26 boxes of documents, including 300 classified documents.

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,967
21,892
1
That's what the FBI removed from Trump's home at Mar a Lago pursuant to that search warrant. This happened long after his attorney Christina Bobb, had signed an affidavit stating that, after NARA removed a bunch of classified documents and records in June 2022, pursuant to a subpoena, there were "no more classified documents on or about" Trump's Mar a Lago home. The affidavit Ms. Bobb signed was prepared by another of Trump's attorneys, Evan Corcoran.

It turns out there was a veritable shiat ton of classified documents remaining in Trump's Mara Lago home, and video evidence the feds subsequently viewed showed that various people were coming in and out of the basement storage room where Trump kept most of those documents, moving them around repeatedly and putting them in different containers. Why all that activity?

Best of all, it turns out that Donald Trump himself went through many (if not most) of the documents he was hanging onto, so he cannot now maintain that he did not personally participate in these shenanigans.

Ms. Bobb and Mr. Corcoran are now both percipient witnesses and likely defendants in this mess, and they should no longer speak with, much less try to represent, Donald Trump. They had better be out seeking competent criminal defense counsel. (Of course, we should probably confirm all of this with PPB, given his apparently VAST legal knowledge and expertise.)

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2lion70 and NJPSU

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,432
2,553
1
I hope you don’t go to court citing Rolling Stone articles. Remember that UVA thing? Reporting on this episode has been notoriously bad thus far.

By the way, is anyone investigating the media leaks? Seems pretty illegal to me. I guess they will investigate after they catch the SCOTUS leaker…
 

Lion8286

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2008
16,379
24,031
1
I hope you don’t go to court citing Rolling Stone articles. Remember that UVA thing? Reporting on this episode has been notoriously bad thus far.

By the way, is anyone investigating the media leaks? Seems pretty illegal to me. I guess they will investigate after they catch the SCOTUS leaker…

As a lawyer Laffy would frequently cite Roling Stone. Of course that's one of the reasons he's now doiing probate work.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,967
21,892
1
As a lawyer Laffy would frequently cite Roling Stone. Of course that's one of the reasons he's now doiing probate work.
It's Rolling Stone, not Roling Stone. "Doing" has one "i" rather than two. You omitted the comma that should have gone after "lawyer." Wow, are you stupid.
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,432
2,553
1
The way I read the letter, the acting director of NARA took every legal position she could in opposition to Trump. That does not mean she was right since there was no decision by any court. The DOJ grabbed the football and raided MAL. There is still no resolution of the legal issues.

The central issue appears to be executive privilege. Can the current president arbitrarily erase a former president’s claim of privilege? Trump appears to be exerting blanket privilege while Biden exerts blanket revocation of such privilege. Neither position seems correct in absolute terms, but NARA chooses the latter.

Bottom line is that both sides had plausible legal arguments but DOJ decided to go with the nuclear resolution. They need to prove it was justified. Nuclear usage demands extreme justification. Postcards from Kim Jun Il dont coun.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,870
8,097
1
Funny how we can get these reports but not the affidavit. Regardless this was handled with negotiations for previous presidents....of course they didn't have a vindictive opposition that weaponized law enforcement for political gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
63,343
40,876
1
That's what the FBI removed from Trump's home at Mar a Lago pursuant to that search warrant. This happened long after his attorney Christina Bobb, had signed an affidavit stating that, after NARA removed a bunch of classified documents and records in June 2022, pursuant to a subpoena, there were "no more classified documents on or about" Trump's Mar a Lago home. The affidavit Ms. Bobb signed was prepared by another of Trump's attorneys, Evan Corcoran.

It turns out there was a veritable shiat ton of classified documents remaining in Trump's Mara Lago home, and video evidence the feds subsequently viewed showed that various people were coming in and out of the basement storage room where Trump kept most of those documents, moving them around repeatedly and putting them in different containers. Why all that activity?

Best of all, it turns out that Donald Trump himself went through many (if not most) of the documents he was hanging onto, so he cannot now maintain that he did not personally participate in these shenanigans.

Ms. Bobb and Mr. Corcoran are now both percipient witnesses and likely defendants in this mess, and they should no longer speak with, much less try to represent, Donald Trump. They had better be out seeking competent criminal defense counsel. (Of course, we should probably confirm all of this with PPB, given his apparently VAST legal knowledge and expertise.)

It seems that Trump didn't destroy the records like Hillary did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjw165 and GSPMax

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,096
1,589
1
Lmao. These folks aren't smart enough to understand that, the amount of leaks coming out of the DOJ and FBI is the real issue here.
Well the leaks do help shoot down stupid and unsupported conspiracy theories, so there's that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,096
1,589
1
Funny how we can get these reports but not the affidavit. Regardless this was handled with negotiations for previous presidents....of course they didn't have a vindictive opposition that weaponized law enforcement for political gain.
The affidavit will not be released, so flail about with your many assumptions and innuendo about it. That's not the way it works in an on-going criminal investigation. You will just have to be patient. What we are learning in the interim is that Trump had documentation with the highest national secret designations in his basement. Why he did so has yet to be determined.
 

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,096
1,589
1
The way I read the letter, the acting director of NARA took every legal position she could in opposition to Trump. That does not mean she was right since there was no decision by any court. The DOJ grabbed the football and raided MAL. There is still no resolution of the legal issues.

The central issue appears to be executive privilege. Can the current president arbitrarily erase a former president’s claim of privilege? Trump appears to be exerting blanket privilege while Biden exerts blanket revocation of such privilege. Neither position seems correct in absolute terms, but NARA chooses the latter.

Bottom line is that both sides had plausible legal arguments but DOJ decided to go with the nuclear resolution. They need to prove it was justified. Nuclear usage demands extreme justification. Postcards from Kim Jun Il dont coun.
Here is a fact to chew on. Executive privilege does not apply to documents prepared by our national and international intelligence agencies.
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,432
2,553
1
Here is a fact to chew on. Executive privilege does not apply to documents prepared by our national and international intelligence agencies.
Chew on this: If the top secret documents were prepared for the Russiagate or Ukraine fiascos, would that not justify (legally or not) him keeping custody, especially since he did declassify those documents.

I also don’t know if your assertion is true. Executive privilege is a concept designed to encourage frank discussion within the executive branch. I can certainly visualize why some of those documents could be privileged. You may be correct, but I wonder if your blanket assertion is backed by any law.
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,432
2,553
1
Crooked Hillary and Sandy Berger both say hello.
Community service and $80,000 fine for stuffing documents in your underwear and walking out of NARA? Berger’s actions are comparable to engaging in a legal dispute with NARA right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,672
11,925
1
Crooked Hillary and Sandy Berger both say hello.

Hillary operated an unauthorized server trafficking in classified materials at an unsecure location. There is no debate about that. She got a pass. Berger outright stole classified material...literally stuffed it down his pants...and he got a slap on the wrist.

If the FBI had mounted raids on the private residence or facilities of any President after he'd left office and rummaged through every box found there, they would have found classified material. Every freakin' thing is classified one way or the other. Deep State cafeteria lunch menus are classified. (OK, I exaggerate on that last one but only a little.)

The point is, the Regime doesn't give a flying fig about the classified material or it wouldn't have two standards: one for Trump...and one for Dem-Mediacrats. The objective here is not to safeguard classified material but rather to take down Trump. To that end, they'll wait to spring the indictment at the most politically advantageous time. The Rule of Law is not a thing in Brave New Amerika.
 
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: IIVI and psuted

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
28,886
25,418
1
Community service and $80,000 fine for stuffing documents in your underwear and walking out of NARA? Berger’s actions are comparable to engaging in a legal dispute with NARA right?

Typical deep state double standard and immunity if your a Democrat or swamp creature.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
28,886
25,418
1
Hillary operated an unauthorized server trafficking in classified materials at an unsecure location. There is no debate about that. She got a pass. Berger outright stole classified material...literally stuffed it down his pants...and he got a slap on the wrist.

If the FBI had mounted raids on the private residence or facilities of any President after he'd left office and rummaged through every box found there, they would have found classified material. Every freakin' thing is classified one way or the other. Deep State cafeteria lunch menus are classified. (OK, I exaggerate on that last one but only a little.)

The point is, the Regime doesn't give a flying fig about the classified material or it wouldn't have two standards: one for Trump...and one for Dem-Mediacrats. The objective here is not to safeguard classified material but rather to take down Trump. To that end, they'll wait to spring the indictment at the most politically advantageous time. The Rule of Law is not a thing in Brave New Amerika.
Exactly, and precisely why these people must be politically defeated at every level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
23,601
5,790
1
Community service and $80,000 fine for stuffing documents in your underwear and walking out of NARA? Berger’s actions are comparable to engaging in a legal dispute with NARA right?

Berger entered into a plea agreement and lost his security clearance in addition to the other stuff.

This is what he would have faced had he lost in court(which he most certainly would have).

Berger faces a maximum sentence of up to one year in jail, a $100,000 fine and a year of supervised release.​
According to the plea agreement, Berger has agreed to cooperate with the government and to surrender his security clearance.​
Don't think Trump is going to plead guilty.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
45,801
16,292
1
We know Trump destroyed records, even some of his former staffers have testified to seeing him do it.
Yes it’s amazing bdgan didn’t know this. It goes to show how protected Trump is by his Right Wing Media bubble.
 

Pardlion

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2014
9,013
11,603
1
That's what the FBI removed from Trump's home at Mar a Lago pursuant to that search warrant. This happened long after his attorney Christina Bobb, had signed an affidavit stating that, after NARA removed a bunch of classified documents and records in June 2022, pursuant to a subpoena, there were "no more classified documents on or about" Trump's Mar a Lago home. The affidavit Ms. Bobb signed was prepared by another of Trump's attorneys, Evan Corcoran.

It turns out there was a veritable shiat ton of classified documents remaining in Trump's Mara Lago home, and video evidence the feds subsequently viewed showed that various people were coming in and out of the basement storage room where Trump kept most of those documents, moving them around repeatedly and putting them in different containers. Why all that activity?

Best of all, it turns out that Donald Trump himself went through many (if not most) of the documents he was hanging onto, so he cannot now maintain that he did not personally participate in these shenanigans.

Ms. Bobb and Mr. Corcoran are now both percipient witnesses and likely defendants in this mess, and they should no longer speak with, much less try to represent, Donald Trump. They had better be out seeking competent criminal defense counsel. (Of course, we should probably confirm all of this with PPB, given his apparently VAST legal knowledge and expertise.)

So the FBI seized 25.75 boxes of non-classified documents? WTF.

Also, my bet is there is obviously a good faith argument that the 300 "classified" documents were in fact declassified--that's why the attorney said so in an affidavit.
 

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,096
1,589
1
Chew on this: If the top secret documents were prepared for the Russiagate or Ukraine fiascos, would that not justify (legally or not) him keeping custody, especially since he did declassify those documents.

I also don’t know if your assertion is true. Executive privilege is a concept designed to encourage frank discussion within the executive branch. I can certainly visualize why some of those documents could be privileged. You may be correct, but I wonder if your blanket assertion is backed by any law.
There is no law for executive privilege in this context. As you state, it is a "concept". There is law about keeping top secret and SCIF documentation secure.
 

jferretti

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2001
4,096
1,589
1
So the FBI seized 25.75 boxes of non-classified documents? WTF.

Also, my bet is there is obviously a good faith argument that the 300 "classified" documents were in fact declassified--that's why the attorney said so in an affidavit.
Trump's attorney? Was it the same one who "verified" that all classified materials had been turned over when they clearly had not?
 

lurkerlion

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2011
1,432
2,553
1
There is no law for executive privilege in this context. As you state, it is a "concept". There is law about keeping top secret and SCIF documentation secure.
It is a concept based on the Separation of Powers in the Constitution. This concept has been confirmed by SCOTUS from the time of Washington. Before you predict the outcome of the litigation, you should look to the bill and the legislative history as to when executive privilege will be overruled. Which takes priority if the intent of Congress is not clear? Back to SCOTUS which makes the nuclear option of a raid even more egregious because NARA could be wrong.
 

Pardlion

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2014
9,013
11,603
1
Trump's attorney? Was it the same one who "verified" that all classified materials had been turned over when they clearly had not?
Clearly they are arguing that the President declassified the documents. How do you not understand this?
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,966
6,386
1
Lmao. These folks aren't smart enough to understand that, the amount of leaks coming out of the DOJ and FBI is the real issue here.
What leaks? The items noted were mentioned in a NARA request for docs.
The 2 young attorneys are in deep shit - Obstruction of Justice and lying to the FBI/DOJ. That's what got Gen Flynn convicted. Why can't the dupes around Donnie just tell the truth?
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2012
28,471
45,842
1
What leaks? The items noted were mentioned in a NARA request for docs.
The 2 young attorneys are in deep shit - Obstruction of Justice and lying to the FBI/DOJ. That's what got Gen Flynn convicted. Why can't the dupes around Donnie just tell the truth?
You do realize, the PRA restricts the access of NARA for several years. That, the letter NARA sent doesn't remotely compare to media reports. But hey, you keep dipping into the msm like you did regarding the dossier. Because, you just knew that, Trump had hooked pissing on him in Russia. No leaks? Lmao. Can you be a bigger fool?
 

Latest posts