Jump to content

Special master appointed to review documents from Mar-a-Lago search; DOJ request to revive criminal probe rejected


Scott

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

There is a big difference between the President initiating an investigation of a former President, and the President approving a request from the Justice Department to examine classified that the former President possessed and refused to return to the government. 

So, how could they "examine classified" information if they didn't raid the place where they were, or did he just not ask how they were going to obtain such?
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Since, unlike Trump, Biden doesn't attempt to politicize the Justice Department, I assume he authorized the FBI to collect the documents and let them decide how to go about it. 

 

From the timelines, Biden approval in early May, raid in early August, it appears that there were three months of negotiations in an attempt to get Trump to return what he should never have taken before they decided a search warrant was necessary.

Apparently you think that Biden just let the FBI raid a former president without giving that an OK.

Yeah right!

  • Love It 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

:cheesy:

 

Sure thing, and we all think the DOJ are impartial, NOT.

The DOJ isn't paid to be "impartial." Judges and juries are expected to be; prosecutors are not. 

 

Having the right to mount a defense is how we balance out the inherent partiality of the prosecutor's role, going so far as to provide and pay for a defense attorney, should a person not be able to, on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently you think that Biden just let the FBI raid a former president without giving that an OK.

Yeah right!

Placeholder already provided an excellent response to your nonsense.  I'll just note that Biden takes his job as President seriously, and it keeps him busy enough.  He doesn't have time to get involved in all the many criminal investigations of Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things keep on lookiing worse for America's most recent ex-President:

Lawyer Told Archives Last Year That Trump Had No Classified Material

The National Archives has told the Justice Department that a lawyer representing former President Donald J. Trump indicated to the archives last year that boxes Mr. Trump had taken to his Mar-a-Lago home from the White House included only nonclassified material like newspaper clippings, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The message was relayed to the National Archives last September by Patrick Philbin, a former top White House lawyer who was representing Mr. Trump’s post-presidency office, to the top lawyer at the archives, Gary Stern, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Philbin indicated to Mr. Stern that the information was based on what Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, believed to be the contents in the boxes, the people said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/politics/archives-trump-classified-clippings.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Things keep on lookiing worse for America's most recent ex-President:

Lawyer Told Archives Last Year That Trump Had No Classified Material

The National Archives has told the Justice Department that a lawyer representing former President Donald J. Trump indicated to the archives last year that boxes Mr. Trump had taken to his Mar-a-Lago home from the White House included only nonclassified material like newspaper clippings, according to a person briefed on the matter.

The message was relayed to the National Archives last September by Patrick Philbin, a former top White House lawyer who was representing Mr. Trump’s post-presidency office, to the top lawyer at the archives, Gary Stern, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Philbin indicated to Mr. Stern that the information was based on what Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, believed to be the contents in the boxes, the people said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/politics/archives-trump-classified-clippings.html

He was given many months to turn over all documents for processing and he failed to do so, basically the attorney lied and now that attorney will be looking at ethics charges.  Everything the Orange one touches leaves others taking the fall.....

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

I admit to bias..........

 

Going all the way back to the "Russia Investigation" started by the Obama Administration during the campaign, I thought about the Role of the President.

 

The President is at the top of the Executive Branch of Government----the Branch with responsibility for Law Enforcement.

 

As the head of the Executive Branch........... and as a supposed Leader............ I think a President should be a big enough person to put his personal feelings aside.......... and do whatever is ultimately best for the good of the country.

 

And that means that when an investigation is begun............ even if it involves the President himself!............ he must do everything he can to help and encourage that investigation............ so the facts can be revealed and decisions made............ NOT to constantly criticize, ridicule, obfuscate, delay, and complain about the investigation! ---------- To help, not to hinder!

 

The President should have said, "I hate what they're doing, but what they are doing is important. So I'm going to help them in any way I can. Because that's what a LEADER does: He puts his personal feelings aside and encourages his people to do their best work, efficiently and effectively."

 

But Trump didn't do that. Not even a little bit!

 

Instead, Trump whined and complained and criticized and obstructed.

 

Here you had people........... supposedly HIS people!.......... trying to do an important job for their country........... and THEIR BOSS is ridiculing and insulting  them, every step along the way!

 

The very person who should be inspiring and encouraging them to do their best work.......... even at his own expense!........... was talking trash about them, at every opportunity!

 

That's the Donald Trump I saw in 2016/2017...........

 

That's the Donald Trump we've seen throughout this whole "Documents" fiasco.

 

Personally, had I been President in 2017/18/19, I would have said "I hate this; it's a distraction. But they've got a job to do, and I'm going to do everything I can to help them do it. That's their job, and, as head of the Executive Branch, this is mine!"

 

----------------

 

Meanwhile, putting all the NOISE aside........

 

When he left the White House, Trump took documents he should not have. Whether that was done innocently, negligently, or with some kind of sinister purpose........ is beside the point. The point is........

 

* Trump took dociments he should not have.

 

* When asked to return them, he didn't.

 

* When asked to return them again, he didnt.

 

* When asked  to return them a third time, he didn't.

 

This is NOT how the head of the Law Enforcement Branch of the Government should behave! Not as the President, and not as a former President!

 

Despite all the NOISE.........all the GARBAGE surrounding this story, the facts themselves are fairly simple...........

 

Whether accidentally or intentionally, when leaving the White House, Trump took documents he should not have.

 

When he was asked to return them, that's what he should have done. He didn't. 

 

Whether or not taking the documents in the first place was accidental or intentional is now beside the point. It's beside the point because........... refusing to return them WAS intentional!

 

To all appearances, it appears the man who sat at the very top of the Law Enforcement Branch of the United States Government ........... believes he is well and securely ABOVE the law!

 

And he's been showing us that he's held that belief......... that attitude.......... in full-force............ since at least 2016!

 

Rather than HELPING Law Enforcement do their jobs........... supposedly "HIS" PEOPLE........... he instead throws up roadblock after roadblock, insulting, criticising, and ridiculing along the way!

 

THAT'S the guy tens of millions of people apparently want back as President?

 

*sigh*

 

 

 

Its in the courts hands now! Its quite possible  that when Mr Trump as Potus took these unclassified docs marked classified ,he and his legal team were inclined to think this was the way it was going to go and knew it would have to be litigated ! Imop
Its ugly because its the left vs the right with liberals and conservative media flavoring!

 

Im content knowing that a judge finally stands up to the Fbi/doj knowing their past when it comes to Trump and especially how they showed contempt by leaking to the press  ! Americans will never know what the content of these docs are . One could only guess ! But if it shows how devious and cunning the establishment has been in their attempt to get a POTUS that wants to expose them and the establishment, by all means 

good for the American people.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, riclag said:

Things have moved on since then:

US asks appeals court to lift judge’s Mar-a-Lago probe hold

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-government-and-politics-819a312522858f638a70cd9a0770d4a4

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Have you forgotten that his lawyers acting on the advice of an unnamed party, falsely asserted to the Justice Dept that all documents marked classified had been returned? That would be another crime called obstructing justice.

 

This has been a qiestion that has intrigued me for a while now.

 

I've seen this same claim in a variety of forms at least a couple of dozen times, now, across multiple threads: "The lawyers lied".......... or "The lawyers were instructed to lie"........... or "The lawyers were told a lie that they blindly passed on."

 

I've seen the multidude of claims/accusations.......... but I've never seen a copy of the document............ the affidavit, apparently.......... that actually shows the attorneys saying  this! (Now, I'm guilty of never having looked myself.......... not THAT interested! lol........... but, to date, I've never seen anyone else providing it, despite having seen literally dozens of assertions about it!)

 

So, my first question is.........

 

When you say, "falsely asserted to the Justice Dept that all documents marked classified had been returned," [placeholder] have you actually SEEN the document where Trump's attorneys said this?

 

See, my concern is this...........

 

Without seeing what was actually said and in what context it was said, it could be very, VERY easy to misconstue what was said......... or to intentionally misrepresent it.

 

Imagine, for example, the two following scenarios.............

 

The attorneys get asked, "Have you returned all the classified documents?" The attorneys respond "All classified documents that were asked for  have been returned."

 

*  Now, one person reporting on this might INCLUDE the clause "that were asked for," and may accept that not ALL classified documents were returned, but everything THAT WAS ASKED FOR was!

 

(Thus, what the attorneys said was true........... even though............ some classified documents still remained at Mar-A-Lago!)

 

*  Another person reporting on it might LEAVE OUT the "that were asked for" part of the affidavit, then report that the attorneys LIED!

 

They would say the attorneys said "All classified documents were returned" [no "that were asked for"]........... and the fact that classified document still remained at Mar-A-Lago PROVES the attorneys had lied!

 

You see the problem here?

 

How the Justice Department asked the question............ matters.

 

How the attorneys answered the questions asked.......... matters.

 

Whether the question asked was general and all-encompassing........... or specific to a single, individual circimstance............ matters.

 

And then, of course, how interested the person doing the reporting is in conveying accurately the questions, the answers, AND THE CONTEXT............. matters greatly!

 

If we haven't seen the actual claim made by Trump's attorneys............ how can we possibly know what's correct or not correct???

 

Because as I've shown, without the supporting documentation............  it would be INCREDIBLY EASY to misconstrue or misrepresent what the attorneys actually said or did! Drop a word here; add a word there.......... and suddenly, something said truthfully one way............ becomes something that appears entirely false!

 

So.............

 

Have you seen the offending affidavit and what it actually says?

 

I haven't ........ even after seeing the accusation made literally dozens of times!

 

Hmmm?

 

 

 

Edited by KanchanaburiGuy
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

This has been a qiestion that has intrigued me for a while now.

 

I've seen this same claim in a variety of forms at least a couple of dozen times, now, across multiple threads: "The lawyers lied".......... or "The lawyers were instructed to lie"........... or "The lawyers were told a lie that they blindly passed on."

 

I've seen the multidude of claims/accusations.......... but I've never seen a copy of the document............ the affidavit, apparently.......... that actually shows the attorneys saying  this! (Now, I'm guilty of never having looked myself.......... not THAT interested! lol........... but, to date, I've never seen anyone else providing it, despite having seen literally dozens of assertions about it!)

 

So, my first question is.........

 

When you say, "falsely asserted to the Justice Dept that all documents marked classified had been returned," [placeholder] have you actually SEEN the document where Trump's attorneys said this?

 

See, my concern is this...........

 

Without seeing what was actually said and in what context it was said, it could be very, VERY easy to misconstue what was said......... or to intentionally misrepresent it.

 

Imagine, for example, the two following scenarios.............

 

The attorneys get asked, "Have you returned all the classified documents?" The attorneys respond "All classified documents that were asked for  have been returned."

 

Now, one person reporting on this might INCLUDE the clause "that were asked for," amd mau accept that not ALL classified documents were returned, but everything that was 

 

 

Page 20/21

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.125.0_1.pdf

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

First, thank you. Now........

 

Quoting from the link, page 20...........

 

"Any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena...."

 

Which could very easily mean the same thing that I have suggested............ "that were asked for."

 

So the attorneys could have very truthfully said they returned all the things they were asked for........... (that were "responsive to the subpoena").............. while NOT returning classified documents that were outside the parameters defined by the subpoena. (Subpoenas, as I understand it, have to be fairly specific. They can't just say, "Give us what you've got!" Lol)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

First, thank you. Now........

 

Quoting from the link, page 20...........

 

"Any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena...."

 

Which could very easily mean the same thing that I have suggested............ "that were asked for."

 

So the attorneys could have very truthfully said they returned all the things they were asked for........... (that were "responsive to the subpoena").............. while NOT returning classified documents that were outside the parameters defined by the subpoena. (Subpoenas, as I understand it, have to be fairly specific. They can't just say, "Give us what you've got!" Lol)

 "further stated he was not advised there were any records in any private office space or other location in Mar-a-Lago."

 

The lawyer (Individual Two)  was advised (by Individual One who is not named) there were no documents in office but there were"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

First, thank you. Now........

 

Quoting from the link, page 20...........

 

"Any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena...."

 

Which could very easily mean the same thing that I have suggested............ "that were asked for."

 

So the attorneys could have very truthfully said they returned all the things they were asked for........... (that were "responsive to the subpoena").............. while NOT returning classified documents that were outside the parameters defined by the subpoena. (Subpoenas, as I understand it, have to be fairly specific. They can't just say, "Give us what you've got!" Lol)

Apparently it was Mark Meadows who told the lawyer there were no documents present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Apparently it was Mark Meadows who told the lawyer there were no documents present.

Two different issues, it seems.

Mark Meadows Told National Archives Mar-A-Lago Document Boxes Were Filled With News Clips: Report

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2022/09/16/mark-meadows-told-national-archives-mar-a-lago-document-boxes-were-filled-with-news-clips-report/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

 "further stated he was not advised there were any records in any private office space or other location in Mar-a-Lago."

 

The lawyer (Individual Two)  was advised (by Individual One who is not named) there were no documents in office but there were"

Careful with your reading there!..........

 

"Not advised there were any records".........

 

..........says something very different from.................

 

"Advised there were not any records."

 

(You said........."The lawyer [Individual Two]  was advised [by Individual One who is not named] there were no documents in office, but there were.")

 

Your misreading has converted "No one told me there were".......... into......... "Someone told me there weren't." [paraphrased]

 

And that's exactly how these things wind up getting miscontrued and/or misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise! (And shows exactly why it's so important to be able to see what was actually said, rather than just someone's interpretation of what was said!)

 

 

 

Edited by KanchanaburiGuy
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...