(09-12-2022 08:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 07:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 07:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 06:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 06:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  ONLY for political reasons. Not having anything to do with some ******* who stores highly classified information in the basement of a hotel, blows of subpoenas on it, and lies to the investigators when they show up.

ONLY political reasons. Got it. Lolz.

You think Trump and his attorneys have a Constitutional defense on lying about the presence of the documents? A "marginal" one indeed. Please do tell.

I dont think I have ever heard of a Constitutional rationale for plain old obstruction, plain old perjury, and plain old lying to a Federal agent. Cant wait to hear this one.......

Since you're so knowledgeable on this, lets see the pdf of that infamous incriminating letter.

Link to it was posted earlier today, Coog.

Still waiting on that Constitutional rationale for plain old obstruction, plain old perjury, and plain old lying to a Federal agent.

With respect to that document, as I figured, it is all going to come down to what the meaning of "is" is. The specific language matters. The third line states the information has been provided by someone else and the writer is simply passing on the information---so Im not seeing how the attorney would be in trouble as long as he had a reasonable expectation that the information he was providing was accurate. Furthermore, the attorney says as much in closing when he says the above information is accurate to the "best of his knowledge".

At best, it burns the attorney -- they are now a witness as to the issues in the letter, and in the interactions on June 3. Next step is the letter seemingly is in furtherance of a crime or an action of fraud on the government. Ooops, there is privilege blown.

The next step down the ladder is what exactly did the author of the sworn statement know -- a factual inquiry that is not covered by privilege since that can be determined without revealing client communication.

At the front end, the falsity of the information is directly attributable to her client -- DJT. That is the provision of the letter brings DJT front and square with the issues of perjury, obstruction, and the separate issue of providing a false statement to a federal officer. And implicates the attorney as a potential accessory in those actions.

At the 2nd level, there could be a direct actions of all three to the attorney. There is a real reason why Bobb isnt signing documents, and has skedaddled to get herself an attorney.

Quote:As for the accuracy of the information---it depends on what "responsive to the subpoena" means. We already have discussed whether documents are actually classified

And nowhere has Trump alleged (except in Twitter) that he magically declassified them. And a stunning lack of corroboration to that.

You should note that if Trump actually did that, that is a 'get out of everything' card. Even with respect to the issue today with the motion for a partial stay. You might note that Trump in the proceedings has never stated that they are not classified. Nor has he stated that he declassified them. Which makes for a really fun pogo stick dance to watch his attorneys do in the filings.

Quote:or whether they are are government or personal presidential documents are all issues in dispute

I posted the main portion of the PCA earlier, and the carve out for 'personal'. Which pile does nuclear secrets for a foreign country belong in in (3), the definition of 'personal documents'? It really isnt that hard.

Quote:(this could very well get decided on the basis of constitutional issues over executive privilege

Executive privilege is the privilege that covers communications between a President and his aides. I dont know what you think it is by the above -- I cant fathom how "nuclear secrets for a foreign country" are 'communications between a President and his advisors' (See Nixon v GSA for a really good description of what executive privilege covers.....)

With due respect, you do a superb job of mixing and matching phrases.

In short, there are two main segments of issues re: Trump. The lying about issues, and the storage issues. The 'lying about it' issues are *not* marginal cases.

The storage issues are a combination of PRA issues and 'secret material' issues. The PRA will cover the 10k items that arent classified. And in that, the PRA is unambiguous as to what is 'government' and what is 'personal'. And it is unambiguous over who 'owns and controls them'. And that aint Trump. And Trump never bothered to afford himself of the actions he is entitled to under the PRA to retain documents -- he simply lied about having them and obstructed the NARA for two years or more.

The 'espionage' statutes control the classified materials. You can jump up and down and about and holler 'executive privilege', but there is no way executive privilege covers nuclear secrets for a foreign country.

You can jump up and down and sideways and say he 'declassified' them, but the statutes dont need classified material to be effective.

You can jump up and down and sideways and yell 'personal items', but there is no way that nuclear secrets for a foreign country are Trump's 'personal documents' under the law.

And this is where you constantly get into trouble. Its why I find your rantings so unconvincing. You have absolutely no idea what these documents are, what they cover, and what the context surrounding these documents pertains to---yet you've got all the constitutional and criminal law angles figured out. Heck, for all we know all these documents could be communications involving advisors--but there you are stating as a fact that executive privilege cant possibly apply. Really? Zero way to know that without knowing a lot more about the documents. Basically, you're short on fact and long on supposition. You're argument is little more than Trump just has to be guilty because---well---the DOJ would never do this unless he was. Good logic there Lil' buddy---cuz this DOJ has never been dishonest or misleading when going after Trump, right?

Look--the good news is neither I nor you will decide this case. We will just have to see how it plays out. My guess is that in the end---nothing will come of this as it's primary purpose has always been more about damaging an opponent---rather than obtaining a conviction.