Trump's safe...

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
When they give activities and substantial knowledge the person had, it is probably fairly easy for Trump and his legal team to figure out who the people and prosecutions would be, even minus the names. As an attorney I would think you would be aware of this.
How would either one of us know? The DOJ redacted their reason for their redaction. There would be information regarding the original subpoena for these documents, the corresponding search at the residence, the results of said search, etc…in the affidavit. None of which would lead to the identity of informants. As I said above, if you’re going to redact the probably cause portion of the affidavit there’s little reason to release the same.

Are you predicting a prosecution and conviction regarding these documents ? As I’ve said all along, hoping there’s at least enough there to prevent a 2024 run.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,171
625
113
la la land
where is the warrent for hrc's stuff? where is the house committee on hunter biden laptop? how many home ls of democrats been invaded in the last few years?

BALANCE?
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
How would either one of us know? The DOJ redacted their reason for their redaction. There would be information regarding the original subpoena for these documents, the corresponding search at the residence, the results of said search, etc…in the affidavit. None of which would lead to the identity of informants. As I said above, if you’re going to redact the probably cause portion of the affidavit there’s little reason to release the same.

Are you predicting a prosecution and conviction regarding these documents ? As I’ve said all along, hoping there’s at least enough there to prevent a 2024 run.
I don't know if there's going to be a prosecution and/or conviction. I have my doubts, because Trump seems to duck everything. And the republican party must take some responsibility for that. I am in agreement that preventing a 2024 run is the most important thing. But I think Trump paying for something in a court of law is important as a deterrent. Otherwise somebody will come in and try to do the same things.

I still have a little faith in the judges and the DOJ, enough to feel like they are doing the right thing. I can't believe the judges are not making decisions in the best interest of the public. I think Trump listened to Tom Fitton because he said what Trump wanted to hear. Because of that, Trump probably broke the law. If so, he must be punished. I'm willing to wait to see what the DOJ does. We can't all feel the need to know everything about this prosecution immediately. That handicaps the DOJ.

If this happened to Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, everybody would not be insisting on knowing everything up front. It is what Trump has done to our system that pushes people this way. Everybody, including the media, the politicians, & the public, wants to know everything now. It hasn't even been 21 days since the raid. We had much more patience with events like this in past Presidencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05 and Clong83a

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
Trump is weighing a delay to his announcement of a 2024 run for President due to legal difficulties. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
Trump has really stepped into it. Demanding he be reinstated as the lawfully elected president a day or so ago. Demanding copies of the unredacted search warrant, knowing they redacted it keep him from seeing it, and won't unredact it for him. Demanding that his lawyer's be given unrestricted access to all of the unredacted top secret documents, when he knows some of that material will have to be redacted.

He's thinking there will be enough idiots out there who will ignorantly start a revolution for him, when the courts tell him no.

And now he is saying the FBI & DOJ agents came to his residence in June to give him security advice, and that he allowed them to come to his home for that purpose alone.

They were there to enforce a subpoena and take the stuff that Trump was told he must give up, and/or were allowed by the courts to search his home for those documents under subpoena. I'm sure he 'allowed' them to go to the room in which he had already taken part of the documents from and hidden them elsewhere. That would be the documents that they found under the search warrant in August.

And to top it all off...
He continues his lie that he declassified all those documents, and insists he needs a special master. And according to him that special master would need to have credentials to look at classified material. Uh wait, didn't you just say you declassified all of that material. You can't go with both of those arguments. You just admitted your lie through contradiction.

He must not be heeding any of his attorney's advice. He might as well represent himself and officially have a fool for a client.

Hopefully Trump just tightened his own noose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05 and Clong83a

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,010
172
63
What consequences does the lawyer who signed the letter saying Trump had already returned all classified documents face? His signed letter claims a ’rigorous search’ was performed, yet at the same time the lawyers refused to allow agents to look at other boxes in the Trump storeroom.

As Cohen, Rudy, and the election ‘fraud’ attorneys are finding out, apparently representing Trump likely means a tarnished reputation, not getting paid, court fines, loss of license, law suits or going to jail.

 
Last edited:

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
It also establishes one link in the chain of evidence. That photo that shows the safe door, and the carpet, along with other photos showing the safe and carpet with a more of a full view of mar a lago. It inhibits Trump from arguing that the evidence wasn't even taken from Mar a Lago. He can't so easily make the argument that all that evidence was planted.

I'm assuming they took video of it all, as well as maybe confiscated his security video footage. Such that this argument doesn't hold water. You know if he thinks that bogus claim gets him anywhere, he will use it.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
Trump has really stepped into it. Demanding he be reinstated as the lawfully elected president a day or so ago. Demanding copies of the unredacted search warrant, knowing they redacted it keep him from seeing it, and won't unredact it for him. Demanding that his lawyer's be given unrestricted access to all of the unredacted top secret documents, when he knows some of that material will have to be redacted.

He's thinking there will be enough idiots out there who will ignorantly start a revolution for him, when the courts tell him no.

And now he is saying the FBI & DOJ agents came to his residence in June to give him security advice, and that he allowed them to come to his home for that purpose alone.

They were there to enforce a subpoena and take the stuff that Trump was told he must give up, and/or were allowed by the courts to search his home for those documents under subpoena. I'm sure he 'allowed' them to go to the room in which he had already taken part of the documents from and hidden them elsewhere. That would be the documents that they found under the search warrant in August.

And to top it all off...
He continues his lie that he declassified all those documents, and insists he needs a special master. And according to him that special master would need to have credentials to look at classified material. Uh wait, didn't you just say you declassified all of that material. You can't go with both of those arguments. You just admitted your lie through contradiction.

He must not be heeding any of his attorney's advice. He might as well represent himself and officially have a fool for a client.

Hopefully Trump just tightened his own noose.
I had a sentence in the above quoted post,(which I deleted) that said something to the effect, '...and we still don't know if he has hidden other documents elsewhere than in his office.'

Today they start releasing information about empty folders recovered.(that were marked classified) :rolleyes:
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,010
172
63
The irony.....

Tucked into a bill Trump signed into law in January 2018 was a provision increasing the punishment for knowingly removing classified materials with the intent to retain them at an “unauthorized location.”

Now, a person convicted of violating this law can face up to five years in prison ― making it a felony-level offense to mishandle classified documents under 18 U.S.C. 1924.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weatherdemon

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
I had a sentence in the above quoted post,(which I deleted) that said something to the effect, '...and we still don't know if he has hidden other documents elsewhere than in his office.'

Today they start releasing information about empty folders recovered.(that were marked classified) :rolleyes:
Interesting that Barr went on Fox News today and denounced Trump's handling of the documents and the situation with the Federal Gov at large.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
Different but slightly related topic. I heard a poll taken recently(can't remember poll) said 53% of Republicans didn't want Trump in office. 🙏
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,010
172
63
Can any of the attorneys here justify preventing the DOJ's access to the highly classified documents found in Trump's storeroom? After 9/11 'national security' was used by the Bush administration to justify a wide range of new legal restrictions, new legislation, and surveillance. Yet now 'national security' seems to be taking a back seat to offending Trump's sensibilities regardless of their merit. Yes, no one wants to set a precedent that could be used to politically and baselessly prosecute a president in the future, but these acts are so far out of bounds that seems an unlikely risk.


There is still reason to think that even now the DOJ doesn't have all the classified material that Trump may have taken. Should they be prevented from continuing to search?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
Can any of the attorneys here justify preventing the DOJ's access to the highly classified documents found in Trump's storeroom? After 9/11 'national security' was used by the Bush administration to justify a wide range of new legal restrictions, new legislation, and surveillance. Yet now 'national security' seems to be taking a back seat to offending Trump's sensibilities regardless of their merit. Yes, no one wants to set a precedent that could be used to politically and baselessly prosecute a president in the future, but these acts are so far out of bounds that seems an unlikely risk.


There is still reason to think that even now the DOJ doesn't have all the classified material that Trump may have taken. Should they be prevented from continuing to search?
Am I misinterpreting the ruling? I’m reading this to allow the court appoint an independent party to also examine the documents which are in the possession of the DOJ. The DOJ has obviously already reviewed the documents which were taken in the raid and has had access to the same since they raid.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
Am I misinterpreting the ruling? I’m reading this to allow the court appoint an independent party to also examine the documents which are in the possession of the DOJ. The DOJ has obviously already reviewed the documents which were taken in the raid and has had access to the same since they raid.
The way I understood it, since the ruling for a special master, the DOJ was to stop all actions reviewing the documents, including reviewing what kind of damage might have been done with classified documents. Investigating damage done would show a paper trail that would be hard to cover up.

If so, I am more confident all actions or most actions will have stopped in reviewing the documents by the DOJ. If it were Trump who had the documents, he'd just ignore that order, full steam ahead.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
The way I understood it, since the ruling for a special master, the DOJ was to stop all actions reviewing the documents, including reviewing what kind of damage might have been done with classified documents. Investigating damage done would show a paper trail that would be hard to cover up.

If so, I am more confident all actions or most actions will have stopped in reviewing the documents by the DOJ. If it were Trump who had the documents, he'd just ignore that order, full steam ahead.
I don’t understand how the ruling to halts the investigator as to any national security damage might have occurred with the documents in Trump’s possession since the national security division can continue its investigation. The DOJ has possessed these documents since the raid. They know exactly what they are and have examined and documented the same. The ruling also doesn’t prevent the DOJ from getting them back once the appointed arbitrator is finished.

I haven’t dealt with the DOJ but I have dealt with the IRS. I will always side with measures which protect individuals from government overreach. Allowing an independent person to also examine the documents in addition to the federal government is a step in that direction imo. I don’t see Trump when I look at this ruling but see future individual citizens. The DOJ like the IRS are entities to be feared. They have unlimited resources and play by their own set of rules. Wait until you have a client defending an IRS assessment and are told the burden of proof is on you to prove the IRS assertion is incorrect opposed to the other way around.

Don’t view this as it relates to Trump but as a buffer between the Fed’s and individuals in future conflicts. Trump can rot in a federal prison at this point if he knowingly broke the law
 
Last edited:

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
I don’t understand how the ruling to halts the investigator as to any national security damage might have occurred with the documents in Trump’s possession since the national security division can continue its investigation. The DOJ has possessed these documents since the raid. They know exactly what they are and have examined and documented the same. The ruling also doesn’t prevent the DOJ from getting them back once the appointed arbitrator is finished.

I haven’t dealt with the DOJ but I have dealt with the IRS. I will always side with measures which protect individuals from government overreach. Allowing an independent person to also examine the documents in addition to the federal government is a step in that direction imo. I don’t see Trump when I look at this ruling but see future individual citizens. The DOJ like the IRS are entities to be feared. They have unlimited resources and play by their own set of rules. Wait until you have a client defending an IRS assessment and are told the burden of proof is on you to prove the IRS assertion is incorrect opposed to the other way around.

Don’t view this as it relates to Trump but as a buffer between the Fed’s and individuals in future conflicts. Trump can rot in a federal prison at this point if he knowingly broke the law
The way I understood it, their investigation for the moment had to stop period, no matter what they knew he had. And their investigation had to be run only with the special masters approval when one was appointed.

The special master's primary job was to make sure nothing went against attorney client priviledge and/or executive priviledge. According to most sources, other than Trump, there wasn't much taken in the raid which conflicted with that.

I would have to know what they took and have expertise on all the issues to make a determination on who was blowing smoke up the judge/media/publics ass tho.

I would want the DOJ's investigation on classified document damage caused, to go on unimpeded. I just don't know if that's possible without interfering with someones rights. Don't have enough info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
Stopped reading when the author called the judge a “bloody hack”.
 
Last edited:

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
Stopped reading when the author called the judge a “bloody hack”.
She's(the judge) protecting him from claim that wasn't even made by the opposition(Trump's Lawyers) It's likely because they felt it would be considered a false claim, and not applicable to the situation. Other respected lawyers, judges, and journalists have made the same statement.(just in a bit kinder language) I've read it in several articles, from less liberal sources.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
She's(the judge) protecting him from claim that wasn't even made by the opposition(Trump's Lawyers) It's likely because they felt it would be considered a false claim, and not applicable to the situation. Other respected lawyers, judges, and journalists have made the same statement.(just in a bit kinder language) I've read it in several articles, from less liberal sources.
I do think criticism of the judge is quite fair. Posting an article from someone calling her a “bloody hack” made me highly skeptical I was reading an objective analysis of the legal arguments involved. Will be curious to see how this turns out.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
Now it's threats. Would Jan 6 be just a practice run?

He feels like it gave him some measure of success the first time, so he'll try it again. He needs to be indicted, prosecuted, (and if it can be proved) convicted. He should not be pardoned either. Making the same kind of threats twice in a row, should make a pardon unattainable for him.

In my book he needs to suffer, to guard against this ever happening again. You cannot allow others to feel they can evade the law because they have been elected to the highest office in the land.
 
Last edited:

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
He feels like it gave him some measure of success the first time, so he'll try it again. He needs to be indicted, prosecuted, (and if it can be proved) convicted. He should not be pardoned either. Making the same kind of threats twice in a row, should make a pardon unattainable for him.

In my book he needs to suffer, to guard against this ever happening again. You cannot allow others to feel they can evade the law because they have been elected to the highest office in the land.
I was arguing this on January 7th 2021. Letting Trump get away with what he and his cronies designed the day before would be empowering and potentially dangerous. It reminds me of the light sentence that Weimar Germany gave to Hitler for his participation in the Beer Hall Putsch. If you don't punish the leaders of insurrection sufficiently they will just repeat what they did previously with more vigor and with new tactics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

Clong83a

I.T.S. Senior
Nov 15, 2014
1,020
925
113
could have, might have, if he , ... 6 years later, where is the he did?
He did take government documents home after he left office, many of which appear to be highly classified (whether he "declassified" or not is a sideshow. They are sensitive docs that can do damage, and they are not owned by him, period). He did keep them for himself after the government asked nicely for them back. If he had returned everything at that point, we likely never would have heard about it, despite how crass it is. He did then return a small amount of materials after he was subpoenaed to return them. He did then have an attorney sign an affidavit saying everything had been returned. He did lie, as he still had TS documents and other government documents in his private home. The DoJ knew he was lying and got a search warrant to retrieve the remaining documents. They found them, but are still not certain they have everything back.

The fact that this case is bogged down in courts and Trump is walking free right now has everything to do with who he is and the politics thereof. If it were me working on nuclear weapons designs at home, I'd have been arrested long ago. No "Special Master". No endless appeals where I get the benefit of the doubt. It wouldn't matter even if I was actually just trying to work from home in good faith. I'd be dead in the water.

I am not saying that special considerations don't need to be taken when a former POTUS is involved. Obviously everything is higher stakes and setting uncharted legal precedents, so we need to be cautious to avoid the appearance of a political witch hunt. In that sense, I understand Judge Cannon's order, although I think she bending over too far to show deference. But at some point, he needs to answer for what he did, or it will only embolden the next jerk to take things even further. We need to know why he had those documents. Why those documents in particular. What, if anything was he planning to do with them? Why did he not return them when asked?

I wouldn't put it past him to have taken them and defied all those orders and requests just because he is a giant egotist that instinctively thumbs his nose at authority, thinking himself above it. But even in that case, this stuff is too serious to go unpunished. And in that (best case) scenario, it only underscores just how unsuitable he is for elected office of any kind.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Feb 25, 2002
8,759
2,618
113
At what point are you allowed to make a Hitler reference? Does Trump have to invade Poland first? Or does he just need to defund NATO so 'Papa Putin' can do it for him?
He didnt defund NATO.. he just demanded that they pull their own weight. We have spent too much blood and treasure on Europe. They built socialist welfare states on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Besides, your buddy Wilson created Hitler. If he had kept his nose out of the imperialist/monarchist/inbred family squabble nobody would even know of Adolf's existence.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
He didnt defund NATO.. he just demanded that they pull their own weight. We have spent too much blood and treasure on Europe. They built socialist welfare states on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Besides, your buddy Wilson created Hitler. If he had kept his nose out of the imperialist/monarchist/inbred family squabble nobody would even know of Adolf's existence.
He threatened several times to defund it. And I don't think those were idle threats. The only thing stopping him from doing things like defunding NATO, was that he had a throttle limiter of running for a second term, and the fight of the republican party. Reelection would have given him the justification to go full speed ahead, with nothing to hold him back.

If reelected in 2024, I still think the Republicans might end up fighting him tooth and nail, to keep him from doing things like defunding NATO.

God only knows what he would have done in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russians might have already won the war with the meager(if any) funding he would have wanted to give. The only reason they were giving any kind of battle in the couple of months after Kiev was attacked, is the military aid they were given.

He wouldn't have seen it as anything but a vengeance, to not give Ukraine a dime. Never mind that it is a battle of communist/facist vs Democracy in Europe. It would be just another favor he would have been happy to give his good 'buddy' Vladimir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,362
8,319
113
I was arguing this on January 7th 2021. Letting Trump get away with what he and his cronies designed the day before would be empowering and potentially dangerous. It reminds me of the light sentence that Weimar Germany gave to Hitler for his participation in the Beer Hall Putsch. If you don't punish the leaders of insurrection sufficiently they will just repeat what they did previously with more vigor and with new tactics.
If you don't remember, so was I.

It is just a more emphatic argument the second time round.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
He didnt defund NATO.. he just demanded that they pull their own weight. We have spent too much blood and treasure on Europe. They built socialist welfare states on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Besides, your buddy Wilson created Hitler. If he had kept his nose out of the imperialist/monarchist/inbred family squabble nobody would even know of Adolf's existence.
Wilson was nearly dead by the time that the balance of power in Europe was ultimately negotiated and it was England and France that did the most damage when it came to punitive action after the war. Blaming Hitler’s rise on Wilson is hilariously in accurate. It would be like blaming Trump’s rise on Obama. Trump’s rise was due to Trump, a bunch of dirty politicians hungry for power, and his crazy base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

noble cane

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Feb 25, 2002
8,759
2,618
113
Wilson was nearly dead by the time that the balance of power in Europe was ultimately negotiated and it was England and France that did the most damage when it came to punitive action after the war. Blaming Hitler’s rise on Wilson is hilariously in accurate. It would be like blaming Trump’s rise on Obama. Trump’s rise was due to Trump, a bunch of dirty politicians hungry for power, and his crazy base.
Once again you dont read for context...

Our entry into WWI (which was basically a pissing contest between inbred royals) changed the course of the war in europe and led to the eventual humiliatiin of Germany. We had no business getting involved in that fight. But, as a result of our blood and treasure being spent in a pointless war, Hitler was born.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,171
625
113
la la land
I was arguing this on January 7th 2021. Letting Trump get away with what he and his cronies designed the day before would be empowering and potentially dangerous. It reminds me of the light sentence that Weimar Germany gave to Hitler for his participation in the Beer Hall Putsch. If you don't punish the leaders of insurrection sufficiently they will just repeat what they did previously with more vigor and with new tactics.
letting the dems get away with all their what ifs. ...
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,010
172
63
Since the DOJ had appealed the special master decision to a higher court, one might hope that a more rational decision based on the facts and the law would result,. However, this local decision and situation makes one wonder if the newly constituted SCOTUS really cares that much about the 'facts'. How do you rehire a guy who was never fired, was always paid, and has no interest in doing the job?

 

Latest posts