The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, Mar a Lago and related matters

[G M]

The FBI knew it was BS, they just assumed that when they used it as a pretext for surveillance/investigation they would actually find evidence of an actual crime. Funny enough, for all Trump's flaws, he may be one of the cleanest presidents since George Washington. That ruined their plan for a legitimate criminal charge. The COUP still took place in 2020.

No one has been charged for that, most like Deep State Andy won't even call it that.

The Durham Report Exposes How Thin the Collusion Case Really Was

Special Counsel John Durham departs the U.S. Federal Courthouse after opening arguments in the trial of Attorney Michael Sussmann in Washington, D.C., May 17, 2022. (Julia Nikhinson/Reuters)
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
May 20, 2023 6:30 AM

Even FBI officials working the case admitted that it had been opened on the flimsiest of grounds.

The vaporousness of the predication for the FBI’s Trump–Russia investigation, “Crossfire Hurricane,” was described Tuesday in our editorial on the Durham Report (and in my post the same day). For years, I have maintained that the probe was opened on false pretenses. But now that we have Special Counsel John Durham’s careful and comprehensive account of the debacle, the bureau and its allied Russiagate agonistes ought to be humiliated. They deranged the country for years over what, at the time they opened the case, FBI leaders knew was a grossly irresponsible basis for commencing any serious investigation, let alone for intruding the bureau into the politics of a presidential election. The damage this sordid affair has done to the FBI as an institution may not be reparable.


It is totally predictable and in character that “collusion” cheerleaders, including some of the former FBI officials who were fired, are now mewling that Durham’s report is a “nothing burger.” But it’s still tough to abide.

As we’ve noted, amid the media–Democratic-complex hysteria resulting from the publication of hacked DNC emails during the 2016 Democratic Convention, the FBI opened the investigation in late July 2016. This was not a normal case, so the decision was made by top officials at headquarters, based on a strained interpretation of casual comments made two months earlier by George Papadopoulos to a pair of Australian diplomats at a bar in London.

Papadopoulos was a green, unpaid Trump campaign aide. At the time they were made, his remarks were sufficiently incomprehensible — and un-comprehended — that the Aussies thought little of them. In summarizing what Papadopoulos said in a contemporaneous memo, the best one of the diplomats could come up with was that he’d made a suggestion of some kind of suggestion:

[Papadopoulos] also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process [of exploiting the “baggage” of Hillary and Bill Clinton] with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs Clinton (and President Obama).

Papadopoulos did not claim to know what, if anything, Russian intelligence had on Hillary Clinton. He did not use the word “emails” or even “dirt.” The diplomats were not intelligence agents, but they knew enough to be dismissive. (As I detailed in Ball of Collusion, one of them, Alexander Downer, had intriguing relationships with both British intelligence officers and such American politicians as the Clintons, to whose foundation he had arranged a $25 million Australian contribution.) Any competent intelligence analyst would have known that, if Trump actually were in some kind of “conspiracy of cooperation” with Vladimir Putin, the last person in the world who’d have known anything about it was George Papadopoulos. It’s unlikely Trump could have picked Papadopoulos out of a line-up. (Sure, they once sat at the same crowded table, and there’s a photograph of it; but there’s also a photograph of Trump chatting with a woman who accused him of rape, and at a deposition he mistook her for his second wife.)

Russian intelligence is very capable. Donald Trump, by contrast, has exhibited neither awareness nor habits of intelligence craft through his half-century in public life. If the Aussie diplomats had been intelligence agents, they would have realized that Moscow’s spies would hardly have needed the chaotic Trump campaign’s help to gather or disseminate kompromat on Hillary Clinton. More to the point, though, if the kind of cryptic speculation attributed to Papadopoulos were a sufficient rationale for opening a counterintelligence investigation, the FBI might as well have opened one on its own then-director.

Recall that Director Jim Comey held a July 5, 2016, press conference at which he laid out the evidence against Clinton that the FBI had uncovered during the emails investigation — flouting Justice Department guidelines against public statements about misconduct by uncharged persons. As recounted in DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz’s eventual report, Comey’s statement was months in the making: He had started drafting it in late April and early May — i.e., even before Papadopoulos’s mid-May meeting with the Aussie diplomats (but, as I’ve previously pointed out, only shortly after President Obama’s nationally televised assertion that he did not want Clinton charged with a crime).

This means that prior to Papadopoulos’s supposed “suggestion of some kind of suggestion,” there were already internal discussions at FBI headquarters about how former secretary Hillary Clinton, all by herself, had given the Russians all the help they needed to undermine her presidential bid. Specifically, Comey had been briefed that, because she recklessly used a homebrew email server to do her State Department work, Clinton was uniquely vulnerable not just to hacking, but to hacking that could capture her sensitive communications with Obama while she was in Russia.

It is not enough to say that Clinton’s private-server system was so non-secure that it could easily have been penetrated by competent foreign intelligence services. The FBI assessed that it probably had been penetrated. By the time of Comey’s press conference, that embarrassing finding had been massaged into this portion of his script:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

As scathing as that was, Comey’s earlier drafts (described in Horowitz’s report) were even more damning. The director had been planning to say that Clinton

also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries. That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary.” [Emphasis added.]

This express mention of Obama was veiled in a subsequent draft, which referred instead to “another senior government official.” Realizing this would only draw unwanted attention to Clinton’s communications with Obama, which had very possibly been hacked by Russian or other hostile intelligence services, Comey and his advisers completely omitted any allusion to Obama from the remarks he finally delivered on July 5. (Prior to leaving office, Obama quietly directed that his email communications with Clinton be sealed.)

Remember, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane in late July 2016 as a full-throttle investigation — without interviewing Papadopoulos, the Aussie diplomats, or a single relevant witness — because of the supposition that Papadopoulos might have been saying that the Trump campaign believed the Russians had compromising information that they might use against Clinton. Yet, less than four weeks earlier, the FBI’s top official had openly speculated that hostile actors (obviously the Russians, among others) had compromising material that they might use against Clinton.

To put it another way, in reading what Comey told the world at his presser, one could easily detect a “suggestion of a kind of suggestion” that the Russians had hacked Clinton’s communications and were in a position to disseminate them at a time that could have been maximally harmful to her presidential campaign, revealing both (a) private conversations that Clinton would understandably have wanted kept confidential, and (b) her gross negligence in conducting sensitive government business this way — which Trump or any other political rival would inevitably argue demonstrated her unfitness to be president.

If that’s what the FBI’s own director was saying publicly, what else would you expect from George Papadopoulos?

Not much. And thanks to Durham, we now know that’s what the FBI agents working the case thought of the vaunted predication for the case: not much. Less than that, really.


As noted above, the bureau opened a full-scale investigation against a presidential campaign based on information from the Aussie diplomats before even interviewing them (just as the bureau failed to interview Christopher Steele’s main source, Igor Danchenko, until after twice swearing under oath to his allegations in FISA-court warrant applications). The bureau got around to this apparently lower priority of actually talking to witnesses on August 2, 2016. Because the interview was to be done in London, the FBI had to consult with its British intelligence counterparts.

As Durham details, to pave the way, the bureau’s legal attaché (leg-at) in London (whose name is not given in the report) was dispatched to discuss the opening of the investigation with the Brits. Their reaction was one of “real skepticism.” They told the leg-at that the sketchy statements attributed to Papadopoulos by the Aussie diplomats were “not assess[ed]” to be “particularly valuable intelligence.” In fact, the leg-at added, “the British could not believe the Papadopoulos bar conversation was all there was,” so they assumed the FBI must have more information that it was holding back.

It didn’t. By that first week in August, the FBI had assigned a first case agent (also not named in the report) to work under the direction of Agent Peter Strzok and help interview the Aussies. In an August 11 conversation, the leg-at and the case agent had this exchange:

Leg-at: Dude, are we telling [British intelligence] everything we know, or is there more to this?

Case agent: That’s all we have. Not holding anything back.

Leg-at: Damn, that’s thin.

Case agent: I know.

The one who knew the most at the time about bureau headquarters’ thinking was Strzok. The leg-at recalled that as the agents taxied to the Australian High Commission in London, Strzok muttered, “There’s nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground.”

Grounded nothing, I think, is what’s often called a “nothing burger.” Here, the nothing burger is actually the FBI’s Trump–Russia “collusion” investigation, not the Durham Report.

[G M]

https://www.insideover.com/schede/politics/joseph-mifsud-who-is-he.html

[G M]

https://news.sky.com/story/british-intelligence-involved-in-trump-election-probe-sources-say-11825044

[G M]

https://news.sky.com/story/british-intelligence-involved-in-trump-election-probe-sources-say-11825044

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/13/charles-farr-gchq-spymaster-counter-terrorism

[G M]

https://news.sky.com/story/british-intelligence-involved-in-trump-election-probe-sources-say-11825044

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/13/charles-farr-gchq-spymaster-counter-terrorism

https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1130225259775447041

From the UK, without love.

[G M]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/john-durham-ignores-role-u-s-u-k/

Just a small oversight!

Andrew McCarthy will explain in detail soon!

[Crafty_Dog]

A fair point. 

I agree that it seems likely that Brit intel interfered with our election mightily.

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/137/960/231/original/e01da36b2a9f6ce7.jpeg

[G M]

https://sonar21.com/john-durham-ignores-role-of-u-s-u-k-australian-and-israeli-intelligence-operatives-in-setting-the-stage-for-crossfire-hurricane/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/john-durham-ignores-role-u-s-u-k/

Just a small oversight!

Andrew McCarthy will explain in detail soon!

[G M]

https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1666443247416164355

[Crafty_Dog]

This is going to be very interesting.

[Crafty_Dog]

"Perhaps the biggest problem for the prosecution is that a wide variety of government officials — Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, former CIA director John M. Deutch, former CIA director and retired U.S. Army general David Petraeus, former secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Joe Biden, Mike Pence — have been caught taking classified documents out of secure locations to their homes or other locations, with no criminal charges."

[ccp]

oh but they did not do so willingly
and then refuse to return the docs
in violation of the espionage act scream all the Dem shysters and media syncophants

[ccp]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2023/06/09/turley-explains-why-the-latest-trump-indictment-is-a-serious-threat-n2624300

won't matter

40 % MAGAs will scream and yell for Trump anyway

and he could win the nomination with a ceiling favorability ~45 % (as pointed out by  Schlichter )

God does not seem to be on our side 

[ccp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRkIWDlFSFI

[G M]

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-great-doj-werewolf-hunt/

[ccp]

JACK SMITH WITH STRAIGHT FACE AND STERN SERIOUS LOOK AND DEMEANOR :

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-justice-department-releases-trump-indictment

ME:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7rJpRqK-8E

 

[Crafty_Dog]

The Trump Indictment Is Damning

Former president Donald Trump speaks during his rally in Selma, N.C., April 9, 2022. (Erin Siegal McIntyre/Reuters)
Share
375 Comments
Listen to article
By THE EDITORS
June 10, 2023 6:30 AM
Just as paranoiacs sometimes have enemies, people obsessively pursued for alleged violations of the law by their political opponents sometimes commit criminal offenses.

At many junctures, most recently with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s flimsy charges, we’ve had occasions to point out how Donald Trump’s adversaries have twisted the law in a politically motivated effort to nail the former president. And we certainly do not welcome the precedent of a federal prosecutor, who ultimately reports to the president, indicting that president’s leading rival for reelection. That said, it is impossible to read the indictment against Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case and not be appalled at the way he handled classified documents as an ex-president, and responded to the attempt by federal authorities to reclaim them.

When he moved out of the White House, Trump moved many boxes of materials to Mar-a-Lago. Many contained nothing more than mementos such as newspaper clippings, photos, cards, and various notes and letters. But included along with these run-of-the-mill items were hundreds of documents marked classified. These documents, according to the indictment from special counsel Jack Smith filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida, included “information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.”

Once Trump was no longer president, he had no right to these materials. He stored them recklessly — not in a secured space that had been approved to handle classified documents, but, farcically, in places including his bedroom, a bathroom, and a ballroom. This was within his Mar-a-Lago Club that has hosted events for tens of thousands of people within the roughly year and a half that the documents were in his possession.

TOP STORIES
Donald Trump’s Surprisingly Good Odds against the DOJ
Don’t Erase the Anglo-Saxons
Taylor Swift Is Coming for Your Daughters
Again: Aren’t You All Tired of This Crap?
Report: Saudi Prince MBS Threatened ‘Major Economic Consequences for Washington’
John Bolton Calls on Trump to ‘Immediately Withdraw’ from Presidential Race over Second Indictment
Trump brushed off months of demands from the National Archives and Records Administration to return the missing records before relenting in January 2022, but only providing a portion of what was in his possession — roughly 15 boxes, which included 197 documents that were marked as classified. After a grand-jury subpoena demanded all classified documents, Trump’s lawyers then turned over 38 more documents marked classified. But when the FBI carried out a controversial search warrant later that summer and seized more boxes, they found 102 additional documents with classified markings.

The indictment offers evidence that Trump misled investigators about his possession of the documents and took actions to conceal them. But most damning is the transcript of a conversation during which Trump showed one of the documents to a reporter. Speaking of a theoretical attack plan, Trump produced a document and said, “It is like, highly confidential.” He also said, “See as president I could have declassified it” but admitted, “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

More on
DONALD TRUMP
 
Donald Trump’s Surprisingly Good Odds against the DOJ
Again: Aren’t You All Tired of This Crap?
John Bolton Calls on Trump to ‘Immediately Withdraw’ from Presidential Race over Second Indictment
The audio of this conversation makes it a lot more difficult for Trump to chalk everything up to an innocent case of some classified documents getting mixed up with other personal items from his presidency. It also directly contradicts some of the laughable public defenses that were made by Trump and his team last summer, including the idea that there was a “standing order” that whatever documents he brought to Mar-a-Lago to work on were automatically declassified. It’s clear from the conversation that he not only knew he was in possession of secret documents that were never declassified, but knowingly shared them with people who lacked the security clearance to see them.

Equally damning, particularly for someone who was and would like again to be the nation’s chief executive, responsible for the enforcement of the laws, is the evidence that Trump not only deceived the investigators and the grand jury, but his own lawyers — knowing and intending that they would consequently obstruct the investigation. If the allegations in the indictment are true, Trump tried to nudge his lawyers into concealing or destroying incriminating evidence. Unable to bend them in that direction, he and an aide hid boxes of documents from them, causing them falsely to tell the grand jury, under oath, that the classified documents they delivered to the FBI in June 2022 were the only ones remaining in his possession. They weren’t lying; according to prosecutors, they were passing along what he told them. It is worth noting, moreover, that the substantiation of this allegation is likely to come from testimony of the lawyers themselves — not from people out to get the former president, but people who tried, futilely, to help him.

We understand why many conservatives are unwilling to view the charges against Trump in a vacuum given that the Justice Department let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her reckless handling of government secrets and the resulting cover-up, that President Biden is unlikely to pay a price for his own mishandling of classified documents, and that Democrats and their allies have pursued a yearslong campaign to get Trump. All of those are legitimate considerations, and the contrast with how James Comey and Co. handled the Hillary case is particularly galling. But it doesn’t change the fact the country wouldn’t be in this uncharted territory if Trump hadn’t taken documents he had no right to, and simply complied when asked to give them back.

[ccp]

anti Trump NRO

no surprise

but this time I agree with NRO
we can only hope Trump is not the candidate

of course he will take us all down with him to the end

maybe if he goes to jail he can be placed in same cell where Epstein was.
no tears from me.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/06/the-trump-indictment-is-damning/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=31754333

[Crafty_Dog]

Why Trump’s ‘Witch Hunt’ Cries Ring Hollow in Face of DOJ Indictment

Former president Donald Trump delivers remarks on the day of his court appearance in New York after being indicted by a Manhattan grand jury, in Palm Beach, Fla., April 4, 2023.(Marco Bello/Reuters)
Share
93 Comments

Gift
Listen to article
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
June 10, 2023 6:30 AM
Just look at the source of some of the evidence. It’s not his enemies.
On May 23, 2022, Donald Trump, formerly the president of the United States and thus the nation’s chief executive responsible for executing and upholding its laws, sat down with two lawyers he had retained to help him handle a grand-jury subpoena.

The subpoena, which is a legally enforceable court order, not a suggestion, required that he surrender to the grand jury (via the FBI) intelligence files that he had illegally retained at Mar-a-Lago, his resort club and estate in Palm Beach. Trump was bent on defying the order. He would willfully refuse the command of the subpoena and the directive of government officials.

Already, you can see a problem here. Trump and his two lawyers understood that the point of the meeting was to decide how to handle the subpoena. But, it turns out, not everyone was on the same page about what handle meant.

Trump turned the conversation to a favorite obsession, Hillary Clinton. Specifically, he spoke of a lawyer who had represented her when she was in a similar pickle: the recipient of a subpoena (hers was from Congress) demanding that she turn over emails from her home-brew, nongovernment, nonsecure server system. Humiliating emails she had no intention of surrendering.

According to Trump, then, she got herself a lawyer who would help her, you know, handle the subpoena. To the former president, this was the very model of legal acumen. Referring to this exemplary lawyer, Trump advised his two attorneys:

He was great, he did a great job. You know what? He said, he said that it — that it was him. That he was the one who deleted all of her emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having beauty appointments. And he was great. And he, so she didn’t get into any trouble because he said he was the one who deleted them.

Get it? It doesn’t require a lot of translation. But just in case anyone missed the point, the indictment recounts that the former president of the United States “related that story more than once that day.”

Now, since we’re hearing a lot, and we’re going to hear a lot more, about selective prosecution, about the sense that the “boxes hoax” is the “biggest witch hunt of all time,” understand this: The evidence of this soliloquy — wherein it was Trump-splained that a “great job” by a lawyer entails making incriminating evidence disappear and taking the fall for it so the client escapes jeopardy — does not come from Donald Trump’s enemies.

These are not the people who want to take him out. This is not Joe Biden, Liz Cheney, congressional Democrats, or the “fake news” media. It’s not even RINO Republicans or that (apparently) fiercest of political combatants, “Ada” Hutchinson.

No, the evidence comes from Trump’s lawyers. The people who were trying to minimize his criminal exposure and push back against his destructive tendencies. The people who were trying to help him.

One of these lawyers, Evan Corcoran, kept trying to help Trump even after he knew he’d been had. For his trouble in representing a former president, Corcoran was subpoenaed and forced by a federal judge and an appellate court to testify. He fought them all the way, struggling to preserve Trump’s attorney-client privilege even though, apparently unbeknownst to Corcoran at the time, Trump had blithely negated the privilege by using Corcoran to provide false information, under oath, in response to a subpoena.

It’s the Trump pattern: Good people try to help wrestle his demons, he gets his kicks out of making unsavory acts of loyalty the price of prestigious jobs, they finally realize the price is too high — usually too late for their own good — and he trashes them as they make their quietus. Rinse and repeat.

Corcoran was not trying to hurt Trump, even though Trump had thought nothing of putting the lawyer’s livelihood at risk. Corcoran provided the lurid testimony reflected in the indictment — including Trump’s suggestions that he falsely tell the FBI and grand jury that he did not have documents marked classified, and that he “pluck” out of a package of documents responsive to the subpoena “anything really bad in there” — because the law required him to, not because he wanted to.

Is the former president being unfairly singled out for prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith’s 37-count indictment? I think so . . . but not for the reasons Trump and his devotees posit.

The problem is not that Democrats, who are leveraging the government’s law-enforcement power for partisan advantage, are going after him, even though Democrats and Beltway big shots — Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, David Petraeus, and (soon) Joe Biden — get a pass. The problem is that Clinton, Berger, Petraeus, and (soon) Biden get a pass.

It’s not that Trump is owed a pass. It’s that every official who is entrusted with access to the nation’s secrets, and who then betrays that trust by willful law violations and cover-ups, should be prosecuted. Every . . . single . . . one.

And none of them has any business near power.

The lesson of the Hillary Clinton precedent is that Joe Biden should be investigated and prosecuted. That’s how the scales of justice are evened out. The fix for a two-tiered justice system is not equal injustice under the law.

As for Trump, say what you want about Democrats being out to destroy him. I know all about that — wrote a book about it, in fact. But if Trump ends up being destroyed in this case, it will be based on the accounts of people who had his best interests at heart.

I don’t believe that Trump’s lawyers, who were trying to help him, would testify — as they have very reluctantly testified — that he tried to get them to destroy evidence and obstruct justice, unless he really did try to get them to destroy evidence and obstruct justice.

If you tell me I need to look the other way on that because Hillary Clinton got a pass, I respectfully suggest that you’ve lost your way.

[G M]

anti Trump NRO

no surprise

but this time I agree with NRO
we can only hope Trump is not the candidate

of course he will take us all down with him to the end

maybe if he goes to jail he can be placed in same cell where Epstein was.
no tears from me.

You think the DOJ will treat you or me any differently? If Trump went away, do things go back to “normal”?

[ccp]

we need someone who will not make it all about him/her
but about the more important stuff

perhaps is would be same with DeSantis
but we could at least do without dump stupid childish comments

lying and constantly making things worse

we HAVE TO FIGHT BACK.

 but not with some reckless genius/& fool at the same time

I am not looking forward to talking about HIM nonstop for the next 1 and 1/2 yr

[Crafty_Dog]

"If Trump went away, do things go back to “normal”?"

No, but then we could fight for America without spending a goodly % of our time defending/rationalizing/apologizing for him.

[G M]

"If Trump went away, do things go back to “normal”?"

No, but then we could fight for America without spending a goodly % of our time defending/rationalizing/apologizing for him.

If it's DeSantis, he will be the new Hitler. Unless he has been co-opted, then you get another JEB! that will only peacefully surrender in typical republican failure theater. "Gosh, guys We Tried!!" 

The left WILL NEVER voluntarily give up power EVER again.

They have torn the structures of this country to pieces. None of this is accidental.

[ccp]

"The left WILL NEVER voluntarily give up power EVER again."

agreed
great one said this a week ago or so
even if we do win the '24 elections
the left will never go away
till they are totally destroyed

I don't see how unless the country collapses and China moves in for the kill
inflation continues it endless upward trend
and enough of the LEFTies *suffer* and see the truth

either way => yes this is very bad

[G M]

"The left WILL NEVER voluntarily give up power EVER again."

agreed
great one said this a week ago or so
even if we do win the '24 elections
the left will never go away
till they are totally destroyed

I don't see how unless the country collapses and China moves in for the kill
inflation continues it endless upward trend
and enough of the LEFTies *suffer* and see the truth

either way => yes this is very bad

When the left that isn’t part time of the inner party suffers, they will be told that it is because of us.

When “reparations” fail to materialize, you in the blue zoos will get pogromed.

[G M]

"The left WILL NEVER voluntarily give up power EVER again."

agreed
great one said this a week ago or so
even if we do win the '24 elections
the left will never go away
till they are totally destroyed

I don't see how unless the country collapses and China moves in for the kill
inflation continues it endless upward trend
and enough of the LEFTies *suffer* and see the truth

either way => yes this is very bad

When the left that isn’t part time of the inner party suffers, they will be told that it is because of us.

When “reparations” fail to materialize, you in the blue zoos will get pogromed.

This is now, with full bellies and electricity and running water:

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/139/847/082/original/ab9d74211f6da326.mp4

[G M]

https://gab.com/Matt_Bracken/posts/110519714125552230

The Rats have zero fear of future legal action against them.

They believe that they own our country and don't give a damn what we think about it.
They assume they will be able to rig and win every election, and they will own every corrupt judge and DA/USAttorney/SA. They have zero fear of legal consequences.

Going forward they will rule America like a one-party police state ruled by the Left.

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/032/478/original/445058de5ef73bab.jpg

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMURQgsCeU

[Crafty_Dog]

second

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-who-ruled-in-trumps-favor-in-previous-matter-assigned-to-new-case_5325494.html?utm_source=Goodevening&src_src=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-2023-06-10&src_cmp=gv-2023-06-10&utm_medium=email

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/112/496/original/49972c68f3ebbbdd.jpg

[Crafty_Dog]

https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=1bbc291ec07c58e48febbdb68812e89f_64886f11_6d25b5f&selDate=20230613

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/republican-lawmaker-warns-trump-supporters-about-falling-into-doj-trap_5329405.html?utm_source=Goodevening&deep_link_sub1=article&source_caller=api&shortlink=zqevocnf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=gv-2023-06-13&src_src=Goodevening&deep_link_value=5329405&src_cmp=gv-2023-06-13&est=FgkZqQncFoJyqfiHYwJNWC3tfkOYCjHNIDe33rCvloB3eV0diNeIC9WlfVg5LpyLRkfy

[Crafty_Dog]

I thought Trump's speech tonight to be quite strong and his demeanor  , , , presidential.

So infuriating the childish excrement like Cuomo was better than DeSantis on Wuhan Virus.

[Crafty_Dog]

The Self-Destructive Donald Trump
The document indictment is misguided, but he made it easier for his enemies, as he always does.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
June 13, 2023 7:01 pm ET




Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to federal charges on Tuesday, with the typical array of supporters and opponents. It’s depressing to think this could continue for another two years as the indictment and trial dominate the 2024 presidential campaign. Republican primary voters may be the last resort to spare the country this fate.

We’re on record as believing that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s indictment of Mr. Trump is a misguided use of prosecutorial power that could have destructive consequences. It intervenes in a presidential election campaign, unleashing political furies that are impossible to predict. It keeps Mr. Trump the dominant issue of the presidential campaign, denying the country the larger debate the public deserves.

The shame is that this is exactly what both Mr. Trump and the White House want. Mr. Trump would rather not be charged, but he is already brandishing the indictments against him as a campaign credential. He’s all but saying Republicans must nominate him as the only defense Americans have against Democrats and the deep state. Democrats want to run against Mr. Trump because they think he’d be the easiest Republican to beat, or to ruin in office if he does win again.

***
GOP primary voters can benefit from reading the latest Trump indictment and asking what it means for a second Trump term. The facts alleged show that Mr. Trump has again played into the hands of his enemies. His actions were reckless, arrogant and remarkably self-destructive. This is the same Donald Trump they will get if they nominate him for a third time.


Mr. Trump believes he had the right to keep the documents under the Presidential Records Act, and we think he has a stronger case than the press claims. But once he received a subpoena for those documents, Mr. Trump should have known he was at legal peril if he concealed them or lied about having them.

Yet if the indictment is correct, that is precisely what he did. He allegedly suggested to a lawyer that he could “pluck” out a page and not turn it over. In the most striking episode, he brandished a classified document related to a war plan in front of his staff and a writer.

Incredibly, the indictment says he did this while he knew he was being tape-recorded: “Mr. Trump: Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. You attack, and—”

In the same conversation, he allegedly admitted that he hadn’t declassified the document, as he previously told the public he had done with all documents he retained. He thus undercut part of his own potential defense. The narcissism and wretched judgment are familiar, but still hard to believe.

It’s also telling that Mr. Trump is now struggling to find lawyers to replace the two who resigned last week. How can a former President not find a lawyer?

All of this fits the pattern that made Mr. Trump’s Presidency less productive than it could have been. Yes, he was wronged by the false Russia collusion claims. But too often he helped his opponents.

In 2017 he retained James Comey as FBI director against better advice because he thought he could control him. Four months later Mr. Trump undercut his own deputy attorney general’s explanation for firing Mr. Comey by saying he fired him because the FBI director wouldn’t publicly exonerate him. This triggered the Mueller special counsel probe.

Mr. Trump aided his own first impeachment with a phone call to Volodymyr Zelensky looking for dirt on Joe Biden. He undermined his credibility on Covid because he lacked the self-discipline to avoid brawling with reporters who knew they could always goad him.

His role in the disgrace of Jan. 6, 2021, is well known. But had he accepted the 2020 election results, he might now be coasting to the nomination and have an excellent chance to win.

***
If Mr. Trump is the GOP nominee, he is unlikely to defeat Joe Biden. But if he did win, the document fiasco is what a second term would be like. He wouldn’t be able to deliver the conservative policy victories that Republicans want because he can’t control himself. He’d be preoccupied with grievance and what he calls “retribution.” The best people won’t work for him because they see how he mistreated so many loyalists in the first term.

If Republicans really want to defeat Democrats, the press and a hostile bureaucracy, they’ll nominate a candidate who won’t shrink from a fight but will also be smart enough not to blunder into obvious traps.

If Republicans nominate Mr. Trump again, they won’t “own the libs,” as the faddish saying goes. The libs will own them.

[Crafty_Dog]

Trump’s Boxes and Clinton’s Sock Drawer

A president chooses what records to return or keep and the National Archives can’t do anything about it.By Michael BekeshaJune 13, 2023 7:08 pm ET431 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28?mod=opinion_lead_pos5#comments_sector)Gift unlocked article

A courtroom sketch of former President Donald Trump in Miami Tuesday with his aide Walt Nauta, far left, and attorneys Chris Kise and Todd Blanche. PHOTO: JANE ROSENBERG/REUTERSAlthough the indictment against Donald Trump (https://www.wsj.com/topics/person/donald-trump) doesn’t cite the Presidential Records Act, the charges are predicated on the law. The indictment came about only because the government thought Mr. Trump took records that didn’t belong to him, and the government raided his house to find any such records.


This should never have happened. The Presidential Records Act allows the president to decide what records to return and what records to keep at the end of his presidency. And the National Archives and Records Administration can’t do anything about it. I know because I’m the lawyer who lost the “Clinton sock drawer” case.

In 2009, historian Taylor Branch published “The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History With the President.” The book is based on recordings of Mr. Branch’s 79 meetings with Bill Clinton between Jan. 20, 1993, and Jan. 20, 2001. According to Mr. Branch, the audiotapes preserved not only Mr. Clinton’s thoughts on issues he faced while president, but also some actual events, such as phone conversations. Among them:

• Mr. Clinton calling several U.S. senators and trying to persuade them to vote against an amendment by Sen. John McCain requiring the immediate withdrawal of troops from Somalia


* Mr. Clinton’s side of a phone call with Rep. William Natcher (D., Ky.) in which the president explained that his reasoning for joining the North American Free Trade Agreement was based on technical forecasts in his presidential briefings.

• Mr. Clinton’s side of a phone conversation with Secretary of State Warren Christopher about a diplomatic impasse over Bosnia.

• Mr. Clinton seeking advice from Mr. Branch on pending foreign-policy decisions such as military involvement in Haiti and possibly easing the embargo of Cuba.

The White House made the audiotapes. Nancy Hernreich, then director of Oval Office operations, set up the meetings between Messrs. Clinton and Branch and was involved in the logistics of the recordings. Did that make them presidential records?

The National Archives and Records Administration was never given the recordings. As Mr. Branch tells it, Mr. Clinton hid them in his sock drawer to keep them away from the public and took them with him when he left office.

My organization, Judicial Watch, sent a Freedom of Information Act request to NARA for the audiotapes. The agency responded that the tapes were Mr. Clinton’s personal records and therefore not subject to the Presidential Records Act or the Freedom of Information Act.


We sued in federal court and asked the judge to declare the audiotapes to be presidential records and, because they weren’t currently in NARA’s possession, compel the government to get them.

In defending NARA, the Justice Department argued that NARA doesn’t have “a duty to engage in a never-ending search for potential presidential records” that weren’t provided to NARA by the president at the end of his term. Nor, the department asserted, does the Presidential Records Act require NARA to appropriate potential presidential records forcibly. The government’s position was that Congress had decided that the president and the president alone decides what is a presidential record and what isn’t. He may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed: “Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office,” she held, “it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”

Judge Jackson added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.’ . . . PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.”

I lost because Judge Jackson concluded the government’s hands were tied. Mr. Clinton took the tapes, and no one could do anything about it.

The same is true with Mr. Trump. Although he didn’t keep records in his sock drawer, he gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, documents and other materials in cardboard boxes. Then Mr. Trump, like Mr. Clinton, took those boxes with him when he left office. As of noon on Jan. 20, 2021, whatever remained at the White House was presidential records. Whatever was taken by Mr. Trump wasn’t. That was the position of the Justice Department in 2010 and the ruling by Judge Jackson in 2012.

A decade later, the government should never have gone searching for potential presidential records. Nor should it have forcibly taken records from Mr. Trump. The government should lose U.S. v. Trump. If the courts decide otherwise, I want those Clinton tapes.


Mr. Bekesha is a senior attorney at Judicial Watch.

[Crafty_Dog]

DONALD TRUMP
IN-DEPTH: Trump Indictment Rests on Untested Legal Theory, Experts Say

'The Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute in this sort of a setting,' says former federal prosecutor
By Petr Svab
June 13, 2023Updated: June 14, 2023
biggersmaller Print


The indictment of former President Donald Trump for holding military documents and obstructing the government from taking them is built on a novel legal theory that has multiple weaknesses, according to several lawyers and other experts.

The case has been portrayed in the media as being about Trump’s retaining classified documents from his presidency. However, the charges sidestep that issue and instead use a clause in the Espionage Act that criminalizes a failure to hand over national defense information. The indictment further alleges that Trump and staffer Waltine Nauta hid some documents when the government demanded them through a subpoena.

The alleged Espionage Act violations impose a high burden of proof and raise the question of whether the statute should have been applied to begin with and, if not, whether the underlying investigation should serve as a basis for obstruction charges, some lawyers told The Epoch Times.

“The key legal issue here is the interplay between the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act,” said Will Scharf, a former federal prosecutor.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 stipulates that after a president leaves office, the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) takes custody of all his official records.

The law allows former presidents to keep personal documents such as “diaries, journals, or other personal notes” not used for government business.

“If a former President or Vice President finds Presidential records among personal materials, he or she is expected to contact NARA in a timely manner to secure the transfer of those Presidential records to NARA,” NARA’s website states.

However, the Presidential Records Act isn’t a criminal statute. If a former president refuses to turn over some documents or claims obviously official documents as personal, the worst he could face is a civil lawsuit.

There’s little case law on such matters. In 2012, Judicial Watch tried to force former President Bill Clinton to turn over dozens of interview tapes he kept from his presidency. Clinton claimed the tapes were personal and the court sided with him. Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an appointee of President Barack Obama, went so far as to argue that the court had no way to second-guess a president’s assertion of what is and isn’t personal.

“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,” Jackson wrote.

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is now arguing that former presidents can be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for possession of documents that they kept from their presidencies.

“That’s a totally novel legal issue,” Scharf said. “It’s never been tested before. The Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute in this sort of a setting.”

Some lawyers believe the Espionage Act can’t be used this way because it wasn’t meant to be used in such a fashion. Before 1978, former presidents owned all documents from their presidencies, including any national defense information. There’s never been any suggestion that their holding on to such documents violated the Espionage Act.

“Congress has been very, very clear … that the act that applies to presidents and former presidents is the Presidential Records Act. The act that applies to everyone else is the Espionage Act, which has different requirements,” said Jesse Binnall, a lawyer that represented Trump in another matter.

Mike Davis of the conservative Article III Project voiced a similar opinion.

“Even if President declassifies his presidential records and takes them when he leaves office, he can still get charged under Espionage Act. … Promise that theory won’t fly with Supreme Court,” he said in a tweet.

Criminal Intent
Much of the indictment rests on the allegation that Trump kept national defense documents “willfully”—with criminal intent.

Yet the document falls short in providing evidence for such intent.

On May 11, 2022, the DOJ obtained a subpoena compelling Trump to turn over all documents with classification markings, including electronic ones.

One of the key claims is that Trump instructed Nauta to move boxes of documents around before his lawyer came to search the boxes for documents in response to the subpoena.

Nauta allegedly moved 64 boxes out of a storage room where Trump kept items and documents from his presidency and moved them to Trump’s residence at the resort. Nauta then moved back 30 boxes shortly before Trump’s then-lawyer, Evan Corcoran, searched the storage room for the subpoenaed documents, according to the indictment, which refers to security camera footage obtained from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort via a subpoena.

The indictment alleges that the boxes were moved to hide responsive documents from Corcoran. It presents a text message in which Nauta said Trump told him to put some boxes in his room.

“I think he wanted to pick from them,” Nauta said.

There’s no word of whether Trump, in fact, went through the boxes and if so, what he was looking for.

On Aug. 8, 2022, when the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in West Palm Beach, 102 documents with classified markings were found in the storage room and in Trump’s office.

Some lawyers have argued that Trump should have challenged the subpoena in court because it was too broad. It’s likely that Trump had many documents with classification markings that had been declassified. Reams of such documents are available online.

Also, the subpoena mentioned nothing about national defense information, which doesn’t need to bear classification markings.

The indictment states that Trump’s alleged crime of willfully retaining 31 specific national defense-related documents started on Jan. 21, 2021, after he allegedly “caused” boxes of materials from his term to be shipped to Mar-a-Lago.

Details about moving the boxes to Mar-a-Lago remain unclear. Newsweek reported that 27 boxes were shipped to Trump’s home by accident. Trump’s former lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, said the documents were moved by the General Services Administration.

The indictment doesn’t explain how Trump was supposed to know of these specific documents. It presents no evidence of any criminal intention on Trump’s part to take and keep these documents.

“There are serious, serious legal infirmities in the arguments that they’re using,” Scharf said.

If the Espionage Act charges won’t withstand judicial scrutiny, the additional obstruction charges shouldn’t stand on their own, he argued.

“There’s a longstanding DOJ practice that you don’t indict for obstruction, or for really any process-related crime, unless there’s underlying criminality,” Scharf said. “So if the DOJ launches an investigation into something, somebody allegedly obstructs that investigation, but it turns out the investigation itself wasn’t well founded, that typically won’t result in an indictment.”

When it comes to investigations involving Trump, however, prosecutors have commonly brought process-crime charges alone, such as in the cases of Trump’s former national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and his 2016 presidential campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

“I think in this case, especially, you’re seeing this weaponization of process crimes that the FBI has begun to use, where they will, under some flimsy or some circumstantial premise, open an investigation on somebody for something and then during the course of that investigation hope that they can bring charges that are process crimes,” said former FBI agent and whistleblower Steve Friend.

The Clinton Treatment
There are indications that Trump expected to be able to deal with the government similarly to Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a CNN town hall earlier this year, Trump said that based on the Presidential Records Act, he was allowed to “negotiate” with NARA on what he could and couldn’t keep as personal items. NARA has rejected such an interpretation, but Trump was likely referring to the 2012 Clinton case.

The indictment also indicates that Trump questioned his lawyers on whether he could handle the subpoena similarly to how Hillary Clinton did in 2015, when her lawyers infamously sorted through her emails from her State Department tenure and had about half of them deleted, claiming that they weren’t work-related. The FBI later found out thousands of work-related emails were missing.

“Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” Trump allegedly asked and recounted the Clinton episode multiple times.

Binnall said those were “absolutely valid legal questions” for Trump to raise.

“You’re saying, ‘Well, wait a second. If legally [Clinton lawyers] were able to do this, and it worked, why can’t we do it the same way?’”

Prosecutorial Misconduct
The case has been brought by Jack Smith, a former federal prosecutor appointed special counsel by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on Nov. 18, 2022.

Smith has been criticized by Republicans for allowing his prosecutors to go rogue both in this case and in his prior role as head of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section.

Binnall recalled how a decade ago, prosecutors under Smith violated a defendant’s constitutional rights before a grand jury, leading the court to dismiss charges against the defendant. In the same case, prosecutors seized his client’s phone and failed to use a filter team to prevent the investigators from seeing Binnall’s privileged communications with his client, he said.

In the Trump case, Smith managed to get a judicial order to pierce Trump’s client-attorney privilege, but that issue could be relitigated, Binnall suggested.

“I think you’re going to see motions to suppress [evidence] based on the violation of attorney-client privilege,” he said.

Trump’s lawyers may also try to remove from trial evidence obtained during the Mar-a-Lago raid on the grounds that the search warrant was overbroad, according to William Shipley, a former federal prosecutor who now represents many people charged with relation to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol protest and riot.

“The issue is the failure to describe ‘with particularity’ the items to be seized,” Shipley wrote in a tweet.

Binnall also predicted attempts to have the case tossed for prosecutorial misconduct.

Parlatore told the media he saw multiple instances of such misconduct when he voluntarily sat down for questioning before a grand jury. One of the prosecutors accused him of “refusing” to answer a question that pertained to privileged attorney-client conversations, and Parlatore had to remind the jurors that he wasn’t refusing but was rather barred by ethical rules from answering, he told CBS News.

There have also been reports that prosecutors implied to the attorney for Nauta that his application for judgeship in Washington could be tied to his client’s willingness to cooperate.

“That is another clear example of prosecutorial misconduct,” Binnall said, arguing that Garland’s appointment of Smith betrayed his bias.

“Personnel is always policy.

“Merrick Garland knew exactly what he was getting when he appointed Jack Smith, the special counsel. He appointed a zealot. He appointed a Trump hater. He appointed somebody that he knew was going to stop at nothing to go after and get Trump.”

The contrast between Smith’s aggressive pursuit of the case compared to FBI’s cautious approach in its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails speaks to unequal application of the law, he suggested.

“What we have right here is the very idea that you would always find an excuse to give a pass to people like [President] Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, and always find an excuse to go after Donald Trump,” Binnall said.

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/378/495/original/cb3939441f11182e.jpg



Will Andy McCarthy point this out?

[G M]

https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/06/12/who-is-jack-smith-bidens-special-counsel-lives-abroad-married-an-obama-devotee-linked-to-soros-clinton/

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/378/495/original/cb3939441f11182e.jpg



Will Andy McCarthy point this out?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/back-up-plan-jack-smith-corrupt-prosecutor-andrew/

It's like they will do whatever it takes...

[ccp]

https://nypost.com/2023/06/15/trump-rejected-lawyers-efforts-to-settle-classified-docs-case-report/


 

Frankly, I am inclined Trump would preferred the circus rather then make a deal and do so  irregardless of Tom's "advice".

Nothing more pleases him then that which places HIM at the center of daily public arguments.

Plus he presumes the fight will rally the MAGA cult heads.

[Crafty_Dog]

Do I read correctly between the lines that Trump's ex-lawyers are leaking?!?

If Trump/Fitton and the losing lawyer in the Clinton Sock Drawer case are correct in saying that Trump is correct under the Presidential Records Act, why should he have bent the knee?

If I understand correctly here, the propaganda pressure we are seeing brought here (including e.g. Bill Barr) is based upon the tautology that the National Archives Act is controlling.  If the Presidential Records Act is controlling, then does not the whole case fall apart?

[ccp]

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-barr-mocks-mark-levins-ridiculous-defense-against-trump-charges-its-a-sideshow/

[Crafty_Dog]

"What did he do? He engaged in outrageous act of obstruction and deception that obstructed that subpoena. And that is wrong. That’s a law. I mean, that’s a violation of law. That’s a serious problem for him. What he did was, according to the indictment, he took a lot of the boxes away, hid them from his lawyer, told his lawyer to go and search what remained, and then cause that lawyer to file a statement to the court saying that there had been a complete search. And if anyone did that, that would be obstruction. So that is why I think the Justice Department pulled the trigger, and that’s the central part of this case. So talking about whether he had the right to have the documents or not. Well, it’s it’s ridiculous. It’s a sideshow! You cannot defend what he did with that subpoena using."

From that article.

Seems almost as strong as deleting governmental 33,000 emails, then bleaching them, then smashing them with a hammer after leaving them vulnerable to hacking on a server in a bathroom as Colorado.

A legit argument , , , I suppose , , , but are we to spend our time yet again arguing such distinctions?

I remain with DeSantis.

[G M]

Deep State Barr helped hide Hunter’s laptop while the Dems impeached Trump.
Like Benedict Pence, a scumbag traitor.

"What did he do? He engaged in outrageous act of obstruction and deception that obstructed that subpoena. And that is wrong. That’s a law. I mean, that’s a violation of law. That’s a serious problem for him. What he did was, according to the indictment, he took a lot of the boxes away, hid them from his lawyer, told his lawyer to go and search what remained, and then cause that lawyer to file a statement to the court saying that there had been a complete search. And if anyone did that, that would be obstruction. So that is why I think the Justice Department pulled the trigger, and that’s the central part of this case. So talking about whether he had the right to have the documents or not. Well, it’s it’s ridiculous. It’s a sideshow! You cannot defend what he did with that subpoena using."

From that article.

Seems almost as strong as deleting governmental 33,000 emails, then bleaching them, then smashing them with a hammer after leaving them vulnerable to hacking on a server in a bathroom as Colorado.

A legit argument , , , I suppose , , , but are we to spend our time yet again arguing such distinctions?

I remain with DeSantis.

[Crafty_Dog]

Unaware of that.  How did he do that?


Meanwhile , , ,

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19725/donald-trump-lawyer

[G M]

Unaware of that.  How did he do that?


Meanwhile , , ,

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19725/donald-trump-lawyer

https://www.dailynews.com/2022/12/25/fbi-suppression-of-the-hunter-biden-laptop/amp/

The FBI had Hunter’s laptop while Barr was AG. It might have been important evidence in the impeachment, would it not?

https://www.dailynews.com/2022/12/25/fbi-suppression-of-the-hunter-biden-laptop/amp/

[Crafty_Dog]

So how is it the AG Barr would be expected to know what the FBI was hiding?

===========================

By Jeff Mordock - The Washington Times - Wednesday, June 14, 2023
Former President Donald Trump has multiple defenses available to fight federal criminal charges of mishandling classified documents and obstructing justice, legal scholars say.

Among the strongest legal options for Mr. Trump are invoking the Presidential Records Act and suppressing notes from one of his attorneys.

The sprawling, 37-count indictment filed last week by special counsel Jack Smith claims Mr. Trump recklessly handled some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets, including documents about nuclear programs and potential vulnerabilities of the U.S. and its allies.


Mr. Trump, who pleaded not guilty to the charges on Tuesday in a federal courtroom in Miami, is also accused of blocking the government’s efforts to retrieve the classified materials.

The severity of the charges might make it difficult for Mr. Trump’s legal team to mount a defense, but analysts say some avenues are open to the former president.

“Obviously, this is a serious case, but I think it is a case that could be won by the defense. There are areas of potential vulnerability for the government,” said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, where Mr. Trump was charged.

SEE ALSO: Trump shatters political norms again: Charges ‘will guarantee his nomination’

“The government is relying on testimony from Trump‘s lawyer. It doesn’t always work out when lawyers are put on the stand who cooperated against their own client. That’s just one area of potential vulnerability for the government,” Mr. Coffey continued.

Todd Blanche, a lawyer representing Mr. Trump in the classified documents case, declined to comment on possible defenses.

Mr. Trump and his aides might have already raised the strongest defense: that a president can take any documents he wants under the Presidential Records Act.

The 1978 statute gives the National Archives and Records Administration complete ownership and control of presidential records at the end of an administration but makes a distinction between official records and personal documents.

Defense attorneys could argue that Mr. Trump’s presidential authority granted him absolute power to declassify documents. Mr. Trump has already made that assertion. A president can take government property as personal documents once they are declassified.

“It would radically deflate the government’s case if the defense managed to make a successful argument about the Presidential Records Act,” said Joseph Moreno, a former federal prosecutor.

The full scope of the Presidential Records Act has never been fully litigated and is open to different legal interpretations.

William Barr, who served as attorney general in Mr. Trump’s administration, threw cold water on the idea of invoking the Presidential Records Act. During a recent Fox News interview, he called it “facially ridiculous.”

“They’re the government’s documents — they’re official records,” Mr. Barr said. “They’re not his personal records. Battle plans for an attack on another country or Defense Department documents about our capabilities are in no universe Donald J. Trump’s personal documents.”

Former Trump attorney Timothy Parlatore told CNN last week that the law gives outgoing presidents two years after they leave office to review all their documents to determine which papers are personal and which are presidential.

Mr. Trump was not charged with violating the Presidential Records Act, which has no defined penalties. The statute is not mentioned at all in the 49-page indictment.

“The fact that the Justice Department doesn’t address it in the indictment makes me think they are a little wary of it,” Mr. Moreno said. “I would be all over that if I was on Trump’s team and make that my No. 1 target.”

The various interpretations of the Presidential Records Act likely mean federal appellate courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court would need to decide its full power and limitations before Mr. Trump’s legal team can invoke it as a defense.

“It’s extraordinarily rare to get an appeal before the case goes to trial, but there is nothing about this case that is normal,” Mr. Coffey said.

Regardless of how a defense involving the Presidential Records Act might shake out, Mr. Trump clearly believes it’s his strongest argument.

“Under the Presidential Records Act, I’m allowed to do all of this,” he wrote on Truth Social after the indictment was unsealed. He repeated that claim in a speech in Georgia over the weekend.

Another potential attack for the defense would be notes written by Evan Corcoran, one of Mr. Trump’s attorneys.

The notes, first recorded into an iPhone and put down on paper, provide some of the prosecution’s strongest evidence. They suggest that Mr. Trump urged Mr. Corcoran to block government investigators from retrieving the classified material and suggested that Mr. Corcoran lie to investigators or withhold the documents altogether.

Mr. Smith gained access to the notes under the crime-fraud exception. The exception allows prosecutors to remove the shield of attorney-client privilege if they have evidence that a client used legal advice to further a crime.

Judge Beryl Howell, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that Mr. Smith’s team could access Mr. Corcoran’s notes under the crime-fraud exception.

That means Mr. Corcoran, hired by Mr. Trump to fend off prosecutors in the classified documents case, could be a key prosecution witness.

Mr. Corcoran recused himself in April from representing the former president in the documents case but is representing Mr. Trump in other matters.

Legal analysts say the use of Mr. Corcoran’s notes opens up two areas of attack for Mr. Trump’s team.

First, the defense could argue that Mr. Trump’s statements to his attorney were taken out of context and he was asking what is allowed or not allowed under the law.

Defense attorneys also could point out that Mr. Smith asked a federal judge in the more left-leaning District to decide the crime-fraud exception while indicting Mr. Trump in Southern Florida.

“Trump’s team could argue the law for the government is more favorable in D.C. and the government did some maneuvering to get a home-field advantage,” Mr. Coffey said. “The defense can ask a Florida federal judge to reconsider it, arguing precedent is different there.”

If none of these attempts derails the charges, legal analysts say, Mr. Trump’s team could seek trial delays with other motions.

They could keep pushing back the case so it would go to trial after the election. If Mr. Trump wins the presidency, either the attorney general he appoints could withdraw the case or he could pardon himself.

“Even if Trump’s lawyers don’t try to delay it, it is possible that it won’t go to trial until after the election,” Mr. Moreno said. “Classified documents make this more cumbersome because there is an entire process that needs to be gone through to bring classified documents into a civilian court.”

• Jeff Mordock can be reached at jmordock@washingtontimes.com.

[Crafty_Dog]

The Recuseniks Come for the Trump Case Judge
Judge Aileen Cannon gets the criminal document case, and she need not recuse herself.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
Updated June 14, 2023 6:55 pm ET


The federal case against President Trump for allegedly mishandling national secrets has landed, by random assignment, on the bench of district court Judge Aileen Cannon. The anti-Trump partisans are now shouting that she must disqualify herself, since the law says judges must step aside if their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”

President Trump appointed Judge Cannon in 2020. But that can’t be the standard for recusal, or hundreds of judges would be unable to preside, including one third of the Supreme Court. Half the country would argue that there are reasonable questions on the other side about whether Mr. Trump can get impartiality from progressive jurists named by a Democratic President. Most federal judges take their oath of office seriously, regardless of which party is in power.

The more detailed argument against Judge Cannon is that she gave favorable rulings to Mr. Trump in an earlier stage of the case, and her judgment was ultimately overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s true as far as it goes. After the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, she ordered the appointment of a special master to review the seized documents, while temporarily blocking the feds from using them for criminal investigative purposes.

Judge Cannon wrote that she was taking into account “the undeniably unprecedented nature of the search of a former President’s residence,” while warning that Mr. Trump “ultimately may not be entitled to return of much of the seized property or to prevail on his anticipated claims of privilege.” This was legally erroneous, the 11th Circuit soon said in overruling her.


Applying a multifactor test from a 1975 case, Richey v. Smith, a trio of appeals judges said the situation did not “favor exercising equitable jurisdiction.” To start, the feds had not demonstrated “callous disregard” for Mr. Trump’s constitutional rights, as precedent requires. His claim of “injury” from having investigators examine his sensitive documents would equally apply to “nearly every subject of a search warrant.”

The unsigned opinion concludes: “We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations.” Two of the judges were Trump appointees. The third was Judge William Pryor, who was on Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court short list.

This is a strong signal that Judge Cannon was wrong on the law. But district courts are reversed all the time, much as appeals courts are overruled by the Supreme Court. That’s how it works. Perhaps Judge Cannon’s mistake was clear to the 11th Circuit, but she’s relatively new to the bench. Any ruling she makes in the Trump case is bound to be appealed to the 11th Circuit, and probably the Supreme Court, so she wouldn’t be the final legal word.

Yet Judge Cannon is being treated as if she shows up for arguments wearing a black robe and a MAGA hat. Democratic and media recuseniks always do this. If they had their way, half the Supreme Court would have to sit out important cases, and we don’t have to tell you which half.