US Politics Thread 2021-24

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

Markus, you put that correctly. "Innocent until proven guilty or not guilty" is just fine. Don't let some German idiot whose English is worse than yours get away with mocking you.

Ohh no don't call another debater ugly words..

Some here are convinced that he will get a sentence.

They may be right, but until then....innocent...

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Ohh no don't call another debater ugly words..

Some here are convinced that he will get a sentence.

They may be right, but until then....innocent...

Markus

Some here have been just as convinced he would get a sentence at least a dozen times since he took office, they ain't been right yet. Maybe they'll get lucky this time.

Meanwhile the current Bozo in Chief wants to build train tracks across the Indian ocean:

"We have plans to build a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean," Biden told the League of Conservation Voters at their annual dinner in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday night. "We have plans to build in Angola, one of the largest solar plants in the world. I could go on, but I'm not. I'm going off script. I'm going to get in trouble."

https://rare.us/rare-politics/biden-...n-ocean-video/

[Buddahaid]

Meanwhile the Magnuts in the House fail to censure Adam Schiff as MAGA continues to lose traction among House Republicans.

[Rockstar]

Meanwhile some sources are reporting wife of Biden bribery whistleblower Mykola Lisin (who is also dead) has been found dead and her child kidnapped.

Oh, and by the way it appears Trump was right again. Patient ZERO was a scientist working at the WUHAN lab. Kinda looks like what all the usual kook fringe suspects and Fauci loving gullible half-wits around the world said were just anti-science, anti-vax or q-anon conspiracy theories have instead turned out to be actually true. Those were the same kook fringe heartless inhuman kool-aid drinkers that demanded the unvaxxed be denied health care and lose their jobs if they didn’t comply. I'm sure some even reminisced about the good old days of KZ camps for those so-called deniers. You know who you are, you cowards. Thank god that the good people with common sense still exist in the world, otherwise you morons would have been dead a long time ago.

Public Service Announcement: It has been reported there are elements of blue anon kook fringe that still want people with common sense to believe a simple campaign slogan is now some kind of political organization. Oh, I’m sure kook fringe blue anon kool-aid drinkers see MAGA everywhere but I think it’s fair to say nobody else does.

[mapuc]

Ok an inmate can run for office.

Now let presume Trump win the election from his cell.

What then ??

Has he to be in jail the time he got or is he free ?

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Ok an inmate can run for office.

Now let presume Trump win the election from his cell.

What then ??

Has he to be in jail the time he got or is he free ?

Markus

It's uncharted ground obviously but from what I read any prison sentence would be postponed at least until he left office. Then there is the debate whether Trump could pardon himself of all federal charges if he were to become POTUS again.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

It's uncharted ground obviously but from what I read any prison sentence would be postponed at least until he left office. Then there is the debate whether Trump could pardon himself of all federal charges if he were to become POTUS again.

I tried to find an answer on the web without any luck, then I changed search parameter and found this interesting read

What happens then? As I explain below, the best reading of the Constitution would render him ineligible to serve as President while in prison but in any plausible scenario in which Trump returns to the Oval Office in 2025, the only actors authorized to declare him ineligible would be extremely unlikely to do so. Thus, we face the genuine possibility that Trump would serve some or all of a presidential term while in prison.

https://verdict.justia.com/2023/04/1...might-find-out

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I tried to find an answer on the web without any luck, then I changed search parameter and found this interesting read

https://verdict.justia.com/2023/04/1...might-find-out

Markus, if the Americans would put up with being presided over by a convicted felon who is in prison - then they would deserve exactly that and nothing better. America would become the laughing stock of the world, many states would probably not sign any binding treaties with such an America because of their own legal situation, since on the other side a convicted felon would sign whose legal legitimacy to conclude treaties might be given according to American understanding, but perhaps not according to the legal canon of many other countries. From their point of view, there is simply no legitimate treaty signatory for the American side, and the demand of the Republicans that Trump's legitimacy in prison be recognized is just an ideological demand, but not a binding law to which other states would have to submit.

In other words, if it comes to that, I recommend that you set up a popcorn subscription in good time, because it will quickly become scarce. And for the American-international relations it would be a single devastation.

I expect the current impeachment to help Trump in the intra-party nomination process, but if nominated then to drag him down in the campaign against Biden. Whether the non-orange Republicans could prevail against the Trumpists if Trump is found guilty before the nomination is finalized, I dare not predict. But I have my doubts. American internal polarization has reached the point where the country resembles a madhouse in these matters, where any absurdity, however abstruse and self-defeating, seems possible. In the long run, a total fanatization of two camps of left and right is conceivable - and from there on it becomes really dangerous at some point. At the time of the last Gulf War, I predicted the possibility of the formation of a police-state-like radical and religious right-wing dictatorship in the USA. And I don't take back a word of that, because Trumpism is also further strengthened by an inherently violent player, namely religious fundamentalism.

In the overall view, this mixture of factors is extremely dangerous. A dictatorship always becomes possible when people consider its emergence impossible.

[August]

6 Reasons DOJ’s ‘Get Trump’ Documents Case Is Seriously Flawed



By: Will Scharf
June 16, 2023



I am a former assistant U.S. attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges. I have reviewed the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith in the documents case against former President Donald Trump, and have serious concerns with the way this case is being framed in the public and with some aspects of the way the prosecution itself is being conducted.
Here are six major issues I see that need to be addressed by the special counsel’s team.


1. Interplay Between the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act

Others have already spoken insightfully about the scope of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Mike Davis of the Article III Project has published and spoken on the subject, and Michael Bekesha of Judicial Watch had a fascinating article in The Wall Street Journal detailing his experience litigating the Clinton Sock Drawer Case.
Basically, their argument distills down to the idea that the president’s authority to retain personal records, as well as his rights to access his presidential records, make it impossible to prosecute him under the Espionage Act section at issue here, § 793(e), because the government cannot prove “unauthorized possession,” as required under the statute.
I want to make a different point relating to the intent element of the Espionage Act, the statute Trump is being charged under.
Section 793(e) requires the government to prove that the defendant knew he had National Defense Information (NDI) in his possession, knew there was a government official entitled to receive the information, and then willfully failed to deliver it to that official.
This is a very high set of mens rea bars to jump in any circumstance. Proving a defendant’s intent and knowledge can often be tough. But it’s even tougher here because of the Presidential Records Act.
The Presidential Records Act sets up a system where the president designates all records that he creates either as presidential or personal records (44 U.S.C. § 2203(b)). A former president is supposed to turn over his presidential records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and he has the right to keep his personal records.
Based on the documents I’ve read and his actions I’ve read about, I believe Trump viewed his “boxes” as his personal records under the PRA. There are statements he made, quoted in the indictment, that support that view. If Trump considered the contents of these boxes to be of purely personal interest, hence his designation of them as personal records, did he knowingly retain NDI?
Did he really think these documents, like years-old briefing notes and random maps, jumbled together with his letters, news clippings, scribbled notes, and random miscellaneous items, “could be used to the injury of the United States”? Or did he just think of them as mementos of his time in office, his personal records of the four years, akin to a journal or diary?
If he thought these boxes were his personal records, he may have believed NARA simply had no right to receive them at all — meaning he did not willfully withhold anything from an official he knew had the right to receive them because he didn’t believe that anyone had the right to receive them.
By breathlessly bandying around classification levels and markings, the special counsel is trying to make this case seem much, much simpler than it is. Classification levels do not automatically make something NDI, and having classified documents in your possession is not enough to convict here. It is simply not the case that the fact that previously classified documents were found in boxes in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom means Trump is guilty.
That’s what they want you to think, and that has the media’s inch-deep view for the most part, but it’s dead wrong.
More than anything, this case hinges on the ability of the special counsel to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” aspects of Trump’s state of mind that will be extremely difficult to prove in this case because of his obligations and rights under the Presidential Records Act — in addition to all of the usual issues.


2. Classification and National Defense Information

Just because something is classified — even Top Secret, SCI, NOFORN, FISA, pick your alphabet soup — does not mean it is National Defense Information within the meaning of the Espionage Act. NDI, for the purposes of an Espionage Act prosecution, is defined as one of a long list of items “relating to the national defense which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”
A lot of the documents listed in the indictment are older, or seemingly random. Would Trump in 2022 have had reason to know that a 2019 briefing document “related to various foreign countries, with handwritten annotation in black marker” could harm the U.S. or help foreign countries?
It is tough to say because we cannot see the documents, but that is a question the jury is going to have to decide in the end, and Trump’s legal team needs to drive home this point over and over again: Classification is not dispositive in this case. Harm to America or benefit to foreign countries is the standard.
Anyone who has worked around government knows that overclassification is a huge problem. A ton of documents end up being classified because of arcane technical rules that may not reflect the real world. If the president were to ask the Navy what’s for lunch for the next week at Coronado, for example, there is a good chance the answer comes back with a classification marker on it.
To put it simply, not everything classified constitutes NDI. This case revolves around actual legal standards and statutory language, not a bunch of scary-looking all-caps acronyms.


3. Walt Nauta and DOJ Misconduct

Far and away the most troubling side story to emerge from this saga so far are the allegations made by Trump aide and co-defendant Walt Nauta’s lawyer last week.
You may have missed it if you blinked. Not surprisingly, the corporate media have mostly buried this one.
Nauta’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, alleged in a court filing that during a meeting with prosecutors about his client’s case, the head of the Counterintelligence Section of DOJ’s National Security Division Jay Bratt “suggested Woodward’s judicial application [for a DC Superior Court judgeship] might be considered more favorably if he and his client cooperated against Trump.”
If true, and I find it hard to believe that Woodward just made the whole thing up, this is wild misconduct. Truly wild. It could undermine the entire case against both Trump and Nauta. It could end careers at DOJ if fairly investigated.
Woodward is a highly accomplished lawyer. He spent a decade at Akin Gump, a top law firm, clerked on the D.C. Circuit, and has very substantial experience in government investigations. This is not some fly-by-night TV lawyer. He is a legal heavyweight, and he is leveling an extremely serious allegation of misconduct against a senior official at DOJ.
Watch this issue as the case against Trump and Nauta begins to move. We will all hear more about it, I am sure.


4. Attorney-Client Privilege

The indictment relies on a significant amount of information received, in one form or another, from one of Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran, who was compelled to testify in front of the grand jury. According to news reports, the argument for breaching the privilege was the crime-fraud exception, which is worth examining in greater detail.
The attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure to the government confidential communications made between clients and their attorneys. It has been around for centuries and is considered a core protection in our system of justice.
The crime-fraud exception, though, allows the attorney-client privilege to be broken in rare circumstances when two requirements are met: First, there needs to be a prima facie showing that the client was engaged in criminal conduct. Second, the client has to have obtained or sought the attorney’s assistance in furthering that crime.
I have not seen DOJ’s filings on Corcoran, but I would be interested to know how they argued this. First of all, what was the crime they used as a predicate? Was it unlawful retention of the documents? If so, there is nothing in the indictment that I can see indicating Corcoran’s communications with Trump would have furthered that in a way that would justify breaching privilege.
Was it obstruction? I think this is the most likely option: They pierced attorney-client privilege using obstruction as the predicate crime for the crime-fraud exception, saying that Trump’s conversations with Corcoran amounted to him attempting to enlist Corcoran in a criminal obstruction scheme.
Now, we will see how this theory goes for the government. I have my doubts.
But if that is the case, just reading this indictment, it seems as though the obstruction charges may have been structured specifically in part just to get Corcoran’s testimony in, to help buttress what would otherwise be a much weaker case against Trump on the substantive charges.
In any case, the special counsel is going to have to show why the communications in question were a solicitation by Trump to Corcoran to join him in criminal acts, as opposed to Trump asking a lawyer he hired to advise him on his legal defense, to tell him what his options were, or to outline what defensive steps might be possible, and what was done by others in previous cases like Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Reading the conversations in the indictment, they sound a lot more like honest attorney-client communications than they do crime fraud to me, even with all ellipses and modifications made by the special counsel’s team.
I expect a motion by Trump’s legal team on this issue, and if they win that will cut the guts out of much of this case. It will be very tough to prove intent and willfulness the way the government needs to without Corcoran, at least based on what we see in the indictment.


5. Timing: Why Now?

This is not a legal defect in the indictment, but it is an important point nonetheless. Why are they bringing this case now?
They know Trump is the leading candidate for president. They know he is beating Biden in the polls. They must know how bad it looks for a sitting president’s DOJ to indict that president’s primary political opponent.
DOJ has long had policies in place to prevent new indictments from being brought, or overt investigative acts being committed, in the months preceding an election in order to avoid the appearance of political timing. The same reasoning clearly applies here.
The special counsel’s team did not have a statute of limitations issue, they could have easily just announced the facts as they saw them after the search warrant was executed and all the documents were recovered, and then held off on further investigative acts and the indictment until after November 2024.
The fact that they did not follow that course is strong evidence to me that a big part of this is the burning desire among many on the left to “get Trump.” They don’t care about the law. They don’t care about the facts. They don’t care about norms or propriety or anything else. They just want Trump in cuffs.
The fact that our law enforcement and intelligence apparatuses are being weaponized in this way against a leading presidential contender is truly a black mark on them and on our republic.
If I were Trump’s lawyers, I would consider moving to continue further proceedings until after November 2024. Let the case sit. The country doesn’t need to litigate this right now. We need to pick our next president. If DOJ won’t agree to that continuance, let them explain why this has to happen right now. There is no good reason that I can see.


6. Jack Smith: Why Him?

If you could pick any lawyer in the country to handle a controversial case against a former president, a case involving an aggressive, unprecedented use of the Espionage Act, a controversial law in and of itself, what lawyer would you pick?
You’d probably want just a consummate professional, right? Career prosecutor with no political profile at all? White knight in shining armor who’s never lost a case?
Or you could pick Jack Smith.
The single case Jack Smith is most publicly associated with was the prosecution of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.
In that case, using a very aggressive interpretation of the scope of federal bribery and honest services fraud statutes, Smith nuked the career and life of a popular Republican politician, before having all his convictions overturned by the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion.
A unanimous Supreme Court smacked Smith down for an overzealous, legally defective prosecution of a Republican politician, and the opinion was so devastating that DOJ did not even attempt to retry the case. It was just dropped.
As has been noted publicly as well, Smith’s wife is a leftist filmmaker who produced a hagiography of Michelle Obama, and he currently lives in the Netherlands. Was there not anyone else up to the task on this side of the Atlantic?
If this is not a political prosecution, if Merrick Garland wasn’t just trying to “get Trump,” then why was Jack Smith the pick? Like the timing, the decision reeks of politics.


https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/16...iously-flawed/

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

.. I predicted the possibility of the formation of a police-state-like radical and religious right-wing dictatorship in the USA. And I don't take back a word of that, because Trumpism is also further strengthened by an inherently violent player, namely religious fundamentalism.

There is far more likely a chance that a left wing authoritarian police state will come about before that. The current use by Biden against his political rivals of the DOJ and the FBI is an indication of that. Religious fundamentalism is waning. Left wing Marxism/socialism and their progressive/left allies are far greater a threat and is growing especially among young Americans.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by u crank

There is far more likely a chance that a left wing authoritarian police state will come about before that. The current use by Biden against his political rivals of the DOJ and the FBI is an indication of that. Religious fundamentalism is waning. Left wing Marxism/socialism and their progressive/left allies are far greater a threat and is growing especially among young Americans.

You do realize that the left in the US are still capitalists?

Anyway, the news that Trump lawyers had been trying for months to persuade Trump to return the documents will end up convicting him on the willful retention charges.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Markus, if the Americans would put up with being presided over by a convicted felon who is in prison - then they would deserve exactly that and nothing better. America would become the laughing stock of the world, many states would probably not sign any binding treaties with such an America because of their own legal situation, since on the other side a convicted felon would sign whose legal legitimacy to conclude treaties might be given according to American understanding, but perhaps not according to the legal canon of many other countries. From their point of view, there is simply no legitimate treaty signatory for the American side, and the demand of the Republicans that Trump's legitimacy in prison be recognized is just an ideological demand, but not a binding law to which other states would have to submit.

In other words, if it comes to that, I recommend that you set up a popcorn subscription in good time, because it will quickly become scarce. And for the American-international relations it would be a single devastation.

I expect the current impeachment to help Trump in the intra-party nomination process, but if nominated then to drag him down in the campaign against Biden. Whether the non-orange Republicans could prevail against the Trumpists if Trump is found guilty before the nomination is finalized, I dare not predict. But I have my doubts. American internal polarization has reached the point where the country resembles a madhouse in these matters, where any absurdity, however abstruse and self-defeating, seems possible. In the long run, a total fanatization of two camps of left and right is conceivable - and from there on it becomes really dangerous at some point. At the time of the last Gulf War, I predicted the possibility of the formation of a police-state-like radical and religious right-wing dictatorship in the USA. And I don't take back a word of that, because Trumpism is also further strengthened by an inherently violent player, namely religious fundamentalism.

In the overall view, this mixture of factors is extremely dangerous. A dictatorship always becomes possible when people consider its emergence impossible.

What’s your meaning of Trumpism? So far everything that has been published about the guy has been a load of unfounded and best trivial B.S. from supposed insider anonymous sources. In my opinion Trumpism isn’t about red hats with campaign slogans embroidered on them nor is it even about the voters who wear those hats.

Trumpism is the endless bombardment by every media outlet imaginable injecting Trump drama into daily life of the public. They created the monster, when the headlines stop so too will the boogyman called Trumpism stop. Everyone hates Trump but ask your self why? I bet the only answer you can honestly come up with is simply because the other guy does, that’s it. It’s just become fashionable and a social contagion. If people would stop for a moment and think what he’s done that’s any different from other politicians? Other than taking on the intelligence community, absolutely nothing.

[Catfish]

Trumpism?

"Grab 'em by the pussy"
A lot of people seem to admire him explicitly for this
"Trump! Definitely my president!"

In 2023 you either think the guy is a scumbag, or you worship the ground he walks on, there really isn't any middle ground. Proving what we already knew (that he sexually assaults women) isn't going to move the needle for anyone at this point.

I think he was or is a great dishonour to the US.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Trumpism?

"Grab 'em by the pussy"
A lot of people seem to admire him explicitly for this
"Trump! Definitely my president!"

In 2023 you either think the guy is a scumbag, or you worship the ground he walks on, there really isn't any middle ground. Proving what we already knew (that he sexually assaults women) isn't going to move the needle for anyone at this point.

I think he was or is a great dishonour to the US.

Well I do neither

For me he is an American who is running for the Oval Office nothing more nothing less.

Markus

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

You do realize that the left in the US are still capitalists?

Yep. The rich ones are.

https://www.heritage.org/progressivi...ge-their-minds

Among Americans aged 18-24, the poll reports that only 42 percent of those surveyed regardless of political affiliation have a positive view of capitalism, while 54 percent have a negative view. Only two years ago, the same polling survey had 58 percent of the same demographic favoring capitalism, while 38 percent had a negative view.

Seems like a pretty big shift.