Retired FBI Agent said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Milley has difficulty finding his ass without both hands and a spotter. LOL.

---

Indeed. But to be fair, Trump likely had no way to test that theory before nominating Milley.

---

LOL. Touche.

So how does one "willfully" begin withholding something at a point and time not related to a demand for it to be returned? Would the crime not had started much, much later than Jan 20, 2021?

Are the claiming the 2nd he was no longer POTUS, he should have gone simultaneously through every box accumulated from his Presidency and made a determination of Prez v Personal, determine classification of any document, and then in an act not done in any prior transition immediately have turned over all documents that could have ever remotely been considered to contain the undefined "national defense information"?

Seems like they held Trump to a standard he could never meet. Maybe I am thinking about it too much, but the start date of the crime strikes me as odd. Or are those dates just bookends which makes only slightly more sense.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If they were marked as "Classified" or "Presidential Documents", then you might have something.

---

Guess you missed the part where NARA had their counterpart in the White House.

What do you think they do? White House Office of Record Management? Organize his LPs and 45s?

---

I read that elsewhere. Also, that the NARA people were there to give advice on how to determine how to decide which records were personal and which which weren't, but not to help go through them.

Quote:

---

Seems like they held Trump to a standard he could never meet. Maybe I am thinking about it too much, but the start date of the crime strikes me as odd. Or are those dates just bookends which makes only slightly more sense.

---

No starting with the date he was officially out of office is an artifice. Part of the "willfull" element, I suppose.. At least in their minds.

These prosecutors are not the most honest as their records attest. If they were actually good at their jobs, they wouldn't have to cheat, no?

#truth

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.

So he committed a felony by being a FPOTUS as of a certain moment in time and as of that particular moment he willfully committed that crime by hanging on to non-specified documents stored in a manner not personally directed by him at locations not chosen by him for a period of time not determined by him.

These non-specific unknown number and content of documents were then supposed to have been magically gathered and packaged and return to… NARA? the FBI? The Pentagon?

Oh, and during this magical time anyone touching a box is a co-conspirator in the crime and if someone without need to know on the national defense information saw anything that was also a crime committed by Trump and his co-conspirator.

I mean, that is at the most basic level what the charges say.

This case has more problems than Bragg's or the Bergdorf Hag's complaint.

Quote:

---

Walt Nauta, Trump's bodyman and co-defendant in the case, had not secured a local attorney to sponsor the appearance of his DC-based attorney by Tuesday's hearing, and thus was not able to enter his plea.

The proceeding for Nauta to enter his plea is scheduled for June 27.

---

Trump legal team already screwing up by not getting the co-conspirator's legal representation sorted out right off the bat.

Quote:

---

CNN

US District Judge Aileen Cannon issued her first order since former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith for allegedly mishandling classified information, instructing the parties to get the ball rolling to obtain security clearances for the lawyers who will need them.

In a Thursday order, Cannon gave "all attorneys of record and forthcoming attorneys of record" a Friday deadline for getting in touch with the Justice Department's litigation security group so that they can expedite "the necessary clearance process." By June 20, she wants the lawyers to file a notice confirming they have complied with her instructions.

---

Opportunity to obtain an expedited security clearance is a windfall for any private attorney associated with this case.

PDA and sock drawer case kills this whole prosecution. Wake me up after it all comes to fruition. Trump '24.

I am going to assume that is become it becomes a very marketable adder for "specialized" representation?

I don't think I would ever want such a clearance. It's more fun for me to guess about things that are secret then wait and see if one day I was right… or wrong.

Aliens stored in Nevada? Not buying it. Oswald and Kennedy? I think he was the lone shooter but that there is much, much more to LHO than we have ever been allowed to know.

Having access to all the answers and secrets seems too dull.

Quote:

---

Trump legal team already screwing up by not getting the co-conspirator's legal representation sorted out right off the bat.

---

LOL.

Wait, were you serious about that?

Trump hires a special envoy of 6th amendment experts to develop the argument that Trump's fundamental rights have been violated and he is entitled to extraordinary relief in this case.

Trump argues that the monolith that is the federal government has tainted the pool of counsel available to him.

Trump argues that it's impossible for him to be tried before an impartial jury.

Trump argues that any further action in the district court will be constitutionally flawed on that basis.

Trump asks that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Trump asks for the special remedy of a judgment and declaration of qualified immunity for anything related to his presidential records.

Bryanisbest said:

---

PDA and sock drawer case kills this whole prosecution.

---

Trump didn't defy the subpoena to hide his personal journal. People are gonna be surprised when their pet legal theories they read about on some right wing blog or Twitter account aren't tried even by Trump's counsel.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

PDA and sock drawer case kills this whole prosecution.

---

Trump didn't defy the subpoena to hide his personal journal. People are gonna be surprised when their pet legal theories they read about on some right wing blog or Twitter account aren't tried even by Trump's counsel.

---

Go ahead and let us know what legal theories they will work with. Or are you not wanting to ruin the surprise?>

I've gone back and looked through a number of TxAggie2011's posts, starting with the second one that summarily negated PRA, and said it was dealt with and eliminated by the 11th Circuit. He went further to say that Trump's team would be stupid to even bring it up.

That statement confused me at the time and does so still. Because it appears to me that this case has to rely at its core on negating PRA.

See this article by Greg Jarrett - Specifically the section addressing PRA.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-indictment-slam-dunk-case-liberal-media-believes

Granted, it's an opinion piece, but I do think an important point is the concept of General Statute vs. Specific Statute. PRA is a law that was written 1978 specifically for Presidents. But by deliniating Presidential vs. Personal records and giving the Government a stake in the documents, it doesn't the negate the processes and procedures that must be gone throught to determine status of documents. It also doesn't eliminate the inherent protections that a President has in going through those determinations.

In other words, if the PRA doesn't apply in this case - a law that is so specific that it has applied to 7 people in its existence - then it doesn't apply for anyone. Time will tell, but I'm very curious, 2011, for you to expand on your rationale that the 11th Circuit decision has conclusively settled this issue and the point is now moot.

Whistle Pig said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

PDA and sock drawer case kills this whole prosecution.

---

Trump didn't defy the subpoena to hide his personal journal. People are gonna be surprised when their pet legal theories they read about on some right wing blog or Twitter account aren't tried even by Trump's counsel.

---

Prior to 1978, it didn't matter whether it was a journal, Area 51 docs, Manhattan Project docs, (see what I did there?) or a blue dress. All of those items would belong to the President.

That's not to say that certain National Defense docs couldn't be at risk and that it couldn't be incredibly stupid to have certain documents at a FPOTUS's house. But it wouldn't be criminal.

So a law was passed to give Govt. a stake in documents that could be considered "for the Public good". So the argument that you and others chomping at the crucifixion bit appear to be making is that the establishment of this new law in 1978 somehow now exposes a FPOTUS to a General 1917 statute establishing a criminal liability where it previously didn't exist.

If I've got this right, I'm thinking that's a bit of a reach.

The poster in question can choose to ultimately speak for themselves, but in my observations in particular on this matter they take a decided PRO government stance on the issue. Often boiling very complex issues and statutes into discrete observations / opinions.

Its not that they are always wrong, its the issue that alternative takes by other folks knowledgeable on the matter are dismissed as "red herrings".

Most constitutional scholars and legal folks will agree that the PRA has to apply here as this is what it was intended for. The preservation of Presidential records, the idea that certain records should be retained for the people (and by the people - the government works for the people and thus the government itself is not the one in ultimate control nor possession).

The PRA is not mentioned by Team Biden DOJ as it is in conflict with their stated objective to eliminate Trump from ever serving as POTUS. Biden admitted this last November. DOJ is attempting the Alvin Bragg style persecution by ignoring applicable laws, *******izing other laws to arrive at a criminal charge.

Banana republic.

The Justice Department has moral and legal agency notwithstanding the make up of the current administration. The evidence is overwhelming.

However, in the interest of saving our Republic from another right wing insurrection and further division, President Biden should pardon Mr. Trump and let him disappear back into whatever slime infested ****hole he chooses to slither back towards.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

The Justice Department has moral and legal agency notwithstanding the make up of the current administration. The evidence is overwhelming.

However, in the interest of saving our Republic from another right wing insurrection and further division, President Biden should pardon Mr. Trump and let him disappear back into whatever slime infested ****hole he chooses to slither back towards.

---

Words together in a an order not shown to be sensical agency regarding currents of such an administration, makes sense of no with no facts withstanding to overwhelm those being incapable of the written word. The evidence whelms not a thing accept the gullible.

fka ftc said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

The Justice Department has moral and legal agency notwithstanding the make up of the current administration. The evidence is overwhelming.

However, in the interest of saving our Republic from another right wing insurrection and further division, President Biden should pardon Mr. Trump and let him disappear back into whatever slime infested ****hole he chooses to slither back towards.

---

Words together in a an order not shown to be sensical agency regarding currents of such an administration, makes sense of no with no facts withstanding to overwhelm those being incapable of the written word. The evidence whelms not a thing accept the gullible.

---

Your failure to understand what I wrote isn't my problem=)

Bill Clinternet said:

---

The Justice Department has moral and legal agency notwithstanding the make up of the current administration. The evidence is overwhelming.

However, in the interest of saving our Republic from another right wing insurrection and further division, President Biden should pardon Mr. Trump and let him disappear back into whatever slime infested ****hole he chooses to slither back towards.

---

Yes, it does. But:

A. It is not absolute. That's why they still have to appear before a court official.
B. It is questionable whether that agency automatically and summarily supersedes a FPOTUS, who the overwhelming evidence indicates is not just some random guy.
C. It does not give DOJ the authority to pick and choose what statutes to use - or more specifically disregard - in executing such agency.

If you think about it, your blanket statement could be the bedrock for the establishment of a true third world government placing unelected bureaucrats at the highest point in the food chain - enabling them to eliminate political opponents at will.

No thanks. But thank you for playing.

Quote:

---

Granted, it's an opinion piece, but I do think an important point is the concept of General Statute vs. Specific Statute.

---

A large part of criminal statutory construction, as I have stated before. Which makes sense when one considers the basic 6th Amendment requirement for all criminal statutes, that they be drawn narrowly enough to provide the public notice of what exactly is the conduct being prohibited. That's a big problem with the indictment Bragg has brought against Trump in Manhattan. He bootstrapped up to a felony charge on the basis of another as yet unknown charge. No notice of what that potential charge is.

But the PRA is not a statute that has a criminal component at all, nor does it incorporate any other federal criminal statute for failure to follow its provisions. It therefore was no unreasonable for Trump to believe the PRA applied him in this context and act accordingly under it. And there goes the intent argument under "willfull retention" in the Espionage Act.

Because there have been so few situations with former Presidents, I think many of the legal pundits original reactions when the indictment was revealed kind of overreacted. Yes, it does look and sound bad for Trump and at a jury trial, if it comes to that, he's running a risk of at least one conviction.

OTOH, Jack Smith is running the same amount of risk of one holdout and a hung jury with a mistrial.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

The Justice Department has moral and legal agency notwithstanding the make up of the current administration. The evidence is overwhelming.

However, in the interest of saving our Republic from another right wing insurrection and further division, President Biden should pardon Mr. Trump and let him disappear back into whatever slime infested ****hole he chooses to slither back towards.

---

Trump will get a pardon from Biden, but after he and Dems have used this charge to their greatest political advantage. They are rushing to indict trump to get him nominated (let's face it, if they weren't propping up Trump he'd be in serious trouble right now. He had nothing to sell other than being a loser for multiple cycles).

Once the 2024 election is over and Biden crushes Trump, and the anti-trump sentiment helps other dems find success down the ballot, the long-awaited federal trial will spookily be about to begin. Then all of a sudden a Biden pardon will be issued.

jrdaustin said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

The Justice Department has moral and legal agency notwithstanding the make up of the current administration. The evidence is overwhelming.

However, in the interest of saving our Republic from another right wing insurrection and further division, President Biden should pardon Mr. Trump and let him disappear back into whatever slime infested ****hole he chooses to slither back towards.

---

Yes, it does. But:

A. It is not absolute. That's why they still have to appear before a court official.
B. It is questionable whether that agency automatically and summarily supersedes a FPOTUS, who the overwhelming evidence indicates is not just some random guy.
C. It does not give DOJ the authority to pick and choose what statutes to use - or more specifically disregard - in executing such agency.

If you think about it, your blanket statement could be the bedrock for the establishment of a true third world government placing unelected bureaucrats at the highest point in the food chain - enabling them to eliminate political opponents at will.

No thanks. But thank you for playing.

---

I thought very lucidly about it before posting. No one is above the law. He is no longer POTUS so the Justice Department precedent concerning indictment of a sitting US President is not relevant.

jrdaustin said:

---

I've gone back and looked through a number of TxAggie2011's posts, starting with the second one that summarily negated PRA, and said it was dealt with and eliminated by the 11th Circuit. He went further to say that Trump's team would be stupid to even bring it up.

That statement confused me at the time and does so still. Because it appears to me that this case has to rely at its core on negating PRA.

See this article by Greg Jarrett - Specifically the section addressing PRA.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-indictment-slam-dunk-case-liberal-media-believes

Granted, it's an opinion piece, but I do think an important point is the concept of General Statute vs. Specific Statute. PRA is a law that was written 1978 specifically for Presidents. But by deliniating Presidential vs. Personal records and giving the Government a stake in the documents, it doesn't the negate the processes and procedures that must be gone throught to determine status of documents. It also doesn't eliminate the inherent protections that a President has in going through those determinations.

In other words, if the PRA doesn't apply in this case - a law that is so specific that it has applied to 7 people in its existence - then it doesn't apply for anyone. Time will tell, but I'm very curious, 2011, for you to expand on your rationale that the 11th Circuit decision has conclusively settled this issue and the point is now moot.

---

I agree with Greg Jarrett that the defense will likely argue under the definitions of the PRA that Trump has some personal interest in these documents such that he was allowed to have them at home. And the PRA absolutely applies to these documents if they fit within the PRA's definition of what it covers. They wouldn't, if they don't (e.g. a document(s) is an agency record.)

However, while I won't ascribe any nefarious intent to Jarrett, he may really believe what he's saying, but the "specific statute" vs "general statute" strikes me as a smoke and mirror job by Jarrett.

The PRA covers a universe of materials. The relevant Espionage provisions cover a universe of materials. They each form their own circle on the complex zen diagram which is all the materials produced by the government or by government officials.

A record may be both a Presidential Record and National Defense information. A record may not be a Presidential Record but is National Defense Information. A record may be a Presidential Record but not National Defense Information.

If it is a Presidential Record, then its clearly not Trump's property and on top of that, if that Presidential Record is also National Defense Information, then it would be a criminal violation to willfully keep those records.

Under the PRA, if they are Presidential Records, the former President can certainly ask for the documents to be made available to him even if they are National Defense Information, under my reading, at least. "Available", of course, doesn't mean yours to keep and store at home and not tell others that you have them.

Its actually a halfway interesting question whether a document can be both National Defense Information AND a personal record, given how the former is interpreted.

But I agree with Bill Barr that claiming these documents are "personal records" is far-fetched. And to be clear, I have always said the Trump team is free to bring it up again and make their argument. And I have also not said the PRA "does not apply" to these documents. But yes, I have also said the 11th Circuit has spoken in strong language on that question already.




p.s. Jarrett is misrepresenting what the Judicial Watch case says. The case absolutely does not say a President can retain whatever Presidential Records he wants after he leaves office.

Sorry, but your argument is not convincing. You cannot refute a reasoned rebuttal with a blanket statement and get anywhere - no matter how much you hate the individual in question.

What amazes me is the lengths that people are willing going to to twist "the law" into something completely unprecedented in order to get the individual that they want to get. But I guess that's what happens when the desire to win outweighs prinicple.

ETA - This is a reply to Bill Clinternet's post.

jrdaustin said:

---

Sorry, but your argument is not convincing. You cannot refute a reasoned rebuttal with a blanket statement and get anywhere - no matter how much you hate the individual in question.

What amazes me is the lengths that people are willing going to to twist "the law" into something completely unprecedented in order to get the individual that they want to get. But I guess that's what happens when the desire to win outweighs prinicple.

---

Thank you for the "reasoned rebuttal" and complete lack of blanket statements.

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.

In a perfect world, the judge would dismiss with prejudice, reprimand Smith and Garland for malicious prosecution, and then publicly reprimand Trump for being stupid, reckless, and unnecessarily obstinate. Then, order NARA to establish a secure facility where ALL the boxes will go and work out what is Personal, what is Presidential, and what is NDI with a report due back to the court by a specific date.

jrdaustin said:

---

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

---

Life moves pretty quickly

rgag12 said:

---

Bill Clinternet said:

---

The Justice Department has moral and legal agency notwithstanding the make up of the current administration. The evidence is overwhelming.

However, in the interest of saving our Republic from another right wing insurrection and further division, President Biden should pardon Mr. Trump and let him disappear back into whatever slime infested ****hole he chooses to slither back towards.

---

Trump will get a pardon from Biden, but after he and Dems have used this charge to their greatest political advantage. They are rushing to indict trump to get him nominated (let's face it, if they weren't propping up Trump he'd be in serious trouble right now. He had nothing to sell other than being a loser for multiple cycles).

Once the 2024 election is over and Biden crushes Trump, and the anti-trump sentiment helps other dems find success down the ballot, the long-awaited federal trial will spookily be about to begin. Then all of a sudden a Biden pardon will be issued.

---

It is highly unlikely Biden is involved in the Justice Department indictment. I do agree he will pardon him, however, and I am guessing he will do so prior to the election.

Some legal expert explain the basis for looking at this criminal indictment based on a specific statute and immediately making the jump to a defense based on statutory construction and preemption of law. Seems like a stretch. Certainly preserve all those issues but seems like theres bigger fish to fry.

This case is so hot that the people most qualified to defend Trump are sitting on the sidelines.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

This case is so hot that the people most qualified to defend Trump are sitting on the sidelines.

---

You know why that is.

ETA: LINK

Why doenst Trump hire Robert Barnes? That guy has to all figured out. 1st Amendment argument for sure a winner.

fka ftc said:

---

Whistle Pig said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

PDA and sock drawer case kills this whole prosecution.

---

Trump didn't defy the subpoena to hide his personal journal. People are gonna be surprised when their pet legal theories they read about on some right wing blog or Twitter account aren't tried even by Trump's counsel.

---

Go ahead and let us know what legal theories they will work with. Or are you not wanting to ruin the surprise?>

---

He's got to go check his left wing blog and twitter accounts to find them. Then he'll get back with you.

Im Gipper said:

---

Why doenst Trump hire Robert Barnes? That guy has to all figured out. 1st Amendment argument for sure a winner.

---

Ugh. Barnes has had his moments. This is not one of them. He's making more how many angels on the head of a pin type spin. Overly convoluted. And if even I am saying that, queen of the nuances in law, you know it is too much.