Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-20…
the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence, and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
‘That dossier was presented to the FBI, and the FBI used it as the basis of their Russian investigation.
That’s pretty common knowledge by now.’
I think the confusion maybe lies in the interpretation the word ‘basis’. I interpreted it to mean the ‘starting point’ of the investigation, whereas I can see now that you interpreted (and maybe TXDirt intended) it to mean the primary foundation of the investigation.
It didn’t kickstart the investigation but I wouldn’t necessarily agree that it formed the primary foundation either, but it did play a role and mistakes were clearly made with regard to the FISA warrant applications.
You are The Narrative.
I can't imagine being as scared as you are of a bunch of protesters.
The shit you guys have to tell yourselves is bordering on "religious".
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Nothing bordering on "religious" here:
Never go full Trumptard.
Trump often fills a void in people’s lives. He’s a beacon of light representing a future that differs greatly from the present. And sometimes he’s a consoling force when folks struggle to get their personal train rolling down the track.
We’re 6 years into the Trump legacy, and millions of people are so vested that they simply cannot divert from the narrative. Like a bad marriage, the value of walking away doesn’t warrant the embarrassment of perceived failure. This is not the sole domain of Trump followers; we have all been in similar situations, and I completely understand and bear no ill will to those who stay the course. Only they know the price paid, and only they can decide if and when that cost becomes too great.
I've never thought too hard about who deserves to have their desk shat on by a guy in a viking hat, but if I did Nancy Pelosi would make the list.
Gee, I don't know... maybe because we had a President try to become a fucking king. Or in the case of the basement souvenirs, a genie.
See last sentence.
If Trump’s primary defence against illegally stealing classified documents is that he ‘declassified them’, then why do his lawyers “agree that it would be appropriate for the special master to possess a top secret clearance” to view the documents?
Just because they declassified them to a certain degree doesn't mean that it's not marked sensitive / compartment type information. Our government is weird like that and even with declassified stuff they can deny FOIA requests(give the runaround) and black things out etc. I've seen some pages of FOIA's requests come back in regards to declassified stuff with everything blacked out due to sensitivity and the only thing readable were the dates.
That could be one reason,possibly declassified but sensitive information.
However, if the docs he possessed were not blacked out(certain info) - I'm not sure of the legalities in regards to the original master copy. Like is he allowed to possess them without stuff being blacked out - just because he had a clearance? It's possible that's where things could get interesting from a legal point of view.
Pit Row
"Legal and political experts weighed in on Wednesday after the Department of Justice deployed a "legal battering ram" in a 36-page late-night court filing with 18-pages of exhibits.
Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal tweeted, "If this were any normal client, and any normal lawyer, we'd be talking about a plea today."
"Even if FPOTUS had the best lawyers in the world, they can't protect him from himself," Epner explained.
Attorney Teri Kanefield suggested that Trump's lawyers not only can't protect him, but can only get themselves in trouble.
"Trump hires lawyers to do his bidding (not give him legal advice) and this tends to get his lawyers into trouble," Kanefield wrote.
Tristan Snell, who prosecuted Trump University at the New York Attorney General's Office, wrote, "At this point, any lawyer who works with Trump is fully aware of the risks and should know they’re risking disbarment — if not indictment."
"Trump's lawyers always end up needing lawyers," he added.
"Two lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump are likely to become witnesses or targets in the investigation into how he hoarded documents marked as classified at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate — and secretly held onto some even after the lawyers claimed all sensitive materials had been returned, legal specialists said.
The lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb, handled Mr. Trump’s interactions with the government over a subpoena in May seeking additional material marked as classified. In a court filing late Tuesday, the Justice Department strongly suggested that people in Mr. Trump’s circle concealed documents in defiance of that subpoena, putting a spotlight on the lawyers’ actions."
Corcoran and Bobb weren't the only attorney's implicated in DOJ's late-night filing.
"Just six days before the Justice Department subpoenaed to recover highly sensitive documents housed at Mar-a-Lago, one of Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys scoured the estate searching for records in response to a separate legal matter. The attorney, Alina Habba, told a New York State court that on May 5, she conducted a search of Trump’s private residence and office at Mar-a-Lago that was so 'diligent' it included “all desks, drawers, nightstands, dressers, closets, etc.” She was looking for records in response to a subpoena issued by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is investigating matters related to the Trump Organization."
Trump attorneys weren't just facing scrutiny in Florida and New York on Wednesday, but also in Georgia.
"John Eastman, the lawyer who developed strategies to block certification of the 2020 election, is 'probably a target' in the criminal investigation into efforts to overturn Donald J. Trump’s election loss in Georgia, one of Mr. Eastman’s lawyers said on Wednesday. Mr. Eastman spent the morning appearing before an Atlanta special grand jury looking into the matter," The New York Times reported.
Attorney Bradley Moss concluded, "Trump simply has the worst lawyers."
Conservative political scientist expert Norm Ornstein predicted Trump lawyers will find themselves incarcerated.
But the legal liability facing Trump's lawyers could put additional pressure on Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump, according to former acting Solicitor General Katyal.
"It would be a betrayal of the rule of law for only Trump’s lawyers to go to jail, and not the client himself," Katyal wrote. "I do not see how DOJ can look the other way."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-should-be-seeking-a-plea-…
Like any high-profile exec, Trump relies heavily on his team to take care of administrative tasks. His defense may revolve around his legal staff’s incompetence, but folks are gonna have to fall on their swords. Which lawyers have that level of commitment remains to be seen.
But you couple of doofuses are telling us everyone is going to jail...the fuk out of here Antifa
Fuck Monday mornings!
"In June 2016, USA Today published an analysis of litigation involving Donald Trump, which found that over the previous three decades Trump and his businesses had been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal and state courts, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.[1] Of the 3,500 suits, Trump or one of his companies were plaintiffs in 1,900; defendants in 1,450; and bankruptcy, third party, or other in 150.[1] Trump was named in at least 169 suits in federal court.[2] Over 150 other cases were in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (covering Broward County, Florida) since 1983.[3] In the 1,300 cases where the record establishes the outcome, Trump settled 175 times, lost 38, won 450, and had another 137 cases end with some other outcome. In the other 500 cases, judges dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Trump.[1]
Trump's legal issues have continued since the publication of the 2016 USA Today article and his election as President of the United States. Between October 2021 and July 2022 alone, the Republican National Committee paid more than $2 million to attorneys representing Trump in his capacity as President and in his personal and business capacities.[4]
The topics of the legal cases include but have not been limited to contract disputes, defamation claims, and allegations of sexual harassment. Trump's companies have been involved in more than 100 tax disputes, and on at least 36 occasions the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has obtained tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes.[1] On a number of occasions, Trump has threatened legal action but did not ultimately follow through.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/31/why-donald-trump-will-so…
Why Donald Trump will soon be indicted
What will his defense be?
By Andrew P. Napolitano -
Wednesday, August 31, 2022
OPINION:
It gives me no joy to write this piece.
Even a cursory review of the redacted version of the affidavit submitted in support of the government’s application for a search warrant at the home of former President Donald Trump reveals that he will soon be indicted by a federal grand jury for three crimes: Removing and concealing national defense information (NDI), giving NDI to those not legally entitled to possess it, and obstruction of justice by failing to return NDI to those who are legally entitled to retrieve it.
When he learned from a phone call that 30 FBI agents were at the front door of his Florida residence with a search warrant and he decided to reveal this publicly, Mr. Trump assumed that the agents were looking for classified top-secret materials that they’d allege he criminally possessed. His assumptions were apparently based on his gut instinct and not on a sophisticated analysis of the law. Hence, his public boast that he declassified all the formerly classified documents he took with him.
Unbeknownst to him, the feds had anticipated such a defense and are not preparing to indict him for possessing classified materials, even though he did possess hundreds of voluntarily surrendered materials marked “top secret.” It is irrelevant if the documents were declassified, as the feds will charge crimes that do not require proof of classification. They told the federal judge who signed the search warrant that Mr. Trump still had NDI in his home. It appears they were correct.
Under the law, it doesn’t matter if the documents on which NDI is contained are classified or not, as it is simply and always criminal to have NDI in a non-federal facility, to have those without security clearances move it from one place to another, and to keep it from the feds when they are seeking it. Stated differently, the absence of classification — for whatever reason — is not a defense to the charges that are likely to be filed against Mr. Trump.
Yet, misreading and underestimating the feds, Mr. Trump actually did them a favor. One of the elements that they must prove for any of the three crimes is that Mr. Trump knew that he had the documents. The favor he did was admit to that when he boasted that they were no longer classified. He committed a mortal sin in the criminal defense world by denying something for which he had not been accused.
The second element that the feds must prove is that the documents actually do contain national defense information. And the third element they must prove is that Mr. Trump put these documents into the hands of those not authorized to hold them and stored them in a non-federally secured place. Intelligence community experts have already examined the documents taken from Mr. Trump’s home and are prepared to tell a jury that they contain the names of foreign agents secretly working for the U.S. This is the crown jewel of government secrets. Moreover, Mr. Trump’s Florida home is not a secure federal facility designated for the deposit of NDI.
The newest aspect of the case against Mr. Trump that we learned from the redacted affidavit is the obstruction allegation. This is not the obstruction that Robert Mueller claimed he found Mr. Trump committed during the Russia investigation. This is a newer obstruction statute, signed by President George W. Bush in 2002, that places far fewer burdens on the feds to prove. The older statute is the one Mr. Mueller alleged. It characterizes any material interference with a judicial function as criminal. Thus, one who lies to a grand jury or prevents a witness from testifying commits this variant of obstruction.
But the Bush-era statute, the one the feds contemplate charging Mr. Trump with having violated, makes it a crime of obstruction by failing to return government property or by sending the FBI on a wild goose chase looking for something that belongs to the government and that you know that you have. This statute does not require the preexistence of a judicial proceeding. It only requires that the defendant has the government’s property, knows that he has it and baselessly resists efforts by the government to get it back.
Where does all this leave Mr. Trump? The short answer is: in hot water. The longer answer is: He is confronting yet again the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities for which he has rightly expressed such public disdain. He had valid points of expression during the Russia investigation. He has little ground upon which to stand today.
I have often argued that many of these statutes that the feds have enacted to protect themselves are morally unjust and not grounded in the Constitution. One of my intellectual heroes, the great Murray Rothbard, taught that the government protects itself far more aggressively than it protects our natural rights.
In a monumental irony, both Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks journalist who exposed American war crimes during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency employee who exposed criminal mass government surveillance upon the American public, stand charged with the very same crimes that are likely to be brought against Mr. Trump. On both Mr. Assange and Mr. Snowden, Mr. Trump argued that they should be executed. Fortunately for all three, these statutes do not provide for capital punishment.
Mr. Rothbard warned that the feds aggressively protect themselves. Yet, both Mr. Assange and Mr. Snowden are heroic defenders of liberty with valid moral and legal defenses. Mr. Assange is protected by the Pentagon Papers case, which insulates the media from criminal or civil liability for revealing stolen matters of interest to the public, so long as the revealer is not the thief. Mr. Snowden is protected by the Constitution, which expressly prohibits the warrantless surveillance he revealed, which was the most massive peacetime abuse of government power.
What will Mr. Trump say in his defense to taking national defense information? I cannot think of a legally viable one.
• Andrew P. Napolitano is a former professor of law and judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.
Post a reply to: 45th President Of These United States Home Raided by FBI