance of impropriety and stringent standards as to what they seized and what they did not. Again, everything in that house was completely and directly within their control, and their actions suggest they wanted much, much more than they were allowed to grab. 

 

 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

@ChiGoose & @leh-nerd skin-erd

 

 

May I point out the PPP TOS to you gentleman

 

Section 2 Paragraph 4:

 

All arguments shall be no longer that 3 sentences and contain no fewer that 2 Fugg You's each.  

Edited December 9, 2022 by Chef Jim

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

So you have a couple of things wrong in your account, but I'd like to mainly just address the concerns of bias.

 

In the scenario you're laying out, Trump does have recourse. If and when he's indicted, he can get evidence that was improperly seized excluded from trial. 

 

To set an example, let's pretend that, in the course of the search, one of the FBI agents took a ficus plant from Trump's office even though it clearly wasn't a document. Later, when examining the evidence, agents removed the plant from its pot and found a bag of cocaine. On that bag was a name, like "H. Maddas," so the agents began searching for this person and were able to find them. Mr. Maddas had documents proving that Trump was selling our nuclear secrets to the Saudis, so the FBI takes them, deposes Maddas and then files additional charges against Trump for possession of illegal drugs and selling our nuclear secrets.

 

Looks bad!

 

However, Trump's attorneys would then file motions to exclude any evidence obtained from the ficus plant from trial as the plant was seized illegally because it was not within the scope of the warrant. They are going to win that motion. Now, the DoJ has a charge against Trump for possession of cocaine but they cannot tell the jury that they found cocaine in his possession. The judge will toss out this charge on a motion from Trump's attorney as the DoJ cannot meet even the basic prima facie case for possession with the admissible evidence.

 

Additionally, Trump's lawyers will file a motion to exclude any evidence around H. Maddas and his evidence of Trump selling secrets. This is called "fruit of the poisonous tree" which bars evidence, even if found legally, if it originally derived from an illegal search. There was nothing illegal about the FBI going to talk to H. Maddas and getting the additional evidence, but the only reason the FBI was even there was because they originally conducted an illegal search of the ficus plant. So the court is going to prevent the H. Maddas evidence from being presented at trial as well. The selling secrets charge will also be dismissed for lack of admissible evidence.

 

The bottom line is that Trump isn't being treated differently* than how anyone else would. This is not a political prosecution but exactly the prosecution you would expect if anyone did what Trump did. Under the law, Trump actually is an ordinary citizen. That's the beauty of the American system: we have regular people elected to lead our country and then they step down and become regular people again (as far as the law is concerned). The 11th Circuit, in overturning Judge Canon's ridiculous order, explicitly stated that Trump is to be treated as anyone else would in his position and rejected the idea of a special exception in the law for ex-presidents.

 

*I suspect that the DoJ is using prosecutorial discretion to avoid charging Trump until they have fully fleshed out the case. If you or I were in Trump's shoes, we'd already have been indicted. This is the singular instance in which Trump is being treated differently than anyone else would be in this case.

 

17 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I sincerely appreciate the time and effort that goes into your replies, and acknowledge the pain it must cause when a simple country boy like myself takes a position that goes contrary to what is probably an articulate summary of the law as it exists. I do not doubt for a minute that the deck is stacked in favor of the government. It always is. 

 

The thing is...I don't care that they can do it, I simply question why Garland chose this particular path.  You've been vocal on the fact that Trump has rights here, when and if the time comes to assert a defense or question egregious behavior, and that's true.  However,  the principle obstacle to victory is the 1000 Ton Elephant known as the  United State Government, which will always have the means and personnel to fight tooth and nail every step of the way.  There is no downside in doing so.  A million dollars?  10 million dollars?  $100 million dollars?  There's always more money and more people on one side than the other.  

 

I follow your ficus analogy, and followed the one where they seized the 1994 Chrysler K car in your prior note, but respectfully that's not at all what people would be concerned with.  If they grab the "World's Best Boss" mug sandwiched between the folder marked "Nuclear Codes for Xi Jin Ping" and "Battle Movements 3rd Infantry Division-hold for Val", no one cares.  But sure, if a hapless aw shucks well-intentioned but under-managed agent inadvertently grabs 4 years of tax returns and 200 pages of correspondence outlining strategy with his legal team, forgive people who pay attention to politics of being a tad concerned that "Scouts Honor" is what separates legitimate search for justice and tyranny.   

 

Who Chi, who would ever look at the process as it is laid out and be thrilled as a target of an investigation that the government held all the cards to crush you, and the ones you could play to tell your tale will bankrupt you to pursue?  This isn't a new theory, and sensible and reasonable people know this to be true.   

 

You mentioned I was wrong in a couple spots, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.  Is it that the Taint Team are not members of the DOJ?  The standard(s) as established were not set by the government (and by this, let's assume I mean lawmakers)? 
If I was a betting man, I'd say it had something to do with my characterization of the appointment of the Special Master.  I don't believe Judge Cannon acted illegally, or outside the scope of her authority, but correct me if I'm wrong.  It seems to me the law allows for consideration of same, which means there are times when it makes sense to have the third party review, and she felt strongly enough to assign one.  The DOJ said quite loudly "We don't want an independent review of the data we seized".   

 

At the risk of repeating myself, Trump is not the average guy on the street, the action undertaken by the Garland justice department is not a run-of-the-mill case, and there is ample evidence that Trump has been a victim of political persecution.  AG Barr said as much.  The simple reality is that people in power do not live by the same rules as you and I, deals are struck and some people are simply above the law.  In addition, power corrupts, bias is a problem and absent a deep dive into the actions of prior presidents as it relates to confidential information, we have no idea what precedent exists.  

 

Anyway, you trust without question. I do not. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that when the raid was planned, they considered the appearance of impropriety and stringent standards as to what they seized and what they did not. Again, everything in that house was completely and directly within their control, and their actions suggest they wanted much, much more than they were allowed to grab. 

 

 

 

 

I invite you both to enroll in this brevity class I’m conducting- but the civil discourse is refreshing. 
 

In my cynical view the political machine that these federal agencies have become will balance carefully the need to keep trump front and center as a nemesis to mobilize 2024 votes. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

@ChiGoose & @leh-nerd skin-erd

 

 

May I point out the PPP TOS to you gentleman

 

Section 2 Paragraph 4:

 

All arguments shall be no longer that 3 sentences and contain no fewer that 2 Fugg You's each.  

I can't order Chipotle in under 5 sentences, and no "FU" was intended.  For him.

 

U, FU!

3 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

I invite you both to enroll in this brevity class I’m conducting- but the civil discourse is refreshing. 
 

In my cynical view the political machine that these federal agencies have become will balance carefully the need to keep trump front and center as a nemesis to mobilize 2024 votes. 

So brief that you didn't include the link to the class!  

 

Btw, I'm pretty convinced after reading some of your post that you should not be teaching said class. 

 

FU2. 

[SoCal Deek]

I’ll be brief. Trump was the President of the United States and therefore held the highest security clearance possible. If he now possessed NEW documents acquired AFTER leaving office (therefore after his clearance had expired), or if it could be shown that he was distributing these OLD documents to others who didn’t hold such clearance there’d be a case to made here. However neither is the case. The President is likewise not required to forget everything he knows. This case is just silly, politically motivated nonsense 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I sincerely appreciate the time and effort that goes into your replies, and acknowledge the pain it must cause when a simple country boy like myself takes a position that goes contrary to what is probably an articulate summary of the law as it exists. I do not doubt for a minute that the deck is stacked in favor of the government. It always is. 

 

The thing is...I don't care that they can do it, I simply question why Garland chose this particular path.  You've been vocal on the fact that Trump has rights here, when and if the time comes to assert a defense or question egregious behavior, and that's true.  However,  the principle obstacle to victory is the 1000 Ton Elephant known as the  United State Government, which will always have the means and personnel to fight tooth and nail every step of the way.  There is no downside in doing so.  A million dollars?  10 million dollars?  $100 million dollars?  There's always more money and more people on one side than the other.  

 

I follow your ficus analogy, and followed the one where they seized the 1994 Chrysler K car in your prior note, but respectfully that's not at all what people would be concerned with.  If they grab the "World's Best Boss" mug sandwiched between the folder marked "Nuclear Codes for Xi Jin Ping" and "Battle Movements 3rd Infantry Division-hold for Val", no one cares.  But sure, if a hapless aw shucks well-intentioned but under-managed agent inadvertently grabs 4 years of tax returns and 200 pages of correspondence outlining strategy with his legal team, forgive people who pay attention to politics of being a tad concerned that "Scouts Honor" is what separates legitimate search for justice and tyranny.   

 

Who Chi, who would ever look at the process as it is laid out and be thrilled as a target of an investigation that the government held all the cards to crush you, and the ones you could play to tell your tale will bankrupt you to pursue?  This isn't a new theory, and sensible and reasonable people know this to be true.   

 

You mentioned I was wrong in a couple spots, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.  Is it that the Taint Team are not members of the DOJ?  The standard(s) as established were not set by the government (and by this, let's assume I mean lawmakers)? 
If I was a betting man, I'd say it had something to do with my characterization of the appointment of the Special Master.  I don't believe Judge Cannon acted illegally, or outside the scope of her authority, but correct me if I'm wrong.  It seems to me the law allows for consideration of same, which means there are times when it makes sense to have the third party review, and she felt strongly enough to assign one.  The DOJ said quite loudly "We don't want an independent review of the data we seized".   

 

At the risk of repeating myself, Trump is not the average guy on the street, the action undertaken by the Garland justice department is not a run-of-the-mill case, and there is ample evidence that Trump has been a victim of political persecution.  AG Barr said as much.  The simple reality is that people in power do not live by the same rules as you and I, deals are struck and some people are simply above the law.  In addition, power corrupts, bias is a problem and absent a deep dive into the actions of prior presidents as it relates to confidential information, we have no idea what precedent exists.  

 

Anyway, you trust without question. I do not. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that when the raid was planned, they considered the appearance of impropriety and stringent standards as to what they seized and what they did not. Again, everything in that house was completely and directly within their control, and their actions suggest they wanted much, much more than they were allowed to grab. 

 

 

 

 

If I had more time, I would have written a shorter post. 

 

There’s a discussion to be had about what the law should be, but I’m only taking about what the law actually is. 

 

You’re right that I would disagree with your categorization of Cannon’s special master order. Her court didn’t have jurisdiction and a special master wasn’t warranted here. We know this because, on appeal, the 11th Circuit asked for any cases supporting her decision and Trump’s lawyers couldn’t find a single one.

 

As to Garland’s actions, it’s helpful to remember the entire history of this saga:

- Trump illegally possessed government documents

- The government asked him to return them

- Trump refused

- The government spent something like 8 months negotiating the return of the documents

- Trump returned boxes of documents and stated that all of the documents had been returned

- The government is informed that Trump still has some of the documents despite claiming they had all been returned

- The government obtains and executed a search warrant at Mar A Lago

 

Given that fact pattern, I’m not sure there’s any alternative to a search warrant at that stage. It’s clear that they could not trust him to turn over the documents under his own volition.

 

As I stated, the only difference that Trump makes here is that he’s currently not in handcuffs like you or I would be under the same fact pattern.

 

If the DoJ declines to indict him, he gets his stuff back. If the do indict him, he gets to challenge every piece of evidence to keep it out of the trial. Until then, we just play the waiting game.

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ll be brief. Trump was the President of the United States and therefore held the highest security clearance possible. If he now possessed NEW documents acquired AFTER leaving office (therefore after his clearance had expired), or if it could be shown that he was distributing these OLD documents to others who didn’t hold such clearance there’d be a case to made here. However neither is the case. The President is likewise not required to forget everything he knows. This case is just silly, politically motivated nonsense 

This is almost entirely wrong. 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

If I had more time, I would have written a shorter post. 

 

There’s a discussion to be had about what the law should be, but I’m only taking about what the law actually is. 

 

You’re right that I would disagree with your categorization of Cannon’s special master order. Her court didn’t have jurisdiction and a special master wasn’t warranted here. We know this because, on appeal, the 11th Circuit asked for any cases supporting her decision and Trump’s lawyers couldn’t find a single one.

 

As to Garland’s actions, it’s helpful to remember the entire history of this saga:

- Trump illegally possessed government documents

- The government asked him to return them

- Trump refused

- The government spent something like 8 months negotiating the return of the documents

- Trump returned boxes of documents and stated that all of the documents had been returned

- The government is informed that Trump still has some of the documents despite claiming they had all been returned

- The government obtains and executed a search warrant at Mar A Lago

 

Given that fact pattern, I’m not sure there’s any alternative to a search warrant at that stage. It’s clear that they could not trust him to turn over the documents under his own volition.

 

As I stated, the only difference that Trump makes here is that he’s currently not in handcuffs like you or I would be under the same fact pattern.

 

If the DoJ declines to indict him, he gets his stuff back. If the do indict him, he gets to challenge every piece of evidence to keep it out of the trial. Until then, we just play the waiting game.

This is almost entirely wrong. 

It is the case in a nutshell 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

It is the case in a nutshell 

1. The president doesn’t actually hold a security clearance. Unlike others who can retain clearance when transitioning to civilian life, the president’s right to view classified documents disappears the moment they are no longer president. Like Cinderella’s carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight.

 

2. Under the PRA, all presidential records (even unclassified ones) become the property of the Archivist at the expiration of the president’s term. The president himself has no possessory right to them. 

3. It doesn’t matter what Trump’s intent to *do* with the documents was, only that he knew his possession was illegal and he kept them anyway. 
 

So, even if he took unclassified government documents when he was president, the second he was no longer president his possession of the documents without an agreement from NARA was illegal. 

[SoCal Deek]

13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

1. The president doesn’t actually hold a security clearance. Unlike others who can retain clearance when transitioning to civilian life, the president’s right to view classified documents disappears the moment they are no longer president. Like Cinderella’s carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight.

 

2. Under the PRA, all presidential records (even unclassified ones) become the property of the Archivist at the expiration of the president’s term. The president himself has no possessory right to them. 

3. It doesn’t matter what Trump’s intent to *do* with the documents was, only that he knew his possession was illegal and he kept them anyway. 
 

So, even if he took unclassified government documents when he was president, the second he was no longer president his possession of the documents without an agreement from NARA was illegal. 

It’s still the case in a nutshell whether you want to believe it or not. Sorry.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

It’s still the case in a nutshell whether you want to believe it or not. Sorry.

It’s not at all, regardless of how much you want it to be.

 

He broke the law, refused every chance to rectify that, and anyone of us in his position would already have been arrested. 
 

Sorry if that makes you sad, but the facts don’t care about your feelings. 

[B-Man]

25 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

If I had more time, I would have written a shorter post. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

It’s not at all, regardless of how much you want it to be.

 

He broke the law, refused every chance to rectify that, and anyone of us in his position would already have been arrested. 
 

Sorry if that makes you sad, but the facts don’t care about your feelings. 

This isn’t about my feelings. Sorry 

You can tie yourself in a pretzel with your stupid legal process arguments but my summary is still the root of it in a nutshell. 

[ChiGoose]

9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This isn’t about my feelings. Sorry 

You can tie yourself in a pretzel with your stupid legal process arguments but my summary is still the root of it in a nutshell. 

Guy illegally took government documents.
 

Guy refused to return them all, then lied saying he did when he didn't.

 

Government searches his house and finds more documents the guy illegally possessed. 
 

Galaxy Brain PPP: This is a political witch-hunt. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

Guy illegally took government documents.
 

Guy refused to return them all, then lied saying he did when he didn't.

 

Government searches his house and finds more documents the guy illegally possessed. 
 

Galaxy Brain PPP: This is a political witch-hunt. 

The ‘guy’ was the President even if you don’t think so…Mrs Clinton.

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The ‘guy’ was the President even if you don’t think so…Mrs Clinton.

He stopped being president at noon on January 20, 2021. At that time, his possession of the documents became illegal.