That is the southern polite way of saying "he is full of ****"

Im Gipper said:

---

That is the southern polite way of saying "he is full of ****"

---

Not completely but he gets pretty far off the reservation.

There's probably a couple hundred people in the US with the requisite knowledge, training and experience to competently manage the defense of Trump in this case.

Half of those people won't touch the case for political reasons.

The other half wont get involved because the case it too radioactive. Maybe they've already worked with Trump before, maybe they are conflicted out, maybe they don't want the heat associated with going up against the DOJ or maybe they are caught up in the intimidation tactics outlined in hawg's thread above.

All this amounts to a 6th amendment issue. The pool of competent counsel has been tainted, and there is no way that if this case goes to trial that Trump gets an impartial jury. Where they gonna find people with no opinion on Trump and can agree to be impartial? That in and of itself is reason to ***can this case on constitutional grounds and grant Trump the extraordinary remedy of qualified immunity for anything related to his service as president.

So if you Trump right now you got to find the best experts you can. Sort out this co-conspirator counsel issue, get something on file on 6th amendment constitutional grounds, attack the indictment on constitutional grounds, attack the warrant, and figure out some way to get this case out of district court and in front of the 11th circuit any way you can.

jrdaustin said:

---

Damn. Didn't even give me time to clarify.

With respect to YOUR arguments: "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled." (Just kidding) It will be interesting to see how the universe of document classification theories/arguments evolve throughout the process.

---

I'll also share this article (https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-920-general-versus-specific-statutes) about "specific" vs "general" statutes which describes that when the argument is raised, the law (court) generally ends up giving the prosecutor discretion of which statute to use.

So, even though I want to reiterate that I do not think this indictment really implicates that question in the first place, even if it did, the conclusion is that the DOJ probably has discretion of how to proceed.

This case is becoming less about Trump and more about the full power and resources of the federal government being used to go after a single man.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

This case is becoming less about Trump and more about the full power and resources of the federal government being used to go after a single man.

---

How was you nap Mr Van Winkle?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

This case is becoming less about Trump and more about the full power and resources of the federal government being used to go after a single man.

---

Just give Trump a little time. He'll make it all about him again.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Damn. Didn't even give me time to clarify.

With respect to YOUR arguments: "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled." (Just kidding) It will be interesting to see how the universe of document classification theories/arguments evolve throughout the process.

---

I'll also share this article (https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-920-general-versus-specific-statutes) about "specific" vs "general" statutes which describes that when the argument is raised, the law (court) generally ends up giving the prosecutor discretion of which statute to use.

So, even though I want to reiterate that I do not think this indictment really implicates that question in the first place, even if it did, the conclusion is that the DOJ probably has discretion of how to proceed.

---

You quoted DOJ guidance for how the DOJ can abuse its power? Seems legit.

Quote:

---

So, even though I want to reiterate that I do not think this indictment really implicates that question in the first place, even if it did, the conclusion is that the DOJ probably has discretion of how to proceed.

---

But it is not unfettered discretion. And Jack Smith should know that after his 9-0 beatdown from SCOTUS on the same issue in the Bob McDonnell case.

Quote:

---

"The Government's expansive interpretation of 'official act' would raise significant constitutional concerns," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. Representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns. The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships."

Roberts added: "There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."

---

LINK

In non-legalese, Smith's construction of federal criminal statutes sucks- C.J. John Roberts.

Manhattan said:

---

And even if you firmly believe they were declassified, which I don't think you actually believe that…

How are you okay with him waving around national security information, for having classified documents in a bathroom anyone can access for a political donation, including a Chinese spy.

---

OK is probably strong language, but at least it's different than doing blow in the bathroom with them like everyone else.

That case was not the same issue. That case involved the interpretation of an element of a statute.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

That case was not the same issue. That case involved the interpretation of an element of a statute.

---

That's nonsensical. You are approaching Robert Barnes' levels of abtruse.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

That case was not the same issue. That case involved the interpretation of an element of a statute.

---

That's nonsensical. You are approaching Robert Barnes' levels of abtruse.

---

WHOA!! Flagged over the top, personal attack



(Kidding of course)

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

That case was not the same issue. That case involved the interpretation of an element of a statute.

---

That's nonsensical. You are approaching Robert Barnes' levels of abtruse.

---

WHOA!! Flagged over the top, personal attack



(Kidding of course)

---

LOL. Saying it isn't statutory construction because it is only the statutory construction of an element of a statute and not the whole statute is convoluted and nonsensical.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Damn. Didn't even give me time to clarify.

With respect to YOUR arguments: "That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Overruled." (Just kidding) It will be interesting to see how the universe of document classification theories/arguments evolve throughout the process.

---

I'll also share this article (https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-920-general-versus-specific-statutes) about "specific" vs "general" statutes which describes that when the argument is raised, the law (court) generally ends up giving the prosecutor discretion of which statute to use.

So, even though I want to reiterate that I do not think this indictment really implicates that question in the first place, even if it did, the conclusion is that the DOJ probably has discretion of how to proceed.

---

Yeah, but no. The discretion is specifically indicated when MULTIPLE statues exist that have been broken. Then, the prosecutorial discretion comes into play of which one to use.

It specifically said that if the two statutes conflict, normally the more recent statute and the one with more applicable "relative specificity" would govern.

You're giving the Government the benefit of the doubt to criminalize what has been, and should be, an administrative issue based upon the applicable statute. It should be up to the prosecution to demonstrate WHY the chosen statute should negate the PRA. Seeing as this is the criminal resource manual, it sure seems to bolster the argument that sanctions for malicous prosecution are warranted here.

I like your analysis, but you seem to take quite a bit of license with interpretation in this instance.

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

That case was not the same issue. That case involved the interpretation of an element of a statute.

---

That's nonsensical. You are approaching Robert Barnes' levels of abtruse.

---

WHOA!! Flagged over the top, personal attack



(Kidding of course)

---

LOL. Saying it isn't statutory construction because it is only the statutory construction of an element of a statute and not the whole statute is convoluted and nonsensical.

---

I'm referring the specific issue prosecuting using a general or specific statute rather than the general universe of statutory interpretation, which I imagine covers a majority of all cases heard by the Supreme Court.

If you the DOJ here you on easy street. Cruising down the road in a el dorado with the top down.

You got a legion of highly trained and highly motivated people who are ready to jump at the chance to work on the most high profile criminal case in American history.

If you the DOJ, time is on your side. There is no consequence for success or failure.

You can ride this case until the wheels fall off. It makes no difference to you, because at the end of the day some other branch of government will probably decide the final resolution before your work on the case comes to fruition.

The biggest problem the DOJ got is whether somebody ****ed around with the warrant or anything else that could inadvertently come out and nuke the case. But the fact that this has probably been in the works at some level prior to 2020, you would assume that anything like that has been already locked down 6-ways from Sunday.

The point is that if you trying to defend this case you already way overmatched. Even if you a billionaire like Donald Trump.

Is the DOJ motivated to save face and try and dispose of this case early? That's a political question.

Is the DOJ motivated to see this case through until the bitter end? Also a political question.

Quote:

---

It specifically said that if the two statutes conflict, normally the more recent statute and the one with more applicable "relative specificity" would govern.

---

That's not what the article says, for two reasons. The article says (1) they have to clearly conflict under the Roseman case; and (2) those are not determinative, but only relevant factors to interpreting Congressional intent.

And, while I'm not quoting from the article, those factors aren't used by the Roseman case to determine if the two laws conflict in the first place.

To quote the case directly:

Quote:

---

Even though a mechanical application of factors such as the relative dates of enactment and the relative specificity of the statutes, absent other manifestations of legislative intent, might be helpful where there is a clear case of conflict between two laws, it is not helpful in deciding whether two laws are in conflict at all...

---

Let's go back to basics.

Absent the PRA, would NARA have any claim to these documents, be them Personal, Presidential, NDI, or classified?

Absent the PRA would DOJ have had ANY standing to open a criminal investigation into a former POTUS over documents?

What was the legislative intent of the espionage act, and is it constitutional to apply this act to a former president on the basis of a dispute surrounding the handling of presidential records?

That't the question being put forth by the majority of experts at this point in time.

Why? Because it's the wheel that squeaks the loudest. All other arguments are too nuanced, convoluted and unprecedented to deal with until the cards start coming in.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

It specifically said that if the two statutes conflict, normally the more recent statute and the one with more applicable "relative specificity" would govern.

---

That's not what the article says, for two reasons. The article says (1) they have to clearly conflict under the Roseman case; and (2) those are not determinative, but only relevant factors to interpreting Congressional intent.

And, while I'm not quoting from the article, those factors aren't used by the Roseman case to determine if the two laws conflict in the first place.

To quote the case directly:

Quote:

---

Even though a mechanical application of factors such as the relative dates of enactment and the relative specificity of the statutes, absent other manifestations of legislative intent, might be helpful where there is a clear case of conflict between two laws, it is not helpful in deciding whether two laws are in conflict at all...

---

---

That's also not what the article said.

It said "At least one" case. The Roseman appelate decision was the citation example given, not the standard.

But on the other hand, the criminal statute that Trump has been charged with presents a legitimate problem.

The judges and law clerks at the 11th circuit are about to have to earn their paychecks.

Quote:

---

I am not sure their definition of "willful" is going to hold up. I suspect this is their way to get around the fact they never asked for SPECIFIC documents back, which further undermines both their search warrant and overall case, particularly as it relates to national defense information being such a vague concept.

---

Probably one of the best arguments I've heard so far.

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

It specifically said that if the two statutes conflict, normally the more recent statute and the one with more applicable "relative specificity" would govern.

---

That's not what the article says, for two reasons. The article says (1) they have to clearly conflict under the Roseman case; and (2) those are not determinative, but only relevant factors to interpreting Congressional intent.

And, while I'm not quoting from the article, those factors aren't used by the Roseman case to determine if the two laws conflict in the first place.

To quote the case directly:

Quote:

---

Even though a mechanical application of factors such as the relative dates of enactment and the relative specificity of the statutes, absent other manifestations of legislative intent, might be helpful where there is a clear case of conflict between two laws, it is not helpful in deciding whether two laws are in conflict at all...

---

---

That's also not what the article said.

It said "At least one" case. The Roseman appelate decision was the citation example given, not the standard.

---

I don't what you meant by "it", but that case is where what followed "it" comes from.

Can we at least correct the fact that the referenced material is not an "article" or some sort of independent legal journal, but is from something labeled as a MANUAL for the CORRUPT, WEAPONIZED DOJ?

jrdaustin said:

---

Let's go back to basics.

Absent the PRA, would NARA have any claim to these documents, be them Personal, Presidential, NDI, or classified?

Absent the PRA would DOJ have had ANY standing to open a criminal investigation into a former POTUS over documents?

---

NARA specifically? I don't know. This isn't a dispute between NARA and Trump, per se.

The federal government more generally? Yes, I do think so.

Since the DOJ Criminal Resource Manual has been invoked though, here is their take on "knowingly" and "willfully"

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-910-knowingly-and-willfully

Did the original subpoena to Trump ask just for documents with classified markings or did it include "documents that may be considered national defense information" along with some guidance on what that might be?

If not, that again undermines the "willfully" part.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Let's go back to basics.

Absent the PRA, would NARA have any claim to these documents, be them Personal, Presidential, NDI, or classified?

Absent the PRA would DOJ have had ANY standing to open a criminal investigation into a former POTUS over documents?

---

NARA specifically? I don't know. This isn't a dispute between NARA and Trump, per se.

The federal government more generally? Yes, I do think so.

---

This STARTED with a dispute between Trump and NARA that the WH Counsel then advised, quite wrongly, for NARA to buddy up with the DOJ/FBI to "come up with something on Trump".

If Trump wants to live to fight another day his strategy should be to get this case out of district court and to the 11th circuit in a way that gives them the procedural means to dispose of the case. If this is allowed to drag out into to a 3-year long donkey show then Trump's done. And with that we done as a nation functioning under the rule of law.

So if we get to that point, I for one welcome our new alien and / or marxist overlords.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

If Trump wants to live to fight another day his strategy should be to get this case out of district court and to the 11th circuit in a way that gives them the procedural means to dispose of the case. If this is allowed to drag out into to a 3-year long donkey show then Trump's done. And with that we done as a nation functioning under the rule of law.

So if we get to that point, I for one welcome our new alien and / or marxist overlords.

---

Before I support aliens and marxists, I would be willing to give RFK Jr a try. Though he may indeed be part alien.

jrdaustin said:

---

Let's go back to basics.

Absent the PRA, would NARA have any claim to these documents, be them Personal, Presidential, NDI, or classified?

Absent the PRA would DOJ have had ANY standing to open a criminal investigation into a former POTUS over documents?

---

I posted several days ago about the legislative histories of the acts for federal records versus presidential records.

Federal records acts started in the 1950s and did not include presidential records. Those were still the property of the President.

It remained that way until Nixon's resignation. Ford signed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act in December 1974, a few months after Nixon resigned in August. Under the act, the GSA was designated the repository. Nixon sued the GSA, who had seized his records and tapes.

At issue were Executive Privilege, separation of powers and privacy concerns. Nixon lost in a 7-2 decision in 1977.

The next year, the Presidential Records Act was passed and signed to become effective in 1981.

IOW, Presidential records have never been under the tranche of federal records. And instead of amending those acts, they created a new one just for Presidents and Vice Presidents. Separate tranche.

So to answer your question no, in my view.

Important to note that the decision on Nixon, per my recollection, was specific to Executive Privilege and not to his physical possession of the tapes but whether he had to provide the tapes to an investigation, with SCOTUS saying Exec Privilege cannot preclude a legit investigation (by Congress if I recall, but would apply to DOJ or other courts).

That's not the set of facts we have here. This is purely about possession of unspecified documents that were ASSUMED to have "national defense information" based on them "having classified markings".

Continuing to point to a very, very weak construct by the DOJ.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

It specifically said that if the two statutes conflict, normally the more recent statute and the one with more applicable "relative specificity" would govern.

---

That's not what the article says, for two reasons. The article says (1) they have to clearly conflict under the Roseman case; and (2) those are not determinative, but only relevant factors to interpreting Congressional intent.

And, while I'm not quoting from the article, those factors aren't used by the Roseman case to determine if the two laws conflict in the first place.

To quote the case directly:

Quote:

---

Even though a mechanical application of factors such as the relative dates of enactment and the relative specificity of the statutes, absent other manifestations of legislative intent, might be helpful where there is a clear case of conflict between two laws, it is not helpful in deciding whether two laws are in conflict at all...

---

---

That's also not what the article said.

It said "At least one" case. The Roseman appelate decision was the citation example given, not the standard.

---

I don't what you meant by "it", but that case is where what followed "it" comes from.

---

I was beginning to think you were entertaining yourself by muddying the water. I'm more sure of that now. Bad bull.

"IT" was the portion of the Criminal Justice Manual YOU linked to.

The argument that a specific statute enacted subsequent to a general statute repeals the latter is often advanced and often rejected; however, at least one United States Court of Appeals has indicated that if the two statutes clearly "conflict," the congressional intent may be determined by looking to the dates of enactment and the statutes' relative specificity. United States v. Roseman, 364 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 918 (1967).

Please explain how that establishes Roseman as the standard to determine whether statutes conflict. Hint. It doesn't.

We're way off in the weeds, now. That's why I put the back to basics post in. You seem to think that DOJ has absolute discretion in opening a criminal probe against a current Presidential candidate. I disagree. They've already been slapped down for misuse of FISA warrants. I'm hopeful we'll see another smackdown in the near future.

Best move Trump has made so far was challenging that warrant back in August of 2022. That may be crucial if we are to see an early disposition of this case.

Worst move he's made so far is potentially leaving co-conspirator out to dry.

To be clear, they were lightly admonished with no consequences for the FISA abuse and by no means smacked down. That in itself is a YUUUGE problem.