Guess which president made mishandling of classified documents a felony?
Q: So when did the DOJ start treating removal of classified documents like a felony anyway?
A: When President Trump signed a 2018 law making it a felony. pic.twitter.com/KA6RKYlQ8L— Jeff Yarbro (@yarbro) August 9, 2022
Republicans are busy hyperventilating over an FBI raid of a billionaire's home in which they unquestionably found evidence of multiple felonies. None of these facts are in question, yet for some reason I'm supposed to be outraged.
Trump’s family members and current and former top advisers accused the Biden administration of using Nazi-style tactics in executing a criminal search warrant on Trump. Hardly a mention was made of the apparent reason for the search in the first place — Trump’s allegedly illegal removal of highly sensitive government documents from the White House and a series of reports about his habit of destroying documents.
Let's stop for a second and consider the irony that Trump is being "persecuted" for a law that he made a point of creating himself.
If you or anyone you knew got themselves into a situation because of something they did that was supposed to punish someone else, what would be your reaction? You would tell them, "You did this to yourself." Wouldn't you?
Or let's put it another way. Let's say some regular Joe Shmoe got busted for taking a folder of top secret documents home with him. Would you be outraged at that? Or would you say, "You did this to yourself"?
But because this is an over-privileged billionaire this is somehow different? Bullsh*t!
Normally I agree with Matt Taibbi, but I think that he's been hanging out with the wrong crowd this time.
As of now, it’s impossible to say if Trump’s alleged offense was great, small, or in between. But this for sure is a huge story, and its hugeness extends in multiple directions, including the extraordinary political risk inherent in the decision to execute the raid. If it backfires, if underlying this action there isn’t a very substantial there there, the Biden administration just took the world’s most reputable police force and turned it into the American version of the Tonton Macoute on national television.
Either Taibbi doesn't actually understand what the Tonton Macoute did, or he's been captured by the Washington political bubble.
All of the evidence shows that standard procedure was followed.
In late April, the source says, a federal grand jury began deliberating whether there was a violation of the Presidential Records Act or whether President Trump unlawfully possessed national security information. Through the grand jury process, the National Archives provided federal prosecutors with copies of the documents received from former President Trump in January 2022. The grand jury concluded that there had been a violation of the law, according to the Justice Department source.In the past week, the prosecutor in the case and local Assistant U.S. Attorney went to Florida magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart in West Palm Beach to seek approval for the search of Donald Trump's private residence. The affidavit to obtain the search warrant, the intelligence source says, contained abundant and persuasive detail that Trump continued to possess the relevant records in violation of federal law, and that investigators had sufficient information to prove that those records were located at Mar-a-Lago—including the detail that they were contained in a specific safe in a specific room.
According to experts familiar with FBI practices, Judge Reinhart reviewed the prosecutor's evidence and asked numerous questions about the sources and the urgency. The judge signed a search warrant allowing the FBI to look for relevant material and the FBI then planned the operation, wanting to conduct the raid while Trump was spending time at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. A Secret Service source who spoke on background said the Secret Service director was given advance warning and was later told the specifics of the raid.
What's really going on here is the belief that our betters should be above the law.
We've been trained to think that there are two sets of laws: one for the little people, and a different set of laws for the wealthy and powerful.
[Update]
More irony from Trump-land.
“The mob takes the Fifth Amendment,” the then-candidate said in 2016, deriding those who assert their right against self-incrimination. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
...
Former President Donald Trump said he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Wednesday during a deposition before lawyers from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office in its probe into the Trump Organization’s business practices.
...
It was in March 2019 when New York’s attorney general’s office first opened a civil investigation into the Trump Organization. Over the course of three years, the examination into Trump’s business operation unfolded gradually, leading to subpoenas being issued earlier this year for the former president and two of his adult children who worked at the company.In defense of the subpoenas, the Democratic state attorney general declared in January, “Thus far in our investigation, we have uncovered significant evidence that suggests Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for economic benefit.”
Gosh. It couldn't be that Trump was simply an immensely corrupt president, could it?
Comments
Way back in February there were valid questions
NY Times article from February
The FBI knew exactly what was there
One more thing: the judge who authorized the raid was appointed by Trump.
Why would Trump have appointed Reinhart?
FAQs Federal Judges
Bizarro-Hillary
I'm not sure which of you to believe; what I can say is that what we're seeing now is the exact same effect that made ANY of the deluge of criminal/corruption claims about The Clintons so hard to stick:
The opposition (Sirrus in the '90s, Achenar in the last decade) is SO bonkers, SO ghoulish, SO visibly rotten, SO apoplectic, AND so redolent of a certain "YOU have to be perfect, but WE only have to be right ONCE" attitude that it discourages ceding any point to them, that they preemptively discredit any accusations made against the object of their hate.
Like Clinton, like Trump: With enemies like theirs, who needs friends?
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
The Onion's take on Trump raid
I think it is a bad precedent
...and appears as a political hit job with deep state written all over it. Where is the Hunter prosecution? Or Hillary's, or war criminals Bush and Cheney? But Trump like every president take home files. Talk about dividing the country. The Dimwits have done it again and excited the republican base. They'll be creamed in November. These demented incompetents can't see that most of the country sees collusion between the dims and CIA/deep state.
Just as I opposed Trumps removal from twitter I oppose this politically motivated hit job. I know those with TDS won't or can see it that way, but they need to realize their population has dwindled to 20% or less of the citizenry.
Nov. defeat signed sealed and delivered.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
If this was a bad precedent
...to enforce the law against ex-presidents (not to mention a law that this particular president pushed for), because some partisan wackos might interpret it in a certain way, what should we have done?
Continue putting wealthy ex-presidents above the law?
Should the law continue to only be enforced upon poor and powerless people?
And let's not forget about Trump pleading the 5th today concerning his finances. Should we not investigate/prosecute him for financial crimes because his fans might get angry?
I'm not being confrontational. I'm just trying to see how far your statement should go.
Pleading the 5th is a right we all have
Everyone has the right not to say anything and judges tell juries that they shouldn’t read anything into people refusing to talk. Did you read Trump’s statement for why he did? And do you really think that just because they went after Trump other presidents are going to be held accountable for what they did in office? Murder charges don’t have an expiration date.
And before you lock Trump up how about letting him have a trial first to determine whether he has broken any laws yet. You think those 87,000 new IRS agents are going to be looking into Bezos or any other rich person? The parasite class had congress rewrite the tax code for their benefit and to leave paying taxes for us peons.
@snoopydawg
I totally agree. I tell everyone I know not to talk to the cops. Even if you are the victim or a witness you shouldn't talk to the cops unless there is no other choice.
I'm downright paranoid when it comes to cops. That being said, it was Trump that said this:
“The mob takes the Fifth Amendment,” the then-candidate said in 2016, deriding those who assert their right against self-incrimination. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
It would be completely out of character for me to let a scumbag like Trump get away with this and not me pointing out his hypocrisy.
Not necessarily. Probably not. But if you don't prosecute one, then they will never hold any of them accountable.
Prosecuting one dramatically increases the chances of prosecuting others, if only for partisan reasons. Just like the bullsh*t impeachment of Clinton led to the bullsh*t 1st impeachment of Trump.
Right. There is ZERO chances of Trump spending a day in jail, much less him not having a trial.
This is all about seeing if the political establishment will slap Trump's wrist.
Even a wrist slap will cause a complete meltdown for right-wingers on the internet. Even a modest fine and being banned from holding political office (which is part of the law in question) will be the same as burning Trump and all of his followers at the stake.
Yes I know he said that
But did you read what he said today when he acknowledged that he said it previously?
No
and I don't really care what he said today about the 5th.
I'm sure it was all about his wealthy privileged ass is being victimized. Am I right? Of course I', right. He is incapable of thinking about anyone but himself.
But in this case
.
there may be consequences, because he took the 5th in a CIVIL proceeding in NY, re his shady finances, and while the law varies from state to state, in NY the judge may tell a jury they are free to make an adverse inference about his refusal to answer questions. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/10/trump-deposition...
The problem is, Trump isn't one of the Favored Sons
Strangely enough, neither is Trump (much as he'd like to be).
Why not? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe he's got his own special category. Maybe (especially given his background in the pro-wrestling world) he's in on the act and is just hamming up the role of Heel; doesn't seem like it though. I'd expect to hear from more people subscribing to that hypothesis, but everyone seems to think the acrimony between him and the Establishment, if not the public rationales for it, is sincere.
This is the problem with saying this action against him is a good thing: The only "rule of law" it portends to reinforce is the double-standard law.
If action against Trump set a precedent that led to action against Bush/ Cheney /Clinton /Clinton /Obama /Harris /Harris /Pelosi /Pompeo /Betrayus /Fauci /Barr /Blinken /Alexander /Clapper /Gonzalez /DeLay /North /Rove /Koch /Gates /Kissinger /etc, I'd be all for it - the problem is, if they're already fully engaged (while still denying it outwardly) in neofeudal law with one law for a self-appointed ruling class and another for everyone else, then there is no chance that any precedent set against Trump will reach back to those who deserve it far more - but it WILL affect the rest of us.
Most importantly: Trump's still a bit of an X-factor (albeit nowhere near the extent they'd like us to believe; he's not The Joker, he's Gordon Gekko with a dash of Falstaff thrown in), but by this point, we know what to expect from The Home Team, if not the details: Nothing good.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Trump is
a short-fingered vulgarian, as one lively magazine once put it, yrs ago. Being a crude, ill-mannered and poorly educated conman type, he just doesn't fit in with the buttoned-down, Ivy League Elite in their Club. This being a rare time when I agree with the Club ...
Re the double standard charge, while I'm not a lawyer, so take this fwiw, I would imagine such arguments by defense re selective prosecution or Why Not the Other Guys? would be heard and dismissed as irrelevant by the judge in the initial phase of the trial. And a First Ever criminal prosecution of an ex-president is by definition not going to have precedents.
If "selective prosecution" concerns would be dismissed...
#4.1.1.1.3.1 ...am I spacing something, or does that just prove - or even make more severe - my point?
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Counsel for DT
would need to have some basis for it, not just present bald assertions backed by nothing. Is Hillary the best backing case? The R-majority congressional committees, eight of them, had little to show for months of inquiry, and the DOJ/FBI report(s) concluded there was no criminal conduct. A judge will give that great weight.
What else? GWB's war in Iraq? Judge will say, Did Congress find it worthy of impeachment? NO they didn't, thus not surprising there was no later prosecution in US courts. The rest? Political questions which courts don't deal with, international law which should have been dealt with at The Hague, and other bad but not necessarily illegal things by various presidents which amount to not much more than disagreements over policy.
And changing times can bring about evolving changes in attitudes re holding presidents to account. What was once thought beyond the pale and too socially destructive , bringing criminal charges against an ex-president, is now a more accepted concept. No selective prosecution here, just evolving social attitudes.
No they didn’t
Comey changed his report to let her off the hook. I mentioned that in my previous comment. He found at first that she had been grossly negligent.
Did he actually change
his report, and to "let her off the hook"? Or was there a report at all to change but instead just statements and FBI conclusions announced at a presser? Cite for "grossly negligent" re Hillary?
Comey at his presser said "extremely careless", which is laymen lingo and not quite "grossly negligent", but in any case, Comey himself screwed up by inserting the FBI's investigation into the 2016 election (his Oct 2016 letter to Congress announcing a re-opening of the probe, which predictably became public), and, his own admission later, for political reasons (he thought HRC was going to win and people needed to know etc). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/james-comey-book-hillary...
Heh, Comey himself was probably grossly negligent in his casual public comments and the decision in Oct with the letter to congress. Certainly extremely careless ...
Nate Silver believes the Comey letter, coming just days before the election, probably cost HRC the election. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clin...
Because Strzok changed the wording
Comey was forced to reopen the investigation because the NY FBI was going to release their information on what they found on Anthony Weiner's laptop if he didn’t. What they found on it was all of Hillary’s classified emails going back to 2006. But he didn’t actually look into the information that was on it. He sent a letter to congress and I think someone leaked it, but I’m not sure for certain.
Weiner's wife was Hillary’s BFF Huma Abedin and there was no reason for Hillary’s emails to be on his laptop. I wrote about this back when it was happening, but I have no desire to search for the essays on it. If you want to feel free. Put it in the search bar and see what you find since I wasn’t the only writing about it then. And as Pluto said Hellabitch lost the election herself because she was a bad candidate, was a warmonger and was in the bank’s pockets and gave 3 speeches to them just before she said that she was running and then people found out how she screwed Bernie out of the primary. Then her next boneheaded move was to have the media give Trump $2 billion in free advertising and then she lost the easiest election in history to a game show host. Plus ole Bill was the one who told Trump to run. I’m just happy knowing that she will never be president.
How?
I'm at a loss to imagine how this will have a negative effect on the little guy.
Is the FBI going to start abusing our civil rights? Oh wait. They already have been. I mean, what rights have they not taken away from us already?
I'm saying this is a partisan witch hunt...
As I suggested what about Bush Cheney illegal actions, what about Hillary leaking secrets documents, what about Hunter...where are those DOJ actions? Look, at this point I see the dims as bad as the rethugs, so I don't really care that they've committed political suicide. But I do care about using agencies like the FBI to conduct political witch hunts. As with Russiagate (a deep state / DNC operation), this will bite lefties too. They will be next on the hit list. Hell already are.
EDIT to add:
Hat tip GG in today EB...
This is a minor violation compared to the others above. My two cents YMMV.
One more edit to add Jackson's take which is similar to mine...(16 min)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5yMQ1zq82M]
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
you are free to think that
but partisan witch hunts usually don't have 1) evidence of a crime 2) they aren't instigated by non political people.
I'm not buying this line (although I've seen it all over the place). Trump broke the law. Period. Only his most ardent defenders are denying this, and not very convincingly. That's a HUGE deal.
That's NOT how political witch hunts start!
Political witch hunts start with baseless accusation, and then they dig around for proof.
That's how all the investigations into the Clinton presidency went, as well as the Russiagate thing.
This is different. This has started with "we have proof of minor criminal wrongdoing, and evidence of possibly major criminal wrongdoing."
I think that this could blow up the Republican Party in the end.
Btw, Hunter isn't part of the Biden administration
I just don't
think the What About Those Other Guys! arguments are going to get traction in court. Irrelevant. But I'd like to hear from any actual (sober) lawyers out there.
And re going at Donald aggressively for criminal activities, I wish I had a nickel for every time over the many years I've heard that Ds shouldn't do something because the other side will get angry and and there will be a Backlash and then the Ds will lose and aren't they stupid for doing or even considering doing such a reckless thing!
And, stupidly, the Ds often take those overripe overreactions to heart, and as a result they remain the Most Polite and Feckless political party on either side of the Picketwire River.
Do you think he would have pushed for a law
that would be used against him? He has handlers, as we know.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Presidents
can do things that seem smart at the time, esp in self-serving ways, but come back later to haunt them.
Nixon installing the taping system comes to mind.
Trump was trying to score political points with that bill as it unsubtly referenced Hillary's emails. And he's probably so used to getting away legally with things, he never gave a thought to how it might create problems for himself later. He's always had plenty of lawyers around to take care of such annoyances.
Disagree w about
everything, but on the Dividing the Country charge, didn't Donald Trump do a pretty good job of doing just that during the 5 yrs of his campaigning and presidency?
I'd say it's good and well divided right now, the worst division since the Late Unpleasantness. A badly divided country with both sides barely speaking to each other. And while DJT didn't start it, he did make it worse, much worse, with probably more Unpleasantness to come because of him.
Aided by the DNC set up, Russiagate, supported by the FBI
and the divisive media Taibbi describes so well in "Hate Inc."
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Never said the DNC
and MSM were innocents. R-gate was bogus from the start. But the Donald tendency to divide and demagogue for purely personal political gain was there from the start, well before R-gate came along.
There's the question of national security.
For example, Hillary Clinton was actually forced to step down as Secretary of State. But the law she broke was top secret and could not be prosecuted. Thus, she could not b found guilty and sentenced because that particular crime (a war crime) continued without her.
See my explanation HERE.
Our corrupt Government situation saves many from prosecution.
Again "forced to
step down"? Cite for that? Never heard that story before. If true, which I doubt, why would Obama turn around a couple of yrs later and begin backing her over VP Joe to succeed him as president?
The Democratic Party makes those decisions
Obama appeared very reluctant to back Joe at any time.
What was the reason that you heard that Hillary never went back to work at the State Department?
The US public was not aware of the gun-running, which was a crime in the US at the time, and a war crime, internationally. The public is still not clear on it now, and still don't realize that the US was arming al Qaeda and other terrorist groups working for the US in Syria, including ISIS. Americans were told that the Benghazi problem was about a disrespectful film made in the US about Muhammad. But it was not much of a secret that there was a CIA torture complex behind the abandoned consulate, and the Americans who were killed were CIA murderers for hire. Susan Rice was sent to tell her outrageous lies on Meet the Press. There was never another peep out of Hillary, except when she was suppoenaed to testify at the capitol.
The Republicans knew they could drag her through the mud of insinuation and suspicion during the Benghazi hearings because what she was really doing was highly classified criminal activity that could not be mentioned. She was forced to lie and deceive in front of the cameras. It was a dirty trick, but it worked. The public got a belly full, even though they didn't know what was going on. It was the Benghazi hearings that exposed the secret email server in her home. One thing Hillary didn't do was resign. Her vacant position as SOS ran out the clock during Obama's reelection campaign, after which John Kerry was appointed to take her place.
Hillary had collected a considerable fortune for her Family Foundation from heads of State that she called on as Secretary of State. But no country coughed up as much money for Hillary as Ukraine did; not even Saudi Arabia came close. Both she and Joe Biden cleanup in Ukraine. It became a money laundering Mecca for operatives from both political parties. We are now living through the reckoning from that depravity, hoping the proxy war shitshow doesn't go nuclear.
I am reminded of the phrase
"Hoist with his own petard" from Hamlet.
I find that it tastes very good to say it out loud in this context.
Hoist. Petard. Yesssssss......
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Five times Trump
has mocked those taking the 5th:
Gosh, you mean he's self-serving and unscrupulous?
If we don't look out for his Constitutional rights, we endanger our own.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
NEWS FLASH:
Rank hypocrisy is still worth documenting, even if we assume it comes with the territory with Trump, and many other Rs.
Plus I need a chuckle today, and this hypocrisy caught on tape will have to do for my late afternoon entertainment.
DoublePlus, it probably is going to tick off some Trump supporters here, but so much the better I say. I stand behind the video presentation and will proudly and courageously decline to take the 5th in response to further comments about it!
Having been a Daily Show viewer for years...
...I will say that while rank hypocrisy is indeed worth documenting, there is definitely a 'diminishing returns' effect in any given subject.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Eschewing
the 5th, and taking the 1st, let me say that while I was never a regular viewer of TDS (not a fan of what I perceive is canned laughter and phony applause), I think I catch your drift. But the same could be offered about anything said about Donald, who is by now about as overexposed a celebrity or public figure as we've ever had.
The less said about him, then, the better, right?
He's a doofus, a distraction, and a decoy for far worse; let's take him out of the picture and go after them.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Well, couldn't
we do that AFTER we first indict, convict and put him in the slammer?
And go after what "them"? Who "them"? The Blob? The Deep State? The TDS producers?
Why after?
#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 We've got a backlog of cases, virtually all FAR worse, going back at least 22 years.
One reason I can think of why NOT is: He's clearly being set up as a scapegoat for the others. That is unacceptable. If his prosecution takes priority, there's a risk that scheme will succeed. Bush and Cheney (to name but two) MUST die in prison.
I think it stands to reason that we aim to go in order of severity; Trump belongs in line at the gallows, but not particularly close to the front, and somehow I doubt the reasons are stored at Mar-A-Lago (Why IS it called that??? I keep wondering; "Skywalker Ranch", "Neverland Ranch", and "Xanadu 2.0" are rich-people-estate names I understand).
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Trump would be hosting WWE but for Bill Clinton.
I would advised him to take the 5th. His lawyers were correct. Anything said in civil under oath cases can, and will, be fodder for criminal charges.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Why in particular?
What'd Bill do?
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Talked him into running for Prez
It was supposed to be a setup to allow Shillary to cakewalk into the White House, but it didn't turn out as expected.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I thought that was just speculation
Are you certain? When did he do that?
If you could cite a hard-to-disregard source, I know some people who perhaps ought to know such a thing.
Kinda funny, to be honest....
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
I have often said on this site,
I live with a rich/poor justice system.
I firmly believe rich/poor need to have laws applied to them equally and justly. I fight for that routinely.
I do care when either rich Ds or rich Rs are treated differently, since they are both crooks. (If anyone can name a totally honest, millionaire/billionaire elected official, I will back down. Please. Prove me wrong.)
I would have advised Trump to take the 5th. I would have advised the Clintons and Hunter to take the fifth if they were in that circumstance.
I do not have that TDS thing. I disliked him, like I have disliked presidents for most of my life.
No charges for Ds, but now, an R. An ex- president on the campaign trail. The fbi better find something, or that bunch needs to be eliminated.
This is not a Trump test for me. It is the test of whether we should or should not disband the fbi.
Trump does not give me brain bleed. He never did. I ignored him, just like I do the rest of them in politics and in office.
PLEASE do not get me started on Obama! hehe
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981