With the reading of 37 counts of seven charges in a federal court, some of which carry effectively, life sentences, Donald Trump enters utterly uncharted territory. Here’s how candidate Trump can run for the presidency while under the cloud of historic legal scrutiny.
Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle create new episodes of Right Angle each week thanks to our Members.
49 replies on “Running Under Indictment: How Candidate Trump Can Meet Unprecedented Challenge”
Amen to Bill! As he aluded to, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is entirely gone— for DECENT people. As sane person who has studied islam understands, you cannot “coexist” with people who want to kill you.Leftists are AT LEAST as rabid as islamists. We do not live in Candy Land, nor do we even really livein America anymore. The sewer rats have won. The oly question is what to do about it. THIS is why “immigrating” the to King Jesus’ Kingdom is so utterly crucial. He will never be impeached or have any election stolen from him the way President Trump (and America) so brazenly suffered in 2020. My GREAT consolation is that the sewer rats will either repent, or burn in Hell for eternity. Since the choice is entirely theirown, I’m completely fine with either one. (Yes, I’m being very politically incorrect. Tough. So was Jesus. LOL)
Two points.
One, the controlling law is not the Espionage Act or whatever it is they’re twisting into a pretzel. The controlling law is the Presidential Records Act. Under that act, any president has full authority to keep records from his own administration under whatever conditions he chooses. The content or classification of the documents is not relevant. See the Clinton Sock Drawer Case.
Two, the polling is clearly showing that Trump’s support is increasing since the indictment(s). Voters know it’s bogus. My opinion is that the more they persecute him, the more they turn him into a martyr, and the more people will join Bill and me on the side of the line that says, “I’m voting for him even if he’s in jail.” Because voters understand Bill’s point, that they’re coming for us.
Of course, my Point One prevailing depends upon an honest judge or appeals court. And the Supreme Court just caved yesterday on the gerrymandering case: the thugs who committed felonies by threatening the justices and their families at their houses have won.
And Point Two depends on a honestly-run election. The only way to do that is to get rid of the machines. Any programmable election machine can be hacked, regardless of whether it has networking capabilities. We are running out of time to get rid of them.
By the very fact of having been president, ANY material that he had access to or had or has in his hands is by its very nature NOT classified to him. Nothing is classified beyond him- he has the ultimate level of top secret clearance. Nobody else in our society enjoys this clearance.
People don’t understand that point. “If I did this…” Well, neither of us have been president – called out by job, by the constitution, for certain responsibilities and powers. Many things the president is required to do (or be ready to do) would be quite illegal for us to do.
My prediction if DJT is once again the Oval Office resident …
He will not neuter the DOJ. He will neither be allowed to do so nor be capable. After all, his last term in office saddled us with 2 years of the Biden-COVID nightmare. The DOJ corruption remains because his last term was hamstrung by the very same corruption. In short, DJT is not the panacea for the Republic that all of his acolytes claim.
Careful, you’re beginning to sound like me as far as Trump goes. The Trumpist Apostles of the Church of Donald Trump the Messianic Savior will try to cancel you too, if you keep that up.
I agree with you 100%. There’s a lot more to say on the subject of Trump as POTUS again but that’s a very good point all on its own.
Viva Frei interviewed the lawyer Robert Barnes. Barnes explained the idiocy of the FBLIE and the Just-US department in this indictment.. A more knowledgeable constitutional lawyer cannot be found. Do yourself a a favor and listen to that interview.
Always a big fan of Barnes on legal issues. When it comes to military and international issues, he’s terrible, but we can’t all be good on every issue.
Having served as the operations officer of the strategic communications center for a major Army headquarters, I have a viewpoint that extends far beyond opinion. I had served at the time that Daniel Ellsberg was indicted for releasing the infamous “Pentagon Papers,” and looked forward to that trial. Sadly, the case was thrown out of court for prosecutorial misconduct (which I believe was intentional to avoid the trial). [Note: In that case the issue Ellsberg raised was the misapplication of high level security to what were political documents – a direct violation of rules and regulations regarding the use of security classifications] Similarly, I want to see this go to trial inasmuch as President Trump is being prosecuted for political reasons, and that issue has to be settle for once and for all. No, political trials are not acceptable. As to his handling of classified materials, he is innocent of all charges. The President is the ultimate authority in such matters and has sole authority to declassify documents, films, etc. Indeed, sharing such documents publicly is prima facie evidence of declassification. [Note: Neither Vice President Biden nor Scty Clinton had that authority and are prima facie guilty] Now, had President Trump transmitted or shared those documents with unauthorized persons to aid an enemy or profit, that would have been an abuse of power, and he could be prosecuted. [Note: We’ll have to wait and see if there is any such evidence, however, there is evidence – such as elucidated by Comey – that Hillary did just that]
“Innocent until proven guilty” is something we do take for granted in the theoretical sense, but it doesn’t bear out in practice, and I’m not sure it ever has. From both observation and experience I’ve seen that by and large the average citizen does not apply this right to people who are arrested and accused of a crime. If you get arrested and you know you are innocent, you have a very hard time getting anyone to accept that as true, let alone someone who knows they did actually do the crime. There is always the lingering suspicion that you wouldn’t be in that position if you hadn’t done something wrong, even if it’s not exactly what’s being alleged. Our system is adversarial, and ‘winning’ is the goal, not finding out ‘the truth’. Therefore, prosecutors do what they did in this case, over charging, bringing the force of guns and raids and scary-sounding penalties to bear, until defendants find themselves wanting to agree to a plea rather than risk it with a jury that will be more than ready to believe the worst, just because you’re sitting there at the defense table. We want to believe in the ultimate victory of innocence, and in the ultimate goodness of juries to hold prosecutors to a strict standard of proof instead of emotion and opinion. We want to believe that prosecutors, law enforcement and judges are on their game and want only to make sure that the right person is found guilty and that the fairest penalties are applied, and that all defendants will be treated with respect and accorded their rights and their dignity throughout. Until I was brought face to face with it through watching a family member go through it, I also believed in the integrity of our system. I no longer believe in it. There are undoubtedly exceptions, where the jurisdiction is run by people who understand that our system must be operated to the highest standards of justice. But not most, I fear. Most operate under “winning” and “losing”, and if they can fudge the rules to ensure the harshest scenarios to put a thumb on the scale, it will happen. Most judges don’t hold prosecutors to these high standards. And defense attorneys are at a disadvantage because the prosecutors don’t face the same consequences as defendants and can’t feel the same pressures. They can’t be locked up in a terrible jail situation or threatened with forfeiting their life if they break the rules, or be made to live in fear and privation for the duration of the trial. The “innocent until proven guilty” hurdle is supposed to be tremendously high. I don’t see that it is.
Bill said something I’ve been hearing a lot lately. Even Ted Cruz said the same thing. Everyone is making an issue of the glaring hypocrisy of indicting Trump while ignoring the crimes of Hillary and Potato Joe. The hypocrisy is very real and grossly obvious but …
The hypocrisy of your political opponents is not a legal defense.
Scott goes into this problem well.
Reality is reality, it is not malleable and hypocrisy is something our political adversaries see as a feature not a bug.
So we might as well give up on that particular line of argument. It’s very true but as true as it is, it is equally irrelevant.
I remember well after Trump “lost” the last election, there were many people on our side grasping at straws, any straw they could find, presenting arguments and holding onto hope that the election results would somehow be overturned and Donald Trump would triumphantly be installed for his second term.
As it turned out, that was wishful thinking. I agree that the election was grievously tampered with. That’s not an issue now because like it or not, and I do not, history has moved on.
We need to be very careful right now not to allow wishful thinking and emotional factors to cloud our judgement.
Donald John Trump is not the sole and immutable resource when it comes to saving our Republic. There is more than one way to skin that cat.
The Left believes that if they can take Trump out of the game, the Right will collapse. Don’t be someone who helps the Left make that come true.
IOW, plan for the worst and hope for the best. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet so there may be some hope for Trump to either get this dismissed or failing that be acquitted at trial. I don’t have a crystal ball and I can’t see the future. The same goes for the rest of you.
It does not escape my notice that this legal situation is greatly exacerbated by the fact that Trump can’t keep his ego, or his mouth, in check. I’ve been pointing out the danger in that for a long time while a lot of people maintain that’s “what they love about him”. My warnings were not idle “Never-Trumpisms”. We may have finally reached a point where that kind of thing is going to turn around and bite him in the posterior.
Don’t let it bite you too.
America is not the only country with laws about Presidential/ Prime ministerial powers of classification, etc. Generally the ex PM or Pres retained a clearance, is considered a diplomat so can’t be accused of doing unauthorized/ illegal diplomacy. There are more complex rules on declassification in some countries, you have to pass it past committee often. There are over rides. A parliamentary vote. There has been interesting battles in Australia’s parliament about it on classified data on WMD in Iraq. The left did not want confirmation it was found there.
Trump or more precisely Clinton had no restrictions. The Democrat dominated congress had literally granted Clinton carte blanche. Trump has that protection. However back in the last weeks of the Trump White House the media and congress was talking about Trump’s unprecedented declassification and noting that he was actually following a procedure that was far more nuanced. He was sending memos to people listing the documents declassified. Congress men, Department heads (or whistleblowers) can come forward with these memo documents. Foreign diplomates will have copiers where the information involves more that one country. Expect some very interesting people to show up with pro-trump submissions.
In the context of the audio file of Trump and his lawyer talking about a classified file. Both Trump and his lawyer would have a full security clearance. If he is referencing an online file or link then he has not legally accessed or have in his possession the document itself. I suspect that apparent mistake is bait for a trap. That also implies that they knew they were being surveilled and recorded. When ever Trump is making a “mistake” assume he is laying a trap. Often his apparent target, e.g. those running against Trump like DeSantis is in on the operation.
That’s bait for a different trap. The primaries process itself and the debate media are the target.
Everyone is throwing around the term of there being a peaceful solution to this problem, but no one is presenting it. Trump is correct: they are coming for us, he is just in the way. Why are we hiding behind Trump’s skirt? There are MULTIPLE known criminal actors still filling positions in government AND going after Trump. Where are the state’s AGs? Is there a solution other than the people prosecuting the guilty in the only manner we have?
I think Scott is being a bit starry eyed. I get where he is coming from, but hey WE are in deep doo doo. Don’t let the nazis get away with this.
Annnndddd…..The hypotenuse word salad award goes to…..
I’ll just say this: I’ll take Bill’s approach on this one. Focused, direct, mindful, decisive, thoughtful and short (well, short for Bill).
And that is not just me running to my favorite political bastion to begin lobbing charges at the other side.
LOL @ “hypotenuse” …
So, ‘Right Angle’ is actually ‘Right Triangle’ ? Because there are three hosts?
A very geometric observation.
Of course, ACTS, you of all the esteemed members understood who was the “longest leg” of that “Tri” angle, right? I was going to say who I felt deserved that award, then deleted the name out of the whispering of my “better angels”.
For the good of the Republic, Trump needs to win the election. If this doesn’t blow up in Democrats’ faces, we will only see more of it. Does make me wonder, though… I seem to recall a guy got impeached for mere allegations of trying to take down his opponent. Why aren’t Republicans impeaching NOW?
That aside, it’s important to understand that this is all happening in Clarence Thomas’s circuit. I’d love to see him step up and be the adult in the room and saying “Enough, y’all! No more prosecuting Trump at any level. No more going after the Bidens. Put an end to all of this!” Even if he did it sua sponte, and even if he doesn’t take it to the court, en banc, it could have big implications.
Republicans are impeaching NOW.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced articles of impeachment last month. Which is getting no traction in a Democrat controlled House of Representatives.
The problem with granting Trump any sort of blanket immunity is that would apply as precedent to all former Presidents. If Joe Biden manages to serve out his term without prosecution, which at this point seems likely as he has the U.S. Justice Dept. in his back pocket, then Joe could not be prosecuted for his increasingly obvious crimes.
You might be enough of a Trumpist to forego a shot at the Bidens but I’m not. There’s this thing called “Rule of Law” that I’m not willing to sacrifice just to get Trump in the clear.
If Trump, or any other Conservative candidate is elected, the way to counter this situation is to use the Left’s own tactics against them in a sauce for the goose turnabout.
If the attempt were made to confine that immunity to only active political candidates then all anyone would have to do to avoid prosecution is declare their candidacy for office. Whether they were a viable candidate or not.
Trump will have to beat the Left at it’s own game in the courts, or not. If not then we have to get another, real Conservative, in the White House. If we don’t win we don’t have the power to do what needs to be done. Trump or not.
ACTS, just how overwhelming of a case, just how much bona fide evidence, real evidence, receipts, etc, would have to be presented to the Senate to get a conviction for Biden with the state of our Senators right now. Would ANY amount of evidence pierce the wall of partisanship Biden holds in the Senate? That’s not a rhetorical statement, it’s an actual question for you. I value your answer.
Impeachment conviction in the Senate is not criminal prosecution at the DOJ. Would the Senate convict Biden even if there was Video evidence of Joe going to the bank and depositing the check himself????
Just wondering if McCarthy and the establishment R’s know nothing’s going to happen anyway with the Senate as it is, so why bother until you can get a Senate majority to convict. By that time, it’ll be too late for this term, but could stop him from a second term?
The Senate has some wiggle room with a couple semi-responsible Democrat Senators. It’s not likely there would be a conviction of Biden but it’s possible. A lot would depend on how the press covered things in those Senator’s districts. If they are portrayed in a light where Biden’s corruption is being mirrored in them personally … It could happen.
It takes a 2/3rds vote to successfully impeach so, yeah, it’s not likely at all even with a few Senators crossing the aisle on an obvious and irrefutable case of bribery.
Democrat Senators would basically be committing political suicide unless the situation were irrefutable and obvious to the voters in their districts. Funding from the national Democrat Party could be expected to dry up completely.
It’s not impossible though very, very unlikely that Kackling Kamalnose would break a tie vote in favor of impeachment which would leave her as POTUS for the remainder of her term. The temptation to become the “First Black Woman President” would be enormous, even if she knows she’ll never win the Oval Office in a general election. At that level of power, weird things can happen.
(There’s also some legal wrangling about whether a VP can even vote on an impeachment. The Constitution doesn’t specify either way. There are some good arguments on both sides. )
None of that is going to even be an issue if the House Republicans cannot or will not get an impeachment vote against Potato Joe.
Unlike the Senate, a simple majority vote is all that is required in the House.
These things have to happen in a specific manner, first things first, etc. No successful House of Representatives vote for impeachment means any question of what the Senate would do is a moot point and purely speculative rhetoric.
So while it may be fun, I’m not going to speculate on what the Senate would do because at this point it’s irrelevant. It’s like speculating on what the world would do if alien motherships suddenly appeared in the skies over the world’s major cities.
I will however point out that Donald Trump is at least partially indirectly responsible for this problem in the Senate. Trump has, and it is diminishing but far from gone, a lot of clout in the Republican Party. Had he endorsed and backed candidates that actually had a chance at winning instead of selecting his picks based on “loyalty” to himself … Joe Biden would be facing a Senate Republican Majority right now.
It would only have taken two more seats. This is another glaring situation where Trump put his ego ahead of the Nation. We would be well on the road to removing Potato Joe by now had he been more responsible and less egocentric about the last election.
Trump is becoming a liability to our side. When he was “fighting for us” he looked pretty good. Now he’s fighting for himself, for his own vindication and that doesn’t look anywhere near as good. There’s a lot I could say about this and I’ve said a lot in the past. When you see anyone who claims to be on the side of our Republic who is supporting Trump’s Vindication, be careful. This isn’t about Trump, it’s about the Republic. I am intentionally trying to trigger that type to draw them out and fire on them.
If you want me to speculate about things, that’s my speculation.
All of that said, a successful impeachment could bar a candidate from a second term or any future office at all. That is up to the discretion of the Senate if a conviction of impeachment is attained. There is no appeal in that case. I suspect that’s what the Left had in mind when they deluded themselves that because they hated Donald Trump so much they could get an impeachment conviction.
It’s sad that whenever I hear or read “rule of law,” I know what follows will be anything but.
If you want to talk about Rule of Law, start at the Constitution, aka the supreme law of the land.
I don’t see how that applies to anything I said. If you want to disagree with me, that’s fine. I can take it. I’m a big boy. But you’ll have to be more specific if you’ve got a point to make.
I swore an oath to the Constitution. I value it greatly. I don’t see where I said anything un-Constitutional so if you would be so kind as to point out my mistake I’d appreciate it.
Otherwise your reply is nothing more than empty grumblings, mere syrupy platitudes devoid of semantic content.
Sorry, came down with a bout of what Critical Drinker calls the “Unnamed Virus of Unknown Origins.” Wiped out the whole fam damily.
Given that the house is currently 222-213 in favor of Republicans, I don’t think the Democrats are the issue here.
As for whether or not I’m a “Trumpist,” that’s something that exists only in your imagination. However, your use of the term kind of serves as an indication of your mindset. It’s like when a leftist uses “Bushite,” “Faux News,” or “White Supremacy.” By dismissing me as such, you indicate that your mind is not open to facts or ideas not in line with your own biases.
That said, you keep using “Rule of Law,” but I’m not certain you really understand what that means. Properly used, it applies not only to individuals, but to the government as well. It binds the branches to stay within their constitutionally-appointed roles (meaning the Article II powers and privileges of the President are not abridged by the other two branches), that the law be applies fairly and evenly without regard to political alignment, that precedent be respected (specifically, the Judicial Watch ruling), that due process be followed, that general warrants not be issued, that the cases be pushed at the appropriate level (these should have been civil suits, not felony charges), that the right to counsel be respected, and that the rule of lenity be respected. None of these things are true with regard to the “Get Trump” efforts.
My views on this are not based on any support for Trump – in fact, I believe DeSantis, Scott, and Ramaswamy would make better presidents. It’s based on my view that the current administration has made a KGB out of the FBI. This is an extension of the Crossfire Hurricane efforts, and very similar to the attacks on Ted Stevens (conviction overturned because the government withheld Brady Evidence), and Bob McDonnell. If this works, EVERY Republican candidate will face charges of some sort. If you don’t believe that will happen or that it’s a problem for the Republic, then we likely don’t have much common ground.
Am I willing to let Joe go to save the Republic? You Betcha.
Yeah, well I’m sure it’s going to come as a surprise to you that I pretty much agree with all of that. Those are the same contexts I’m using too. I may see things in a different way or view context from a different angle but it’s not all that different. Your reply above is about the most detailed I’ve seen you post on your own views so … If you’re not clear about things I can’t help that.
Maybe you should drop back and punt with your own personality instead of trying to emulate Critical Drinker. Your impersonations of him are a bit off and it’s a little puerile to try to copy someone else’s style. I gave up trying to be Clint Eastwood about halfway through high school. Just sayin’.
Altering the law to let Trump off the legal hook (stipulating that he should probably never have been arrested in the first place) could have dire consequences for the Republic by letting the real, no shit criminals off in the future.
Or maybe not. You seem to have a different view of this than I do and you’ve been notoriously difficult to engage in discussion. You seem to prefer to don sunglasses, take a swig of whiskey and say “Go ‘way nohw” as if that meant something profound.
Also, though I agree that he probably shouldn’t have been arrested, Trump sort of did everything to make sure that he would be. So I’m interested in seeing how this plays out in the courts. I think that shitshow is going to tell us a lot about just how far the Rule of Law has been compromised.
Because if Trump actually violated real laws then he should be convicted and punished for doing that. I’m not at all certain at this point that he didn’t intentionally violate laws for the purpose of using “legal persecution” as a media circus to buoy up his Presidential bid.
I don’t know that EVERY Republican candidate will “face charges of some sort” and I don’t see that as the certainty you seem to credit it to be. I don’t think we’ve fallen quite that far yet. But that’s just an opinion. The only test would be if their gambit works and then they go after the next Republican candidate under color of the law. So I’m standing by to see what happens in that arena.
I also don’t see that letting Joe Biden get away with serious crimes is going to save the Republic. If that were an option you might have something there. However, it’s not a clear dichotomy that either Joe goes un-prosecuted or the Republic is lost. That seems to be a false choice to me. It’s a logical fallacy like the Democrats often pose. As in “Either you support Black Lives Matter or you’re a racist”. “Either we let Joe Biden get away with taking a $5 million bribe or the Republic is doomed”. Etc.
As for “Trumpists”, I didn’t say you were one, I said IF you were one. That sort isn’t imaginary, there are several that comment here regularly who call anyone a “never Trumper” if they happen to notice that Donald John Trump is a fallible human being that has made some mistakes, some of them grave mistakes, rather than some sort of infallible god-like being. These “Trumpists” don’t care about what’s good for the Republic, they only care about what’s good for Donald Trump. Which is not the same thing. So that kind clearly does not exist only in my imagination and …
They are a political albatross around the necks of those who want to save the Republic.
This thread started with you complaining that Republicans are not impeaching Joe Biden and me pointing out to you that they are in fact doing that. There may be little hope of success but it seems like you were not aware that was happening even so.
You still haven’t told me what I said that was un- or anti-Constitutional. If you’re going to toss out an accusation like that then I think you need to prove your point by citing my un-Constitutional words. If you can’t do that and you’re any kind of civilised human being you ought to retract the accusation.
Dude, people quote people all the time. It’s a good way to bring in what someone considers to be an interesting or amusing turn of phrase. Doesn’t mean they’re trying to full-on emulate them.
You say I’m difficult to engage in conversation. Things like the above are the main reason. When I feel someone’s being cheap or just out to score points, my desire to engage with them drops to nearly zero. If someone disagrees with me, but does so in a decent manner, I’m more than willing to discuss.
Now, on to the substance. I don’t think Trump went fishing for this because I don’t think he, or most of us for that matter, believed that Biden would go this far. Granted, looking back, that was probably just my lack of imagination. Following Crossfire Hurricane (now known, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be fraudulent), Impeachment I, Impeachment II (the no-huddle impeachment), and the Bragg indictment – there is no length they won’t go to.
And yes, ending this shit show now COULD have the effect of setting bad precedent for future presidents. There are tradeoffs in all things on this Earth. What you gain is letting the world see that we give wide berth to avoid anything that could lead down the road to political prosecutions. That’s such a fundamental aspect of a functioning republic (rather than a people’s republic) that there out to be a lot of lenity given to preserve it.
You don’t believe every Republican would be charged? Why not? If it works now, what possible reason would the Democrats have not to continue with it? What would hold back a party that apparently has no issues with governmental corruption and persecuting at least one enemy? You say you’ll judge the next time it happens… by then, the Rubicon has already been crossed. Short of possessing a time machine, you don’t get to wait for the next one to stop this.
And if you have a time machine, send my ass back to the ’80s please.
You are right that we may not need to pardon Biden in order to accomplish what I want. However, I think it puts a swifter, more decisive end to what’s going on and risks fewer independents thinking it’s partisan (I don’t give a crap what Democrats think because they’ll think it’s partisan no matter what). If you only have one chance to do this, then I think it stands the best chance of success if you sweeten the deal with Biden. However, it should be only for crimes known to date.
As for the impeachment – you’re right, I didn’t know it had been started. I was hyperfocused on this issue. Glad to have been wrong.
As for your final request, I never accused you saying anything unconstitutional. I cited the constitution because it’s my belief that the indictment violates Trump’s Art. II powers and privileges. The prosecution cannot be “rule of law” if it runs afoul of the “supreme law of the land.”
I will await your civilized retraction.
Ok, well that’s better. I’m not sure what it is you want me to civilly retract but if it’s regarding my position that you were tossing the Constitution in my face — but say you weren’t actually accusing me of anything — Then I retract my request that you retract the accusation you say you didn’t make.
You might need to read that first paragraph more than once because … Sometimes things aren’t as clear in text as they are in face-to-face conversation. Which I have pointed out many times on this site. If you (the generic ‘you’, not you personally) have a point to make then you have to use enough words to make it clear. Again, speaking generically, this isn’t Twitter, YouTube, FaceBook or any of those spaces where brevity is the major virtue. No one is forcing anyone to read anything so we can post whatever length comments we want to or need to in order to be clear.
Which you did, and I thank you for that.
I’m not convinced Trump didn’t “go fishing” for this and got a lot bigger fish than he was bargaining for.
One of the problems on both sides of our political ideology is the echo chamber effect. When the echo chamber is combined with confirmation bias we get huge blind spots. Watching/reading purely conservative commentary often fails to deliver the flip side of the story. Even when the flip side is valid. Michael Knowles, Bill and Steve (to a much lesser extent Scott which is why I like to hear what he has to say), et. al. are never going to say “Trump’s a crook, lock him up.”
You might think to yourself “Well, yeah they’re never going to say that because it would be untrue.” But is it? How do you know for sure?
What compounds this problem is that the available information sources are so biased on both sides that it’s damn near impossible to find information in which a reasonable degree of confidence may be merited.
I’m not a lawyer and certainly nothing more than a very amateur Constitutional Scholar but I’m not convinced Trump has blanket immunity coverage over what he’s done under Article II.
For one thing, Bill Barr, who is a lawyer, says that “If half of what Trump is accused of is true, he’s toast.” …
“It’s a very detailed indictment. And it’s very, very damning,” And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous. Yes, he’s been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims, and I’ve been at his side defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He’s not a victim here. He was totally wrong.” -William Barr, former U.S. Attorney on Fox News, 11 June 202.
Starry-eyed Trumpists would claim Barr is saying that for personal reasons out of disloyalty to Trump. Barr has no history of acting that way, I think that’s more rationalization and excuse than it is a genuine reason to dismiss what Barr has to say.
I think if we ignore this whole thing as just another witch hunt we do so to our own peril. There is the “Boy who cried ‘Wolf’!” problem but don’t forget, in that fable there really was a wolf the last time the boy cried out.
I have a couple friends over to watch Presidential elections. After the last one I said to my buddies “This scares the shit out of me because the other side cheated and if they cheat successfully once they’re going to be encouraged to try it again.”
There’s no doubt that nothing succeeds like success. But …
There’s this thing called “The law of diminishing returns”.
Unless the Democrat Left finds a way to achieve a lock on political power, that supplants the Constitution and bypasses the American voter altogether, they’re going to be hitting that wall. So I think they might try to prosecute every Republican candidate but I’m not convinced they will be successful.
This is already pretty long but I want to point out that the exploitation of a “crisis” as an excuse for extra-legal action or to ignore what’s actually the law and what is not — Is a trick of the Democrat Left. It might not be fair in light of their glaring hypocrisies regarding Biden, Clinton, et.al. but if we go that same route then we are just as guilty of abandoning the Rule of Law as they are.
Their excuse that they are “saving Democracy” by doing that is no more valid than if we claim we’re “saving the Republic” and do the same thing. These are the flip sides of the same coin. There may be some tricky legal mechanism we could employ as you have pointed out, that doesn’t mean the voting public is going to understand the finer points of legalese and see us as doing anything but the same thing our opponents do.
The only way that I can see out of this mess is to fully expose the Democrat Left for what it actually is. To do that we need to win elections, assuming that elections are still valid. Prosecuting Joe Biden, a former POTUS, once we win is a “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” scenario. The difference being that Joe has actually committed real crimes and that becomes more obvious by the day.
If we pull some legal sleight-of-hand to get Trump in the clear and he does not face full due process (hopefully to win, if you’re right about Article II) then … We can kiss all that goodbye.
You speak of needing enough words to make something clear. We might be able to do that – if we use enough words that we need several inconveniently-large buildings to house a single post. Brevity has many benefits beyond post length, including readability. While we do risk potential misunderstandings, that doesn’t mean there are no tradeoffs to being long-winded but more precise. Just like with your “Trumpist” comments, sometimes misunderstandings happen in any communication.
If you think Trump went fishing with this, you’re giving him more credit for strategic thinking than I do. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but I just can’t see him working that many moves ahead.
I totally get the echo chamber argument, and agree with it. That’s why I love primary sources. In this case, I looked at several of them, including the relevant statutes and case law. Judicial Watch was a great case that answered many of these questions as matters of first impression (that is, the first time a question has been brought before the courts) and did so in a way that was both very broad and binding.
That’s why I scoff at the references to “rule of law” in this situation. Rule of law requires not just that there is a statute somewhere that the accused may have broken, but it includes respect for precedent and due process (indeed, “rule of law” cannot exist without due process). In this case, you have the constitutional separation of powers that backs up Trump (despite Barr’s incorrect claims to the contrary – we can address that if you want, but this is going to be long enough as it is), the PRA that gives him unfettered access to his own records, and case law that supports his position. As a matter of due process, the rule of lenity requires that all of these be considered. They ALL create the legal environment surrounding Trump’s actions. It is a mockery of rule of law to invoke its name without consideration of them. Hell, even Comey’s damning dismissal of the investigation against Hillary has weight, in that it stated that the FBI did not consider what she did to be prosecutable.
As for diminishing returns – they will only diminish when it stops working. Winning an election is more than enough reason for Democrats to carry on with this as normal process. Maybe they’ll be out of power some day… but that’s somebody else’s problem – and as piss-poor as Republicans are at returning the favor, there’s really no need for them to worry.
But even if Republicans DO eventually hit back – isn’t that enough damage to our nation? We’ve gone from the free marketplace of ideas to political persecution as political strategy. The attempt is bad enough, and any success they have is even worse. Saying that it will eventually end is like telling someone “don’t worry if they cut off fingers – there’s a point of diminishing returns… eventually you’ll run out of fingers to cut off.”
Maybe the public won’t see the finer points of the legalese – but that’s why it needs to stop now. They also won’t see the finer points of the legalese when some prosecutor turns jaywalking into a felony and those who just nod and mutter “rule of law” go along with it. After all, a law is a law right?
As for due process, Trump has already been denied that. There is no due process in being exposed to novel prosecutions, which are gross violations of substantive due process by their very nature. Due process requires that someone know exactly what behavior is proscribed… and when you violate lenity, statues that work in the accused’s favor, separation of power, and precedent… well, that’s NEVER the case.
Ah, I see part of the problem we’re having in understanding each other. I say “part” because it’s certainly not all or the only problem but it’s a very clear one.
That is the problem of definitions. You (sort of) make up your own definition of the Rule of Law out of your own understanding. I’m not doing that, I’m using primary sources … I’m using the dictionary/encyclopedic definitions. Which according to Encyclopaedia Britannica is …
rule of law, the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power.
And according to Webster’s Dictionary is …
Rule of Law: a situation in which the laws of a country are obeyed by everyone.
Using Occam’s Razor to cut that down to an even easier definition to understand — Rule of Law means that all laws are equally applicable to all people regardless of station, status, wealth, lack of wealth or position.
Rule of Law is a condition whereby the populace is ruled equally by the Law. LAW is the ruler, not merely a set of “rules” to be followed. It means being not ruled arbitrarily by the unequal application of the law by those who can manage to place themselves above the law.
That’s not what you said. What you said is citing things like usage and legal precedent. That’s NOT “Rule of Law” by definition, it’s the application of codified law. Due process just means that the letter of the law is followed and that is not what Rule of Law means. If a law were passed that says Hillary Clinton can break laws no one else can, that would still be due process. That law being duly applied. That would not be “Rule of Law” whereby the Law Rules and applies equally to everyone though it would still be due process. Rule of Law and due process are not the same thing though they both are part and parcel of the American Legal System. So …
Forgive me if I scoff a wee bit when someone tries to make up their own definition. If you’re employing the definition you describe, you’ve nothing to scoff about at anyone using the correct definition in conversation.
Here’s an idea. How about, when speaking to each other, we just forego the scoffing altogether?
Primary sources are still biased. If Judicial Watch, which I have great respect for, comes up with some convoluted, uncommon legal maneuvers to clear Trump of his current legal issues … That’s “loophole” thinking. Every single criminal who ever went to court expects and prays that his lawyer will find some magic loophole to get him out of trouble.
The truth is that sort of thing very seldom works.
I say primary sources are still biased because in the case of Judicial Watch … Well that’s a conservative organization with a conservative bias. Citing it as a primary source does not eliminate any bias. If Judicial Watch has come up with some magic loophole and they can get that to work in court, good for them. Until then it’s just a legal theory. Odds are good the Judge would just throw it out so that due process can proceed to whatever outcome it may yield.
As far as the Law of Diminishing Returns goes …
Analogies are always suspect. You chose an analogy specifically to make the situation sound more dire than it is, the cutting off fingers thing. I could come up with an analogy that sounds much less scary and would probably be more accurate to the situation but I’m not going to bother fighting an analogy war with you. That was just a logical fallacy constructed to make things seem worse than they are.
Things are not that bad. They’re not nearly as good as they could be but also nowhere near as bad as your cutting off fingers analogy. Even being worse than they could be we are not yet facing an existential threat to Americanism. Despite what hair-on-fire conservative pundits are saying.
It’s doubtful that even if they wanted to the Biden Administration could do that all on its own.
Because of various factors which I can’t cover in depth without risking violation of your “long winded” parameter, things just are not as bad as we’re being led to believe. Taking for example demographics in the industrialized world, America stands at the threshold of a decade or more of unprecedented growth. American manufacturing has learned its lessons about iffy supply chains among other lessons. Manufacturing in the U.S. stands to increase more than significantly in the next 10-20 years.
It will increase faster and stronger if there’s a Conservative in the White House because the Democrat Left would no doubt try to stem any inconvenient outbreak of prosperity. Just like they’re doing now.
Conservative leadership would supercharge growth, as we saw during the Trump administration. That happened even though Trump is pretty terrible when it comes to being a Conservative. There was growth during the Obama administration that happened in spite of Obama, not because of him.
The real danger we face at the moment is that the impending growth will occur under a Democrat Leftist POTUS. Who, like Obama will then claim whatever prosperity results is the effect of his policies. Which again they are not, they are in spite of their anti-American efforts not because of them.
As far as what Bill Barr has to say goes I was just providing a countering viewpoint. I don’t know if Barr is right or not. I don’t know what records are actually evidential or if they’re all covered by the PRA or not. I’m not a lawyer and as far as I know neither are you. So we’re just going to have to wait to see how this plays out.
Because it’s just silly for anyone to claim this is a slam dunk under PRA or anything else. If it were that simple it would simply be thrown out of court. Clearly it’s not that simple so a simplified view of the situation is likely to be disappointing to someone.
Regarding the idea that Trump went fishing for this in some sort of three dimensional chess move, I don’t see it that way at all. I see it as a single, simple, simple minded idea.
To wit: “Hey, the more they persecute me the more popular I am. So if I can manage to get myself seriously persecuted that will give me a much better shot at winning the White House again.”
That’s the way Trump thinks so it’s not all that hard to see where he might have done just that. No credit for being some sort of master manipulator many moves ahead of the game is required at all.
I’m not saying that’s what he did. I don’t know. I’m saying that it’s not wholly beyond comprehension that he might have done that.
And here’s where I tire of discussing things with you. You decide, on your own, that I have “made up” definitions. Rest assured, I haven’t. My definition comes from legal works, court opinions, and legal philosophers. While I wouldn’t think at scoffing at you for using a simplified, terse, and reductionist dictionary definition, I do take the liberty of disagreeing with it. You, however, invent your own story of how I arrive at definitions because it fits your needs in the conversation.
You don’t really get to say that right after scoffing. It convinces me that this offer is not sincere in the slightest. It’s why you’ve typically found me difficult to engage in conversation.
Anyways, back to the discussion.
“Judicial Watch,” in this case, is not a reference to the organization, but rather “Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin.,” a case they lost. That’s why I cited as case law. I’m not referring to their legal theories, but actual decisions from the bench which form the legal precedent surrounding these issues. That’s case law on which Trump’s legal advisors relied. Rule of Law binds the government to respect this precedent, as does due process.
Analogies are analogies. They are useful in illustrating a point. That’s why they’re used. I’m sure you’ve used them, yourself (if not, that makes you a rare individual). However, rather than showing the flaw in my analogy, you attack the notion as a logical fallacy. Which logical fallacy would that be? I also note that you try to throw your failure to justify why things aren’t that bad back on me. Again, this is why discussing things with you becomes tiresome. You cast your own inability to make a point as the other person’s fault. And you suggest we not scoff at each other?
On your discussion regarding growth, I’m not sure how it’s relevant to the discussion at hand. I don’t disagree with anything you said in that section – I’m just not sure why it’s there.
Regarding the Barr discussion. You are correct, I’m not a lawyer. I rely on lawyers I trust for their analysis, and I scrutinize their reasoning (if they don’t include their reasoning, I don’t bother with them because I have no way of knowing if they’re serious thinkers like Robert Barnes, or political hacks like Legal Eagle) and compare it to primary sources. In this, I don’t believe I’m special or smarter than others – I believe everyone can and should do likewise. Society’s current obsession with experts (or, more accurately, only the experts with whom they agree) leads to a lot of people being fooled by hacks.
As far as Trump’s fishing – maybe. I can’t say that it wasn’t. However, given the timeline, I believe the actions in question would have needed to happen before the benefits of persecution became apparent. At the time, all he really had was collusion and two impeachments – none of which really helped him in elections.
These “charges” may be serious, if they were levied at anyone else. However, these charges do not and cannot be applied to Trump. ALL authority for classification of any and all documents lies with the President. None of the laws regarding handling of classified records apply to him. He does not require any approval, permission, process or procedure to do anything he likes with any classified document. I’d have to look it up, but there was a court ruling on this not too long ago, saying exactly this.
The charges would be serious against anyone else, but not a president. However, such charges would apply to Biden because he mishandled the classified documents BEFORE he was president.
A Federal District court judge in D.C. established this over a decade ago in a case regarding classified tapes and other documents that Bill Clinton kept in his sock drawer.
The conclusion was that, it is a decision solely for the president to make. The mere act of taking them, made them his personal records, not public records, not National Security records, etc. They become the President’s personal property that no one can compel him to turn over.
I hope you’re right and that’s the way this plays out.
I can’t help but think the Left has a substantial countermove planned and if so, we’ll just have to wait and see.
They will convict trump no matter what- there is no more faith in the system- a lot of our system is corrupt – if you are rich , famous and on the left – you are ok. if you are on the right forget it- sorry but we are reaching the end – if we lose the next election – well i expect we will have our own gulags opening up
It’s a total witch hunt, Clinton lost the nuclear codes, his corrupt wife destroyed 30,000 emails and got Americans killed in Bengazi, Biden took classified documents while he was a senator and vp among his criminal acts, George W. lost 20,000 emails, Chaney had documents shredded. Give me a freak’n break over waving a classified document around. Trump’s accomplishments far out way this frivolous matter. Trump 2024!!
Let’s not forget Hillary’s emails ending up on Huma Abedin’s and Tony Weiner’s laptop, which, by the way, has disappeared. Not Huma and Tony, but the laptop. Although, disappearing Tony might not be a bad thing. You’d have thought he’d have been Epsteined already.
It’s official. We have become a banana republic. May the USA Rest In Peace.
This country is bankrupt. The laws are made by the elite for the elite and to protect the elite from the masses.They are going after Trump because he bucked the system. The elite, despite the gravity of their offenses, will never face judgment. Of the people, by the people and for the people is propaganda for mass consumption.
“The elite, despite the gravity of their offenses, will never face judgment.”
Au contraire!!
“The Lord works out everything to its proper end–even the wicked for a day of disaster.” Proverbs 16:4
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Galatians 6:7
I think Scott is wrong in his closing statement. The founders indicated the steps to ensure our freedom and the continuation of our Republic in their writings in the Federalist Papers.
We have four boxes to utilize to ensure our freedom.
1] The soap box:
-Used to voice our opinion in the marketplace of ideas, and attempt to sway public opinion our way.
That has been corrupted by the Leftist Media and Technology Conglomerate, shutting down opposing voices and actively censoring speech.
2] The Ballot Box
-Important to give voice to the citizens wishes and empower their mandate to elect suitable representation.
That has been suborned by the blatant and unapologetic cheating perpetrated by the Leftists in the Democratic Party, supported and defended by the Media and Technology Conglomerate.
3] The Jury Box
-Required by the rule of law to ensure fair judgement of the accused by their peers, according to legal principle.
That has been utterly gutted by the recent actions of politically motivated actors in the government, legal system, and even foreign bad actors, interfering in our election processes. (I’m looking at you, Soros!!)
That leaves:
4] The Ammo Box.
-The last resort of a free people to defend themselves against tyranny and the over-reach of government power. The ultimate expression of the voice of We, The People, in the defense of ourselves and our Liberty against those who would rule over us.
We are rapidly approaching the point where this may be our only option. I am not eager to embrace this horror, but I am a US Military man. I will not turn aside from my duty to God and the defense of my Constitution.
The actions of this government closely match the list of intolerable acts perpetrated by England, which led to the first Revolution.
This administration has no regard for the people, only power. And the actions they are taking against this man who spoke up against them and for the People is the biggest Red Flag Warning that has been seen in generations.
We need to fight. We MUST fight! WE need to believe in the righteous outcome and use the first three boxes to guarantee our future.
But we cannot let the Left destroy all that this country represents. And if that means open war, so be it.
Semper Fidelis, Semper Paratus. I say this, not as a Marine, (I’m not) but as a Patriot.
Prepare.
I believe Scott was spot on with it. Times and hearts of people have changed since the Federalist Papers and not for the better.
Most people believe today that someone that is charged with something is guilty (whether they know the facts or not.) So basically, there’s a court of public opinion then there’s the real court.
I do love your #4 rule though.. The ammo box!
I can’t help but notice that Trump’s troubles coincide with damning information coming out about Biden. The FBI refused to come forward with clear and damning evidence that Biden took a $5 million bribe from a foreign nation while vice president until the very moment Trump went before the judge to have the charges read. Distraction much? Why is nobody talking about a sitting vice president accepting bribes, with voice recordings as evidence also? Why is it more important to look at a former president’s handling of paperwork which did NOT result in any harm to our country, than to look at a former vice president’s accepting bribe money. And now that same person is giving that same country billions of taxpayer money and armament.
I can’t help but think about the children’s stories “The Emperor with No Clothes” and “The Pied Piper”. Americans, the lemmings of the latter tale, don’t want to be the ones to admit they can’t see the fine new clothing worn by their leader and joyfully follow the mainstream media “piper” over the cliff.
At some time, you have to put some tea in the harbor.
Life isn’t fair and Trump has been dealt infinitely more than his share of that unfairness. He is, in my opinion, the only real kind of candidate who could have so efficiently opened the door to recognition of the insidious nature of the deep state. His caustic, overbearing, combative nature is what was necessary to fight the partisan media. Everything Steve said in his opening comments is true. Trump is who we needed and who we need again. Everything Bill said about how Trump is standing as the lone wall between “THEM” and “US” is true. If Covid-19 hadn’t happened he’d be finishing up his second term.
What is going to get Trump prosecuted is the mistake he made admitting that he had classified information that he should have made unclassified and didn’t. He basically made the bed he is going to sleep in. It doesn’t matter what Hilary did or what Joe did. They are not on trial. He made a mistake.
This mistake will cost us the election. Winning the election is paramount. I love the man. I’m beyond furious at what was done to crucify the guy and ruin our nation. But I want to win. I think Mr. Trump would be far more effective throwing himself on his sword, joining his party pointing out the unfairness of the system, the issues with the deep state, and the insanity of the mainstream media.
He won’t do that, though. Having Trump in front taking all the slings and arrows while DeSantis and Ramaswamy do the work would be an unbeatable combination and might get the swamp partially reclaimed. But it will never happen, because the man wants to lead (and be recognized for leading).
There is no real challenge to any of the man’s claims about how he has been unfairly portrayed in the press, lied about consistently, and is a target of the massive federal government bureaucracy. The neutered Republican National Committee should get them together and figure out a way to present a united front. They should shower Trump with accolades and assure him that he will be the face of the party. And they should make the other candidates who will be running know that they will be like Biden, the president but not the president, so to speak.
I’m really disappointed that Pres. Trump has such a strong tendency to kneecap himself, because I thoroughly believe in his vision for America. I suppose that will be the real issue. I believe he CAN put the nation back on track, but will they let him (and why would they?) and secondly, will his ego continue to get in his way?
Agree. We all know he WOULD put us back on track, they won’t let him, and his ego will get in the way.
Nobody I know is saying that this is a trivial thing in any way. What I and those around me are saying is that the actual criminality is on the other side of the docket!!!