[Roundy]

The first and third statutes are truly meaningless, because they require proof of malicious intent, and you're unlikely to get that with Trump. The fact that he's such a clueless idiot is going to be a major obstacle for the prosecution to prove malicious intent.

The second statute has legs, and could end up barring Trump from holding public office, despite the penalty itself (probably a fine, which won't hurt Trump) being kind of weak. I feel like it will be a lot easier to show that Trump removed the records intentionally than to show that he did it with malicious intent.

He's not going to jail, but maybe they can stop him from being able to run for President again.

[Action80]

All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

What makes them meaningless? Because you somehow have the authority to deem US statutes, codes, & regulations meaningless? That's quite the awesome power you solely wield. Tell us more about your supreme level of authority.

They're meaningless as applies to any of these documents. If you bothered to read them, you would know.

You won't admit it because "OMB" and TDS, but they're as worthless as this entire news story.

[stack]

All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

What makes them meaningless? Because you somehow have the authority to deem US statutes, codes, & regulations meaningless? That's quite the awesome power you solely wield. Tell us more about your supreme level of authority.

They're meaningless as applies to any of these documents. If you bothered to read them, you would know.

You won't admit it because "OMB" and TDS, but they're as worthless as this entire news story.

How exactly are they meaningless as applied to the documents? All you're saying is that they are irrelevant without providing any basis as to why they are irrelevant. Somehow the DOJ seems to disagree with you. Shocking.

Amazing how the "rule of law" you folks incessantly tout seems to only apply where you want it to.

[crutonius]

The first and third statutes are truly meaningless, because they require proof of malicious intent, and you're unlikely to get that with Trump. The fact that he's such a clueless idiot is going to be a major obstacle for the prosecution to prove malicious intent.

The second statute has legs, and could end up barring Trump from holding public office, despite the penalty itself (probably a fine, which won't hurt Trump) being kind of weak. I feel like it will be a lot easier to show that Trump removed the records intentionally than to show that he did it with malicious intent.

He's not going to jail, but maybe they can stop him from being able to run for President again.

Perhaps. But wouldn't it be hilarious to see trump try to defend himself in court by claiming he's too stupid to commit the crime.

[Lord Dave]

The first and third statutes are truly meaningless, because they require proof of malicious intent, and you're unlikely to get that with Trump. The fact that he's such a clueless idiot is going to be a major obstacle for the prosecution to prove malicious intent.

The second statute has legs, and could end up barring Trump from holding public office, despite the penalty itself (probably a fine, which won't hurt Trump) being kind of weak. I feel like it will be a lot easier to show that Trump removed the records intentionally than to show that he did it with malicious intent.

He's not going to jail, but maybe they can stop him from being able to run for President again.

Perhaps. But wouldn't it be hilarious to see trump try to defend himself in court by claiming he's too stupid to commit the crime.

Considering they already argued his followers are, its not a stretch and wouldn't change anything.

[garygreen]

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

"there are shitloads of regulations regarding declassification that ostensibly apply to everybody, but the degree to which executive authority mitigates this has yet to be tested in court" is a very far cry from your false assertion that "the courts can't convict trump because there are no declassification standards that bind the president."

maybe you should have bothered to read the next paragraph:

Unlike National Defense Information, the procedures for identifying and declassifying Restricted Data are defined in statute, not in executive order. Whatever assumptions one might make about whether presidents need to follow their own executive orders (or the executive orders of previous presidents) or not thus get thrown out the window here as well. That doesn’t totally resolve the constitutional situation: Maybe you could try to argue that Congress doesn’t have the power to punish presidents for releasing Restricted Data, because that might interfere with their operations as commander-in-chief. Or, one could argue whether the Restricted Data clause is inherently unconstitutional, which as we’ve seen is not a new argument. Either way, it is a different issue at heart with Restricted Data than it is with National Defense Information.

[Roundy]

The first and third statutes are truly meaningless, because they require proof of malicious intent, and you're unlikely to get that with Trump. The fact that he's such a clueless idiot is going to be a major obstacle for the prosecution to prove malicious intent.

The second statute has legs, and could end up barring Trump from holding public office, despite the penalty itself (probably a fine, which won't hurt Trump) being kind of weak. I feel like it will be a lot easier to show that Trump removed the records intentionally than to show that he did it with malicious intent.

He's not going to jail, but maybe they can stop him from being able to run for President again.

Perhaps. But wouldn't it be hilarious to see trump try to defend himself in court by claiming he's too stupid to commit the crime.

I doubt he would. He thinks he a sooper genius, with the best brain. But it's actually something his colleagues have argued about things he's done in the past. I don't think they ever literally said he was an idiot but the "He didn't know any better" argument has successfully shielded him from suspicion of wrongdoing in the past (at least with enough people) because it's so gosh darn hard to argue against in his case.

[Roundy]

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/05/1120885510/doj-trump-special-master-judge

Yes, very good. Extend the investigation as long as possible. Let's do everything we can to make sure it's still fresh in people's minds in November.

[Lord Dave]

I think the republicans are hoping for that too.  So their side can feel like their hero is under attack and needs to be saved.

[Roundy]

I think the republicans are hoping for that too.  So their side can feel like their hero is under attack and needs to be saved.

They might be. But my understanding is that polling is against them on that point.

[Lord Dave]

I think the republicans are hoping for that too.  So their side can feel like their hero is under attack and needs to be saved.

They might be. But my understanding is that polling is against them on that point.

Really?  I've heard nothing but defense of Trump.  Maybe people are finally just sick of it?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/

Seems relatively stable with between 39-42% seeing him favorably over the past year.

[Tom Bishop]

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

"there are shitloads of regulations regarding declassification that ostensibly apply to everybody, but the degree to which executive authority mitigates this has yet to be tested in court" is a very far cry from your false assertion that "the courts can't convict trump because there are no declassification standards that bind the president."

maybe you should have bothered to read the next paragraph:

Unlike National Defense Information, the procedures for identifying and declassifying Restricted Data are defined in statute, not in executive order.

Yes, and in regards to Restricted Data that document also says:

For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear.

It goes on to say that the Atomic Energy statute neither grants or prohibits the president from using his powers to declassify but the author thinks it prohibits it because of an unsaid "Congressional intent".

This is not a "easily falsifiable lie"; the material you quoted says that the matter is vague and unclear and relies on a specious legal argument on what the author thinks Congress intended.

If it is not spelled out that the president is prohibited from using his declassification powers on certain material it is a bad argument which does not clearly determine the matter.

[Lord Dave]

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

"there are shitloads of regulations regarding declassification that ostensibly apply to everybody, but the degree to which executive authority mitigates this has yet to be tested in court" is a very far cry from your false assertion that "the courts can't convict trump because there are no declassification standards that bind the president."

maybe you should have bothered to read the next paragraph:

Unlike National Defense Information, the procedures for identifying and declassifying Restricted Data are defined in statute, not in executive order.

Yes, and in regards to Restricted Data that document also says:

For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear.

It goes on to say that the Atomic Energy statute neither grants or prohibits the president from using his powers to declassify but the author thinks it prohibits it because of an unsaid "Congressional intent".

This is not a "easily falsifiable lie"; the material you quoted says that the matter is vague and unclear and relies on a specious legal argument on what the author thinks Congress intended.

If it is not spelled out that the president is prohibited from using his declassification powers on certain material it is a bad argument which does not clearly determine the matter.

I think Bill Barr said it best.

If he did do that.  If he declassifies the nations highest level secrets... Its dangerously irrisponsible.

[Lord Dave]

https://twitter.com/kenolin1/status/1568390158336270337?s=20&t=TdK7LLtmHDIZIfJbih0WOA

Summary:
Where are the high profile conservative lawyers who would love to represent a high profile, rich, and innocent client with mountains of evidence defending him?

[Tom Bishop]

Actually Rudy Guliani was a famous lawyer before he represented Trump. He was at least as known as Johnny Cochran. He was known for taking down the mob.

This lady says that he doesn't count because the media doesn't portray him in a good light anymore. The media liked Cochran defending OJ but not Guliani defending Trump. She thinks Trump should be represented by someone the liberal media portrays in a good light, which just shows her ignorance.

If Cochran was still alive and represented Trump, and was then subsequently demonized, I can only imagine she would be saying that "all he has is that has been Cochran who defended a killer and beat his wife, where are the great ones who took down the mob?"

[stack]

Here's another high profile lawyer who I'm sure would take up Trump's case:

[Lord Dave]

Actually Rudy Guliani was a famous lawyer before he represented Trump. He was at least as known as Johnny Cochran. He was known for taking down the mob.

This lady says that he doesn't count because the media doesn't portray him in a good light anymore. The media liked Cochran defending OJ but not Guliani defending Trump. She thinks Trump should be represented by someone the liberal media portrays in a good light, which just shows her ignorance.

If Cochran was still alive and represented Trump, and was then subsequently demonized, I can only imagine she would be saying that "all he has is that has been Cochran who defended a killer and beat his wife, where are the great ones who took down the mob?"

"Doesn't count"?
She doesn't say that.  Just that he's not part if a high price, high skill law firm.

Also, nice deflection.  What about lawyers the conservative news things are great?

[J-Man]

She forgot that satan controls the world and satan and his minions are destroying the last bit of GOOD here on flat earth, one piece at a time.

[Lord Dave]

She forgot that satan controls the world and satan and his minions are destroying the last bit of GOOD here on flat earth, one piece at a time.

That means The Rapture already happened.

How's it feel to be an unredeemable sinner, J-Man?

[Tom Bishop]

Actually Rudy Guliani was a famous lawyer before he represented Trump. He was at least as known as Johnny Cochran. He was known for taking down the mob.

This lady says that he doesn't count because the media doesn't portray him in a good light anymore. The media liked Cochran defending OJ but not Guliani defending Trump. She thinks Trump should be represented by someone the liberal media portrays in a good light, which just shows her ignorance.

If Cochran was still alive and represented Trump, and was then subsequently demonized, I can only imagine she would be saying that "all he has is that has been Cochran who defended a killer and beat his wife, where are the great ones who took down the mob?"

"Doesn't count"?
She doesn't say that.  Just that he's not part if a high price, high skill law firm.

Also, nice deflection.  What about lawyers the conservative news things are great?

Trump has a bunch of conservative law firms and lawyers working for him. Politico identifies 19 of Trump's lawyers here -

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/07/donald-trump-has-at-least-19-different-attorneys-00055084

Here is one:

"Christopher Kise: Kise, a former Florida solicitor general who has won four cases before the Supreme Court, has been a longtime adviser to Florida Republicans including Gov. Ron DeSantis and former Govs. Rick Scott and Charlie Crist"