It’s a cult

[homersapien 11,367]

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If Trump declassified these documents, which a sitting President can do without any type of procedure, they found documents that have been declassified.  This will have to be decided through the court system if you still believe in that as I do.

We will never know how important they are.  Of course, like now, things about the investigation will be *leaked* as necessary to enhance the DOJ’s narrative of the *crime*.  The proof lies with the courts, not your opinion.

If your side could ever prove anything, it would go a long way to end my hopelessness.  I am waiting patiently.

No, there is a legal PROCESS for a POTUS to declassify documents which Trump obviously did not follow while he was president.

This process includes the requirement that information regarding the declassification be "...communicated.... to all others who possess the same information, across all federal agencies."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-mar-lago-search-and-presidents-classification-and-declassification-authority

Furthermore, while "there's no formal process that a president is required to follow when declassifying information....there has to be evidence that a declassification order occurred." And in Trump's case, "the Trump team has yet to produce any credible evidence," he said."  (Brian Greer, a former CIA attorney who specialized in classification issues as told to ABC News.)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-claims-experts-magic-wand-president-declassify-documents/story?id=88466588

Bottom line, Trump could have legally declassified these documents, but he didn't. 

He cannot take such documents now and then declare he declassified them after he left office and they have been recovered by the government.  

I am fine with allowing the courts to rule on matters than cannot be divulged publicly for national security reasons.  I am gratified to hear you claim the same. (But frankly, considering your statements on Garland, the FBI and the court's involvement so far, I totally expect you to claim "the fix is in" or some such conspiratorial nonsense and simply reject a judge's ruling.)

Edited August 17, 2022 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The art of politics is not found in being liberal or conservative but, knowing when to be liberal or conservative.

[homersapien 11,367]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, Tex asked two questions.  I answered the 2nd question by saying “I totally expect that” referring to his question about when Biden leaves should he be untouchable?

By answering that I believe Presidents that leave office have a unspoken right (whether earned or not) not to be sought out by the present administration instituting witch hunts as is now the case.  If you are going to go after a President, do it while he is in office.  It appears the Dems did go after him in office, but couldn’t prove anything and were frustrated.  Therefore, they are turning over ever rock they can to destroy this man which is a political rival and using the DOJ to do it.

It really is petty.  

1) Is it "petty" to hold a POTUS responsible for keeping classified documents (a felony) when leaving office instead of turning them in to the government?

2) Do you think all presidents are above the law?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,802]

5 minutes ago, Didba said:

Are you saying that former presidents should be immune from criminal investigations as a whole? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
 

Your position is that if there is strong evidence that a former president committed a crime, they should be immune from any investigations into that crime once they are out of office? And this is a future, generic president in say 2070 in a hypothetical where the democrats and republicans are no longer the prevailing party. 

No, not if there is confirmed evidence he committed a crime.  What we have here is a search warrant in search of a crime.  Without the affidavit the public doesn’t know why Trump got raided.  The one that hides the truth usually is the one on the wrong side of the law and the DOJ is hiding the truth.  It’s not how the system is suppose to work.  It is not the peaceful transfer of power that should occur.  It’s payback for Trump’s silliness after the election by using the DOJ to go after him.  If Trump has documents the government wants back, get them and be done with it.

[homersapien 11,367]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

The art of politics is not found in being liberal or conservative but, knowing when to be liberal or conservative.

Good quote. 

But we have long since departed from "politics" and have entered the realm of cult religion combined with Manichean thinking.

You can tell by the bizarro "conservatism" of current Republican politics.

[I_M4_AU 7,802]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, there is a legal PROCESS for a POTUS to declassify documents which Trump obviously did not follow while he was president.

From one of you trusted sources:

Former President Donald Trump claims to have verbally declassified the sensitive records the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago compound. It’s not as unprecedented or outlandish an argument as widely believed — if he can prove it happened.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/15/trump-declassify-national-security-president-00052054

The only thing wrong with the quote above is, he doesn’t have to prove it.  Garland has to prove he didn’t.

 

[Leftfield 2,595]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I answered the 2nd question by saying “I totally expect that” referring to his question about when Biden leaves should he be untouchable?

Well, you didn't, which is why I pointed it out.

 

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

By answering that I believe Presidents that leave office have a unspoken right (whether earned or not) not to be sought out by the present administration instituting witch hunts as is now the case.  If you are going to go after a President, do it while he is in office.  It appears the Dems did go after him in office, but couldn’t prove anything and were frustrated.  Therefore, they are turning over ever rock they can to destroy this man which is a political rival and using the DOJ to do it.

It really is petty.  

This is just straight bonkers.

[homersapien 11,367]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, not if there is confirmed evidence he committed a crime.  What we have here is a search warrant in search of a crime.  Without the affidavit the public doesn’t know why Trump got raided.  The one that hides the truth usually is the one on the wrong side of the law and the DOJ is hiding the truth.  It’s not how the system is suppose to work.  It is not the peaceful transfer of power that should occur.  It’s payback for Trump’s silliness after the election by using the DOJ to go after him.  If Trump has documents the government wants back, get them and be done with it.

Not true.  The public does know the search warrant - since made public - specified classified documents and such documents were found in the inventory (also released).

What we still don't know are the details of the classified documents.

The DOJ refuses to release the affidavit because the investigation is ongoing.

You are not recognizing the facts we do know.

[Didba 5,256]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, not if there is confirmed evidence he committed a crime.  What we have here is a search warrant in search of a crime.  

Without the affidavit the public doesn’t know why Trump got raided.  The one that hides the truth usually is the one on the wrong side of the law and the DOJ is hiding the truth.  It’s not how the system is suppose to work.  It is not the peaceful transfer of power that should occur.  It’s payback for Trump’s silliness after the election by using the DOJ to go after him.  If Trump has documents the government wants back, get them and be done with it.

Glad to hear that answer to my question.

As for the part I bolded, it is routine for criminal investigations to not release search warrant affidavits for numerous reasons. Mostly, because sensitive information such as informant's identification, suspected future evidence, and witnesses identities are in the affidavits.  If that stuff is revealed that's how you get CIs killed or witnesses intimidated.  Further, it can tell the party under investigation just what evidence they need to destroy to cover their butts.

I promise you keeping the warrant sealed is routine in any criminal investigation and I can pull multiple legal treatises/caselaw that support that.  I'd prefer if you'd just believe me for once as a soon to be attorney so I don't have to go pull that stuff.

[Didba 5,256]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

From one of you trusted sources:

Former President Donald Trump claims to have verbally declassified the sensitive records the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago compound. It’s not as unprecedented or outlandish an argument as widely believed — if he can prove it happened.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/15/trump-declassify-national-security-president-00052054

The only thing wrong with the quote above is, he doesn’t have to prove it.  Garland has to prove he didn’t.

 

Garland doesn't have to prove anything until charges are filed and an indictment comes down.

[homersapien 11,367]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

From one of you trusted sources:

Former President Donald Trump claims to have verbally declassified the sensitive records the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago compound. It’s not as unprecedented or outlandish an argument as widely believed — if he can prove it happened.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/15/trump-declassify-national-security-president-00052054

The only thing wrong with the quote above is, he doesn’t have to prove it.  Garland has to prove he didn’t.

 

Not true.

If Trump declassified these documents there will be others in the government that were informed of that declassification - everyone who was concerned with those secrets.

You are basically suggesting we should simply take Trump's word for it without any supporting evidence.

Only a fool - or cult follower - would do that.

(Unfortunately, that apparently includes a large number of Americans, but certainly not a majority.  And so far, we are still a democracy in spite of this large fascist movement.)

 

[I_M4_AU 7,802]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Not true.  The public does know the search warrant - since made public - specified classified documents and such documents were found in the inventory (also released).

What we still don't know are the details of the classified documents.

The DOJ refuses to release the affidavit because the investigation is ongoing.

You are not recognizing the facts we do know.

I know Trump had documents at Mar a Lago that the government wanted back.  I do know there is a dispute as to the classification of these documents. 

Without the affidavit, the public is hard pressed to understand the reasoning behind the raid.  We are left to guess and trust an organization that has done a lot to lessen it’s integrity over the last 6 years.

So here we are, on different sides of the argument, as always.

[I_M4_AU 7,802]

5 minutes ago, Didba said:

Garland doesn't have to prove anything until charges are filed and an indictment comes down.

Ok, then he has to prove it, correct?

[homersapien 11,367]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

From one of you trusted sources:

Former President Donald Trump claims to have verbally declassified the sensitive records the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago compound. It’s not as unprecedented or outlandish an argument as widely believed — if he can prove it happened.

 

Key words.   If he declassified this stuff while still in office, that shouldn't be hard to do.

Meanwhile, I will assume Trump is throwing this lie against the wall in hopes it will stick.  (That's a safe assumption for anyone who understands Trump.)

Edited August 18, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,802]

8 minutes ago, Didba said:

 

I promise you keeping the warrant sealed is routine in any criminal investigation and I can pull multiple legal treatises/caselaw that support that.  I'd prefer if you'd just believe me for once as a soon to be attorney so I don't have to go pull that stuff.

This is not a routine criminal investigation by any means.  I believe you even in this incident, but there are questions that apply when the case is this visible and standard law, although applies, is going to be questioned by both sides.

I don’t have the background you have, so I lean on your expertise, but still question.

[homersapien 11,367]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know Trump had documents at Mar a Lago that the government wanted back.  I do know there is a dispute as to the classification of these documents. 

Without the affidavit, the public is hard pressed to understand the reasoning behind the raid.  We are left to guess and trust an organization that has done a lot to lessen it’s integrity over the last 6 years.

So here we are, on different sides of the argument, as always.

Keeping the affidavit secret due to an ongoing investigation is standard operating procedure for the DOJ. 

There is nothing nefarious about it. 

(Of course that means nothing to the MAGA Republicans who have already made up their minds.)

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,802]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Key words.   If he declassified this stuff while still in office, that shouldn't be hard to do.

Meanwhile, I will assume Trump throwing this lie against the wall in hopes it will stick.  (That's a safe assumption for anyone who understands Trump.)

He’s been that way all his life and he had done well with it.  It’s the biggest reason I hope he just fades away and not be on the ticket in 2024.

[I_M4_AU 7,802]

Just now, homersapien said:

Keeping the affidavit secret due to an ongoing investigation is standard operating procedure for the DOJ. 

There is nothing nefarious about it. 

(Of course that means nothing to the MAGA Republicans who have already made up their minds.)

 

 

 

They are fishing and they better come up with something more than just a minnow.

[Leftfield 2,595]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What we have here is a search warrant in search of a crime.  Without the affidavit the public doesn’t know why Trump got raided. 

You contradict yourself right off the bat. You don't know why he got raided, yet you claim there was no crime. You just automatically assume it's due to corruption and are unwilling to wait for the facts.

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The one that hides the truth usually is the one on the wrong side of the law and the DOJ is hiding the truth.  It’s not how the system is suppose to work. 

So are you saying that it is not standard practice to release as little information on an investigation as possible, or are you saying that they should break that practice just for this instance?

Considering Trump's usual business practice consists of avoiding documentation as much as possible, are you sure you want to stand by your statement?

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It is not the peaceful transfer of power that should occur.  

lol

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s payback for Trump’s silliness after the election by using the DOJ to go after him.  If Trump has documents the government wants back, get them and be done with it.

Dude, you have slipped so far down the sink hole it's hard to see you any more. You used to say you weren't a fan of Trump but you are now going to absurd lengths to defend him. All your defenses are based on an assumption of thorough corruption in every aspect of our system of justice leading to a "witch hunt," when you don't even know the facts of the case yet. You have bought wholesale into the delusion there is no one to be trusted anywhere in government, despite the fact there are plenty of hard-working people with integrity trying to do their jobs. 

You also used to belittle everyone that was against Trump as having TDS, because we recognized what you didn't (or wouldn't admit) at the time.....Trump absolutely has the heart and soul of the Republican Party and is not going away. Now that you realize it, you're losing your mind because of what's happening to him. 

[Didba 5,256]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Ok, then he has to prove it, correct?

Only when it goes to trial.  He doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt as of this moment.

[Didba 5,256]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

They are fishing and they better come up with something more than just a minnow.

You literally cannot know this. This is your conjecture and opinion.

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is not a routine criminal investigation by any means.  I believe you even in this incident, but there are questions that apply when the case is this visible and standard law, although applies, is going to be questioned by both sides.

I don’t have the background you have, so I lean on your expertise, but still question.

I understand your concerns because this is not a routine investigations but the thing is, take this hypo with me on its course and I am not saying that this hypo is true, its just an exercise.

If Trump did commit serious crimes and the FBI is investigating with plans to eventually charge him if they release the affidavit now, Trump can and would exert his influence on any witnesses, informants, whistleblowers, and likely would begin to destroy any evidence that could further incriminate him.  Any suspect being investigated for high crimes/treasonous activity would. Further, because he is former POTUS he has stronger influence than potentially any other criminal defendant ever in the history of the US.

Right now, he doesn't know what the affidavit said so he cannot begin to exert influence.  They have to protect this information until they can charge/indict so that obstruction of the investigation does not occur.

The thing is, if you are correct and it's just a fishing expedition that will come out in several months with the release of the affidavit, I promise.  However if its not a fishing expedition then the information must be protected and it will also come out in several months depending on the timeline.

The affidavit will be released. Just not while there is an ongoing investigation, if it gets to trial, that affidavit will be a exhibit we all get to see.  If it never goes to trial then it will be released as well.

[homersapien 11,367]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

They are fishing and they better come up with something more than just a minnow.

Does it really make sense to you that the DOJ would simply go "fishing" in Mar a Lago without a pretty good idea that what they were looking for was there?

And the fact they actually found it again implies you don't think Trump should be held accountable for his actions.

If that's what you really believe, just come out and admit it instead of talking all around it with implications and statements that you believe Garland and the FBI are acting in bad faith .

Edited August 18, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,367]

13 minutes ago, Didba said:

I understand your concerns because this is not a routine investigations but the thing is, take this hypo with me on its course and I am not saying that this hypo is true, its just an exercise.

If Trump did commit serious crimes and the FBI is investigating with plans to eventually charge him if they release the affidavit now, Trump can and would exert his influence on any witnesses, informants, whistleblowers, and likely would begin to destroy any evidence that could further incriminate him.  Any suspect being investigated for high crimes/treasonous activity would. Further, because he is former POTUS he has stronger influence than potentially any other criminal defendant ever in the history of the US.

Right now, he doesn't know what the affidavit said so he cannot begin to exert influence.  They have to protect this information until they can charge/indict so that obstruction of the investigation does not occur.

The thing is, if you are correct and it's just a fishing expedition that will come out in several months with the release of the affidavit, I promise.  However if its not a fishing expedition then the information must be protected and it will also come out in several months depending on the timeline.

The affidavit will be released. Just not while there is an ongoing investigation, if it gets to trial, that affidavit will be a exhibit we all get to see.  If it never goes to trial then it will be released as well.

Does it have to be released if there are no indictments and thus no trial?

[Didba 5,256]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Does it have to be released if there are no indictments and thus no trial?

I’m not sure. I’d imagine it could be released on motion by either party if the court it was signed in, like how Garland motioned to open the warrant. But have to be? I doubt it. 
 

I’d have to go pull some rules of criminal procedure as that’s a pretty specific question and I do not practice criminal law. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Didba