129 thoughts on “This article is a good assessment of the Mar a Lago search warrant story so far.”

  1. It’s OK as far as it goes, but

    Until we see the Affidavit, we don’t know if the search was even valid. The FBI has misled the courts in the past, so public review is necessary before the government goes any further.

    At least 6 boxes of documents were taken that are clearly protected by attorney/client privilege. Once those documents are viewed by partisan actors, they cannot be unseen. Trump’s attorneys requested a special master to review those documents and secure them, but DOJ refused. That is really suspect.

    The chain of custody is grossly compromised. We have no way of knowing what was in the seized boxes when they left the White House and what could have been added to them by the FBI or the “mole” who allegedly promted the raid.

    So, the whole process is massively compromised, and “trust us” is not going to cut it with this DOJ.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “At least 6 boxes of documents were taken that are clearly protected by attorney/client privilege.”

      Your bullshit reminds me of Joseph McCarthy . . . ““I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”

      Say anything you want without reason or evidence. Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. The boxes exist,

        Trump’s attorneys asked for an independent special master to review those documents before the FBI went through them, but DOJ refused.

        So, Trump was ready for an independent examination but DOJ was not.

        Go ahead, tell me the innocent explanation for that refusal, considering the trashed chain of custody.

        There is none. What is the FBI hiding, and why are they still hiding the Affidavit? Was the search based on misleading the magistrate? Why is the DOJ hiding that too?

        It would be easy to prove their honesty, just let unbiased parties see the evidence.

        But they won’t.

        Like

        Reply

        2. Give us an answer for Trump’s refusal to turn over request documents for 20 months. Dodging subpoenas and lying on a document saying he finally did in June.

          Trump should have given back the documents when asked. Then he might have negotiated some personal papers.

          Or is he “special” and above the law?

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Negotiating after you give the government what it wants is useless.

            There are civil processes for enforcing a subpoena, so why were those not used?

            Again, we need to see that affidavit. Then the validity of the warrant can be determined and appropriate action taken in court. The unwillingness of the FBI to provide that affidavit and allow independent review of the seized documents strongly indicates an unlawful fishing expedition unlike anything the government has tried to get away with before. .

            Like

          2. You make no sense. Why did he ignore all efforts for 20 months?

            Could you ignore subpoenas?

            Could you sign a false delivery document?

            Then why should he be able to to this without consequences?

            I have a theory that Trump wanted to create this fiasco so his gangs will start shooting.

            No more “restraint” that you mentioned.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Even if that were all true and viewed from the worst possible light, the FBI does not get to steal privileged papers.

            Nothing Trump could have done makes that OK.

            When a citizen breaks the law, that can be dealt with, but when the government becomes lawless, what do we do?

            Wait a decade for this to wind its way through the courts? Restore Trump’s rights when he is 90?

            Government must be restrained by the Rule of Law, more so than any citizen, because the government has the power to intiate force.

            Like

          4. They followed the law perfectly.

            Trump lied, tried to keep top secret/special access documents in his closet for 20 months.

            Who the hell do you think he is? A god?

            If you had done what he did, you would have been arrested and charged a long time ago

            Trump has to follow the Rule of Law. Period.

            But here is the part I am sure you love: violence. It makes me sick to see and read all the threats, posturing with arms all because of Trump.

            Is this really what you and your “tribe”, as you like to say, want. You have said that the MAGA cult has shown restraint. From what, I asked and you never answered. I think I know. You want violence, support it and you are ready for it.

            Thank you. Russia, Iran, North Korea, China and other assorted educators also thank you. For 20 months Trump has probably disseminated the classified info to all our enemies. And you are ok with that.

            In my thinking this crap has gone on long enough. The “aggrieved” so called Americans are a spoiled bunch, just like Trump. If they can’t get what they feel they are entitled to, like a White Nationalist country, they take on the mantle of being picked on. Yet they have zero respect for America and what it truly stands for. And they call themselves patriots.

            So who is on your target list?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “… because the government has the power to initiate force.”

            You brag often about the 400 million guns. Now you are looking to use them. Admit it.

            If you can’t get what you want, destroy anyone who works for the government. Am I right?

            We have election officials, state and local officials, federal officers, legislators, judges, and even poll workers who have been threatened and even forced to move because of your folks and their blind obedience to Trump. Real Americans under the gun because Trump told them they are the enemy.

            Proud of that? I am sure you are.

            Liked by 2 people

        3. “The boxes exist”

          I doubt it. Unlike you, I am not eager to be duped.

          The source of the “information” is Trump and his lying lawyers and it is a story it took them a week to concoct. If the FBI had actually been taking away multiple boxes of privileged materials there would have been squawking on day one. There wasn’t.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. “Again there is no innocent explanation I can think of.”

            You are not trying very hard. Trump has been stonewalling, obfuscating and lying for 18 months. This is almost certainly another of his stalling tactics. Garland is a patient man but even he has his limits.

            Again, you failed to answer, if so much privileged material was taken why has it taken nearly a week for this to be raised? The answer is obvious which is why you keep dodging. Here is a hint : It is a bullshit claim.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Yada yada yada.

            Nothing Trump did, or could do, excuses what the FBI does.

            If they took documents not relevant to the warrant, they should be returned unread. A special master can accomplish that, but once those documents are read by partisans, there is no way to prevent injustice.

            Either get an independent review or admit this is political espionage.

            Like

          4. You are so wrong and your kind of thinking is going to get people killed.

            Thank you for your efforts to destroy our country.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          5. What are you thinking?

            The three boxes for fixing a country are the soap box, the ballot box, and lastly the cartridge box. The ballot box is next.

            And you try the first two many times, until they become unavailable, before the last box.

            I don’t know why you are so obsessed with force and violence.

            Like

          6. Trump’s followers are the ones obsessed. Your 3 boxes are representative of that. According to most Republicans, the ballot box has failed.

            What do you hope to accomplish with cartridge boxes?

            Liked by 2 people

          7. The ballot box is still available.

            But I note that you are obsessed with force and violence, and blind to force and violence exercised on your behalf by government.

            Why would it be Ok for the government to use force to seize a person’s land for a tortoise sanctuary but not OK for the owner to defend it?

            Anything it is wrong for you to do as an individual is also wrong if done by government on your behalf.

            Like

          10. “Really? What is the exception?”

            They are countless things that we do as a community that we cannot do as individuals. Duh!

            If you really cannot think of any, then you are kind of pathetic.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Sure, we can buy infrastructure as a collective more effectively than as individuals(maybe)

            But building infrastructure is not wrong on its face whether built collectively or individually.

            But stealing is wrong whether done collectively or individually.

            If 51% of the voters decided you has to adopt a particular religion, and live under its edicts, would that be OK?

            Like

          13. “But we cannot feed the hungry?”

            Can you do it without stealing from someone?

            If I bought a sandwich at a food truck, would it be OK for you to forcefully take it from me and give it to an indigent person?

            If it would be wrong for you to do it individually, it is also wrong for you to send the government to do it.

            Like

          14. “But we cannot feed the hungry?”
            Can you do it without stealing from someone?

            I knew you could not resist the opportunity to prove exactly the kind of person you are.

            But, for the record, taxation to advance Constitutionally determined public purposes is not “stealing.”

            Liked by 1 person

          16. “But do tell me where in the Constitution benevolence with the public’s money is authorized.”

            Read the Preamble. Read Section 8.

            What you wish to demean as mere “benevolence,” I understand to be essential measures to promote the general welfare by maintaining a stable and prosperous society. We have several examples of what happens to a country when too many people are left behind without hope. Try to think of such “charity” programs as being in service of enlightened self interest and try to get the idea of “bucks buying steaks with food stamps” out of your psyche.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. And yet the guy who wrote them says that’s not what they mean. And you won’t be able to point to a single contemporary who ratified the Constitution who would interpret them your way. That is a recent, FDR Era, perversion of the Constitution.

            Charity is a far superior way to help the poor, as charities do not continue to support those who will not make the effort to help themselves.

            Human beings should not be kept as pets.

            Like

          18. Society was very different in 1789.

            Fortunately, the language in the Constitution was general enough that we have managed to survive. You say the New Deal was a “perversion.” And yet without it our form of government could easily have gone the way of Weimar or Russia.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. If you want to change the Constitution, amend it,

            Don’t just redefine the words to suit your agenda.

            The only meaning of the Constitution that reflects the will of the people is the way it was understood by those who ratified it.

            Like

          20. “Don’t just redefine the words to suit your agenda.”

            I have not come close to doing so. Nothing, for example, like ignoring words such as “a well-regulated militia.”

            “Promote the General Welfare” is the stated purpose of the Constitution. What has changed is what that takes now versus then. Madison, who I assume you are referencing, had many opinions. So did many others. But the words are independent of any of them.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. Perhaps the link got garbled

            “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

            ― James Madison

            Please do point to any of the framers or ratifiers who saw that differently

            Like

          23. “ Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.”

            Madison was narrower in his interpretation.

            But the common thread is referring to what is good for the nation as a whole, or just government.

            Many Court cases since have broadened the meaning.

            Nobody has ever thought of welfare in the Constitution as a check from Social Services.

            But, the stability and health of a nation under a new form of governance was paramount either way.

            If taxes for national defense are to ensure security, the in the modern era, education, healthcare a minimal amount of income regardless of dire circumstances are also important.

            Look at the appeal of Trump to the working classes. They feel left behind, economically ignored and disrespected. Their threats via gangs and a charismatic leader are as dangerous as an attack by a foreign adversary. Don’t believe that? Then think Russia’s oft interpreted goal of destabilizing us with economic and political dissension. So far it seems to working.

            Spending for domestic tranquility in the 21st century is more than just raising the sheriff’s pay.

            Liked by 2 people

          24. The courts do not have the authority to amend the Constitution,

            See Article V for the proper means for changing it.

            Until then, about 80% of the Federal Government is one honest SCOTUS decision from oblivion.

            Like

          25. I wrote that there were differing interpretations by the Founders as to the role of government in the general welfare of the nation. Hamilton was more expansive in such matters as assisting education and agriculture.

            Even then, the meanings were vague.

            You leaned on the Founders as a vindication of your opinion of the Constitution, so there you are.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. Even if Hamilton had been more inclined toward larger government, that doesn’t mean that he thought the Constitution, as written. allowed it.

            Like

          27. “Even if Hamilton had been more inclined toward larger government, that doesn’t mean that he thought the Constitution, as written. allowed it.”

            LOL! It never stops with you.

            So now we have Hamilton advocating for a more active government even though he thought the Constitution did not allow it? He must not have been “honest” and probably “corrupt.” Right?

            Like

          28. I know Hamilton was in favor of a stronger central government, but that doesn’t mean he got what he wanted in the Constitution.

            Hamilton might have liked a stronger government but that doesn’t mean he would have bent the words of the document.

            Like

          29. “…that doesn’t mean he would have bent the words of the document.”

            He didn’t “bend” anything. That was his interpretation of General Welfare.

            Even then, the meaning was vague.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. “The ballot box is still available.”

            Not in the way it was intended. Just ask those in GOP-led states who have legislatures making it more difficult to USE the ballot box. OR the heavily gerrymandered districts where politician pick their voters.

            “I note that you are obsessed with force and violence”…

            https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/12/politics/fbi-threats-maralago-trump-search/index.html

            Also, see POLITICO on AREMED TRUMP SUPPORTERS outside Phoenix FBI offices.

            So who is obsessed with violence?

            Liked by 1 person

          33. “I don’t know why you are so obsessed with force and violence.”

            Says the “patriot” who sees “trespassers” rampaging through the Capitol and who cannot keep himself from promising violence as a political tool. The cartridge box? Really? As always, who are you going to murder if you do not like the results from the ballot box?

            Liked by 1 person

          34. It is a very old quote. It goes back to Frederick Douglass though the Soap Box is an added element. His original version was the ‘ballot box, the Jury box and the Cartouche(cartridge) box.

            What other remedy is there when the first three boxes fail?

            When speech is censored, elections are rigged, and people are jailed without trial, or bankrupted defending themselves against the bottomless resources of government, is there not a point in your mind when it is time to say enough, and take up arms against oppression?

            We are not at that point yet. I still have faith in the ballot box, but our republic rests on the deterrence provided by the citizens ability to assert themselves if the government abandons the Rule of Law.

            Like

          35. You know you are exaggerating, if not lying. Speech is not censored. Elections are not rigged. People are not jailed without a trial unless you are a poor minority in, say, Louisiana.

            So how would you assert yourself after this Trump created fiasco? The Republicans have done a good job of rigging the next one, especially if the votes are trashed because election officials say so, and a legislature picks electors. If that happens, will you defend ballot or the corrupt officials?

            The right, and you, are the only ones threatening, and carrying out, political violence. I bring that up because sunshine is a good disinfectant when turning over a rock.

            Liked by 2 people

          36. Big Tech has a crony relationship with Big Government, and we see it exercised as censorship of social media, which is the primary method of political speech by those who cannot afford to own a newspaper published.

            I have more confidence in the next election, as we are aware now of how they are stolen and will be watching.

            But. I have repeatedly written that we ARE NOT at the point where it is necessary to put down an oppressive government. Paradoxically, much of the reason we are not at that point is becasue we can.

            Like

          43. What about…again?

            Whether BLM was even the instigator of violence is very questionable.

            But does that justify threatening officials and attacking law enforcement today?

            Liked by 2 people

          45. “But that was OK with you when it was BLM or harassment of justices.”

            BLM is not an armed or violent movement. It never has been. Those who say it is are lying racists.

            As for the Theocrat Justices facing annoying protests near their homes, those are the Justices who decided that raucous physical demonstrations interfering with women seeking healthcare were legitimate exercises of Constitutional rights.

            Liked by 1 person

          46. Big Tech has a cozy relationship with conservatives and liberals alike. Peter Thiel ring a bell? The object is money. If violent rhetoric threatens cash flow, goodby to hate speech as they see fit.

            You ring the victim alarm so much it makes your argument pointless. And that is what Trump has hammered you with since 2015.

            Liked by 2 people

          47. “It is a very old quote.”

            At a time when slavery was enforced by the government. Bringing it up now while accusing Len of being obsessed with violence is ridiculously lacking in self-awareness. YOU are the one constantly making excuses for and minimizing the threat of armed militias. YOU are the one who constantly threatens violence. You are the one who characterizes every act of government as some sort of tyranny. You and people like you are the problem this country must wrestle with – through the ballot box.

            Liked by 1 person

          48. That is the point.

            Douglass and other American Blacks did not have access to the Rule of Law.

            As an example, had Nat Turner conducted his slave rebellion by engaging combatants, I would have seen it as just.

            It is only because he slaughtered non-combatants, that he was a stain on the abolition movement.

            But at some point, though we are still far from that point, oppression must be resisted by force. And maintaining our ability to do so is the best deterrence against reaching such a point.

            Like

          49. “ It is only because he slaughtered non-combatants…”

            Who were the “combatants” to a slave in revolt? A slave could be beaten or killed on the word of a woman or even a child.

            Liked by 2 people

          51. When you treat people as animals all their lives, all their parents’ lives, all their grandparents’ lives, what the hell you expect? American slavery did not respect the sanctity of family, children or life. Period.

            That is why the Haitian slave revolt was so feared here. That was a brutal war on both sides. There was no fine veneer of civilization for the people in bondage.

            Liked by 2 people

          52. Nat Turner, when informed by one of his followers that an infant had been left alive in his crib, ordered the follower to go back and chop him up.

            That baby had oppressed no one.

            Are you seriously going to justify that?

            Had he not killed children, it is very likely slavery would have ended a decade earlier without 600,000 live lost in war.

            Like

          53. “Had he not killed children, it is very likely slavery would have ended a decade earlier without 600,000 live lost in war.”

            So, Nat Turner caused the Civil War? Who knew? A new level of Confederate revisionist history.

            Liked by 1 person

          56. Why would you think that? The Civil War could still have been averted and slavery ended peacefully had Lincoln not provoked the hostilities..

            Like

          57. Considering how rather freed slaves were treated after the war, I doubt it.

            Laws were set up in the South that jailed Blacks for mostly minor or made up offenses. Then they were rented to companies and worked just like slaves. This continued officially and/or effectively well into the modern era.

            Revenge on the exxslaves and their descendants was pretty rampant and obvious. To this day the White Supremacists are still around and feeling their oats with an ex-president’s tacit approval.

            “Stand by”.

            Liked by 1 person

          58. “Why would you think that? The Civil War could still have been averted and slavery ended peacefully had Lincoln not provoked the hostilities.”

            You are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say that Nat Turner did not cause the Civil War AND also saying that slavery would have ended peacefully if he had not been so violent.

            As for Lincoln, I know that you are trolling with that one so I will let it pass.

            Like

          60. Don’t be ignorant. I am not justifying killing children, or anyone for that matter. But don’t act surprised when it happens in a case like a slave revolt.

            What do you expect…a formal declaration of war between brutalized, impoverished slaves and the US military. Long before Geneva, too.

            If you kick your dog often enough, he will bite you. Then your logic is to blame the dog.

            So now you blame Turner for 600,000 more deaths. (Latest estimates are much higher BTW).

            Any remorse for the thousands, if not millions, of children brutalized by the institution of slavery itself. Children stripped from mothers. Families split up.

            Liked by 1 person

          61. Justifying slavery? Of course not, but why do you think that justifies the murder of innocents? Frederick Douglass was not shy about Blacks arming themselves but I don’t see hom murdering children.

            Like

          62. I am not justifying killing children.

            I am positing that expecting a slave revolt to revere the laws of war is ridiculous. If you are using that to justify the continuance of slavery, that is just wrong.

            That is like beating a servant every day and selling his children, then when he revolts and takes revenge on you and your family, you are now the aggrieved party.

            If you create a monster, don’t come crying if he turns on you.

            Not that hard to understand, even if it is egregious behavior.

            Liked by 1 person

          63. “That is the point.”

            The point I see, and the one you now reinforce, is that you are full of shit when you accuse Len of being obsessed with violence. You have thrown out that baseless slander several times now.

            Len, and most non-ignorant Americans who respect the Rule of Law, are concerned when there is so much violence and threats of violence entering into what should be political discussions. You and people like you and your hero Trump are the worst offenders. He unleashed a mob on the Congress. Today you say Trump supporters have shown great “restraint” as the DOJ carries out its lawful duty of enforcing the law. That sort of language is a threat. You should stop.

            Liked by 1 person

          64. How many people have Trump supporters killed?

            How many policemen have been ambushed, encouraged by BLM rhetoric?

            We on the right are not violent. It is the left that seeks the use of force,

            Like

          65. “Patrick Wood Crusius, a 21-year-old from Allen, Texas, was arrested and charged with capital murder in connection with the shooting. Police believe a manifesto with white nationalist and anti-immigrant themes, posted on the online message board 8chan shortly before the attack, was written by Crusius; it cites the year’s earlier Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand and the far-right conspiracy theory known as the Great Replacement as inspiration for the attack.” Wikipedia

            The synagogue murders. The murder in Charlottesville. Etc, etc.

            The “great replacement” was essentially behind these and others. Trump rhetoric about Mexican rapists, the “invasion”, “shithole countries” (instead of Norway!!)… All these are part and parcel of the Trump appeal for the right and broadcast everyday from Trump mouthpieces like Carlson who has a huge audience.

            Throw in threats against dozens of election officials. And the really egregious case of Trump personally naming two election poll workers so they had to move for safety.

            Oh, yeah, the choirboys on the right are not singing “Praise the Lord”, just “Pass the Ammunition”.

            You try to pass this off as the hotheads. But they are Trump’s personal ones that are “standing by”.

            Still can’t smell the coffee, can you?

            Liked by 2 people

          66. Absolutely none of those have any connection to Trump.

            But that was what I expected. You try to tar 60 million people with the actions of individuals. Does that make every Democrat responsible for every policeman ambushed or every opioid overdose coming through our abandoned border?

            Like

          67. “Absolutely none of those have any connection to Trump.”

            Each one Len cited is on record with their support if not adulation of Trump.
            You asked. He answered.

            BTW, you did not hesitate to blame the baseball game shooter on the Democrats. You were more than willing to “tar” far more people on the basis of far less. So, get off your high horse.

            Liked by 1 person

          69. Well, don’t ask to compare ambushed cops, a handful, with extremist mass shootings, dozens of deaths.

            For the most part we never even heard much of the various gangs before Trump and his endorsement of them. So there is a connection when the president says “stand by”. Millions hang on his every word.

            Liked by 2 people

          70. “The baseball park shooter said he was politically motivated himself, but even so, I never said you or Len were responsible for his actions.”

            Just that Democrats were.

            Even though, unlike the modern GOP, we do not have a leader who incites division, suspicion, hatred and violence as his main political strategy.

            Liked by 1 person

          72. Ok. How many did he kill compared to the El Paso or Pittsburgh murderers? They were motivated by all the anti-immigrant rhetoric amplified by Trump and his “official” mouthpieces at FOX.

            Like I suggested, you asked for comparisons and I provided them.

            Liked by 2 people

          74. You asked and I answered. The same Trump rhetoric, amplified by MSM on the right, inspires these folks.

            Words have meaning, no?

            Besides, you are tarring the majority of this country with some excesses that may be attributed to left wing extremists.

            You defend the gangs. “European chauvanism” is OK? That is pure White supremacy in a caramel coating.

            You said calling the Proud Boys “yellow bellies” was uncalled for. Do you think pond scum is more appropriate? Trump gave them immense stature on the right with his endorsement of standing by. Standing by for what do you think?

            Really, Don, I am surprised at your blindness about the violent right.

            Unless…

            Liked by 2 people

          76. “How many policemen have been ambushed, encouraged by BLM rhetoric?”

            Oh, you really care about the police except when they are protecting the Congress while it engages in the people’s business. There as dozens of them end up in the hospital they become murderers. Laughable. Again.

            “We on the right are not violent. It is the left that seeks the use of force”

            I am not aware of any left-wing militias playing army man in the woods or joining in seditious conspiracies or prancing around brandishing their weapons in public places. If you hear of any, let me know.

            Liked by 1 person

          77. “If they took documents not relevant to the warrant,”…

            Maybe they had to pack up in a hurry and didn’t have time to sift through them. (Where have I hear THAT before?)

            And your anti-FBI drumbeat that they did not do their jobs properly is just another attempt to deflect from the criminal-n-chief that you adore to the point f losing ANY semblance of objectivity.

            Liked by 1 person

          78. I have repeatedly told you I would prefer Trump leave the political stage. but that does not mean I approve of government abuse to accomplish it.

            I don’t defend Trump. I don’t like him. But I do defend his rights as they are also mine. And yours. An out-of-control DOJ is a threat to everyone, even if they are doing your bidding, at the moment.

            Like

          79. “I don’t defend Trump. I don’t like him.”

            Uh, bullshit. You defend him all the time and more to the point you constantly repeat and spread his egregious and vicious lies. His lies about the election. His lies about the coup attempt. His lies about BLM. His lies about Russia. His lies about Ukraine extortion. His lies about being framed. His lies about President Biden. etc. ad nauseum.

            It may be true that you don’t “like” him but you are a very reliable parrot for his bullshit.

            Liked by 1 person

          80. No, you are a very big proponent for trampling the rights of those you don’t like, and that places me in the position of having to defend those rights, and the truth.

            Like

          81. “No, you are a very big proponent for trampling the rights of those you don’t like, and that places me in the position of having to defend those rights, and the truth.”

            Delusional. Unlike you, I think the Rule of Law applies to everyone – including the former President. The DOJ has acted carefully, patiently and lawfully in the matter of the stolen documents. If anything, they have given him too much consideration. Any other former employee of the government who did what he did would be in jail by now. But, in spite of their careful and legal actions you have spread every lie Trump as spewed as if they were holy writ.

            It is, whether you care to believe it or not, laughable what a running dog you have become on behalf of a known scofflaw while claiming to defend the Rule of Law.

            Liked by 1 person

          83. “Unlike you, I think the Rule of Law applies to government.”

            Oh, I think the rule of law applies to government. Unlike you I see no rational reason to believe that it acted unlawfully in its attempts to get Mr. Trump to return the documents he unlawfully liberated from the White House. But then, I am not a constant Trump defender like you.

            In this case, as in so may before, you uncritically accept the lies, the spin and the nonsense that Trump spews. You slime the FBI. You slime the DOJ. You slime the judge. You ignore the initial serious crime. You ignore the year and a half of less intrusive attempts to get the documents back. You ignore the lies and stonewalling. You spin away the false certification. You whine about FBI plants. You ignore the fact that the search totally vindicated the search warrant. You spread the nonsense conspiracy bullshit about planted evidence and chain of custody.

            As mentioned earlier, you have become truly laughable in your obeisance to Trump and his lies. You can again try to attack me. It does not change this fully demonstrated fact.

            Liked by 2 people

          84. “I don’t defend Trump.”

            Everything you have said shows your statement to be a lie. You attempt to justify it by throwing around whataboutisms and every single one of the twenty or so excuses he has planted out there for his minions, sycophants and drooling blind supporters to use as an excuse to threaten the FBI.

            The DOJ is not out of control when they are following the Rule of Law. Yet you seem to believe, for some warped reason, that Trump, who you claim to not like or defend, is ABOVE it.

            How many chants of “Lock him up!” are you hearing at DEMOCRATIC political rallies? Not a one from where I stand.

            There is NO government abuse occurring here, except in the fevered minds of those who support him, love him, worship him and think the sun rises and sets in his size 48 white tennis shorts. Or those that FEAR him because he will turn on them in a NY minute if they even suggest for one second that he LOST the election n 2020. Just ask Vos in Wisconsin, and the GOP Speaker in AZ.

            Liked by 2 people

          85. Whatever gives you the idea that the FBI is following the Rule of Law?

            Have you seen the Affidavit?

            Have you found an innocent explanation for refusing to have an independent special master to screen for privileged documents?

            Like

          87. “So who is obsessed with violence?”

            Don’t you know that armed militias bring their guns to political protests to prove how peaceful they are? That is a little known “fact” that Dr. Tabor has shared with us many times.

            Liked by 1 person

          88. “. . . one honest SCOTUS decision from oblivion.”

            So, anyone who disagrees with you is not honest? Interesting. One could even say that they are all “corrupt.”

            Like

    2. RE: “So, the whole process is massively compromised, and “trust us” is not going to cut it with this DOJ.”

      It is beginning to look that way. I’d speculate that classified documents in the materials protected by attorney/client privilege might be automatically declassified under Section 1.7 of E.O. 13526. We need more information to know.

      Like

      Reply

    3. From DT’s first post:

      “Trump’s attorneys requested a special master to review those documents and secure them, but DOJ refused. That is really suspect.”

      Suspect? Really?

      Perhaps Trump and gang should have been somewhat more CONCERNED the first time they were contacted about those many boxes of stolen documents, and certainly they should have been CONCERNED when a subpoena showed up. How non-concerned can one gang of Know-Nothings be?

      So, I suppose we now have to wait for you to determine the validity of the Affidavit for any forward movement to be accepted. I’m not sure any of us will be around that long. Smile.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. What does that have to do with the FBI taking records protected by attorney/client privilege. or records not covered but not relevant to the terms of the search warrant?

        Again, what is the innocent excuse for refusing a special master to sort them out?

        The rational explanation is that this has been political espionage from the beginning and a special master would see that from what they took compared to what the Affidavit clleged was there.

        Like

        Reply

          1. And it is a lie because Orange Man Bad?

            Lying bullshit is deflecting from the truth, which is that if the FBI was on the up-and-up they would have welcomed a special master review.

            Like

        2. What was the rationale for refusing request, then demands, then subpoenas, then lying about turning over all the documents in June as “verified” by the lying lawyers signatures?

          Why not demand a special master the day of the search? Or, obviously, 20 months ago.Or after the first requests. Or after the first subpoena.

          Think this through just a tiny bit and you will come to the conclusion that Trump is taking us for a ride…over, and over again. He believes he is above the law, answerable to no one and is really telling the whole nation to go f#*k themselves.

          But you are good with that?

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. The privileged papers were not taken 20 months ago, and the manifest of the boxes taken was not released until Friday.

            Again, why did the FBI not demand a special master to protect itself from accusations of wrongdoing?

            Face it, there is no innocent explanation for the refusal.

            Like

          2. What the hell is wrong with you. Trump could have sorted all this out when he left or shortly after. Why did he string along our country for so long?

            He is savoring this chaos he is causing. And you are falling for lock, stock…

            There is no defense for what he did. He blabbed secrets to Russian intelligence right after taking office. I guarantee you our enemies already have what Trump stole and tried to keep against the law.

            If some boxes were mixed up with other papers, whose fault is that? The maid?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Why didn’t Trump get a special master long ago and divvy up the papers so we got back what belongs to us, secrets and all?

            There is certainly no innocent explanation for that either.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Trump was working with the NARA and had reason to believe the negotiations on disputed items was going well.

            I doubt if he gave a thought to the issue since they were last there in June.

            He has been busy with other things, you know.

            Like

          5. You have no idea what Trump was thinking. You have no idea about negotiations or why they were ongoing or if they were in good faith.

            After 20 months of stalling, ignoring subpoenas and even signing false documents in June, negotiations are not really going to work.

            Negotiating with a common thief for your stolen property is remarkable in its own right. After almost two years, it is over.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. The rightful ownership of many of those documents is in dispute, and has not been settled by negotiation or in the courts.

            Your property is yours, and a claim by government that it belongs to them does not make it so.

            Like

          7. The papers were, at best, mixed in with mine.

            How is the search warrant supposed to know which boxes had our papers and top secrets?

            Based on previous experience when Trump lied and signed a document saying the June visit netted all the classified material. That is why the warrant was necessary.

            There is a point at which telling law enforcement to go F*&k themselves is no longer a good defense. Trump has been given so much more opportunity to cooperate than anyone else. Period.

            20 months is more than enough time to negotiate. A subpoena was an opportunity to let a court decide. You are familiar with our courts, no?

            He is not above the law you and I have to follow.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. What document did Trump sign stating all the classified information had been turned over? I did read that one of his attorneys said something like that based on those remaining having been declassified by Trump while he was in office, but I know of no such document.

            As far as I know, the status of those documents remains disputed.

            Like

          9. “ At least one lawyer for former President Donald Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government, four people with knowledge of the document said.”

            “The written declaration was made after a visit June 3 to Mar-a-Lago by Jay I. Bratt, the top counterintelligence official in the Justice Department’s national security division.”

            “The existence of the signed declaration, which has not previously been reported, is a possible indication that Trump or his team were not fully forthcoming with federal investigators about the material. And it could help explain why a potential violation of a criminal statute related to obstruction was cited by the department as one basis for seeking the warrant used to carry out the daylong search of the former president’s home Monday, an extraordinary step that generated political shock waves.”

            https://www.yahoo.com/now/trump-lawyer-told-justice-dept-141854929.html

            Note the document said “all material marked as classified”. A lie since the search netted documents marked as classified.

            Will you ever accept reality?

            Liked by 2 people

          13. Trump has also claimed “executive privilege” over some of the documents. SCOTUS already ruled he can no longer claim that exception as he is no long the “executive”.

            Like

          14. “Trump’s lawyer is Trump?”

            Are you denying that his lawyer is acting on his orders? Why would some random lawyer (about the only people willing to work for a criminal who does not pay his bills) sign a false affidavit? Probably because he did not know it was false and relied on what his client told him. There is video of Mar-a-Lago employees shuffling boxes in and out of that storage room. Why would that be going on? This lawyer is now in hot water. Thanks Trump!

            Liked by 1 person

  2. I agree the article provides a pretty good summary of the issues related to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant based on what we know, which isn’t much. At the same time, the article muddies the water when it discusses government secrets by asserting that some experts say X while other experts say Y, as if it were impossible to agree on the truth.

    To offer clarity on the government secrets question, the idea that some information is “born classified” might be helpful.

    “Born classified” is an illogical phrase, a metaphor, that is meant to convey the notion that some information does not require “classification” to be recognized as being sensitive to national security. Information that is “born classified” must be handled and protected as though a classification authority has already evaluated it and classification markings have been applied. At no moment is “born classified” material considered to be “unclassified,” even when an authorized classification authority has yet to process it.

    Some examples of “born classified” information might be:

    • A president’s or diplomat’s conversation with a foreign representative, or its transcript.
    • Certain satellite images and other signals and sensor data.
    • Certain nuclear information (technical, historical, intelligence)

    The opposite of “born classified” is the idea that an authorized classification authority can declassify information instantaneously. The concept here is that classification is an action (or decision), not a process.

    Instantaneous declassification is rare, but it can occur in a variety of ways. For example, in a meeting where classified information will be discussed, the leader may alert attendees that top secret information is about to be disclosed. Attendees with less than top secret clearance may be told that their presence is authorized because they have a legitimate need to know the information, but that they must remain cognizant that the information will revert to its original formal classification after the meeting.

    Again, instantaneous declassification is rare. In 20 years of meetings to discuss weapons systems proposals, it never happened to me, although I have been in meetings where an attendee objected to the proceedings because the information under discussion was classified, only to be told that the information was cleared for discussion in the meeting at hand.

    The article is correct that some of the legal subtleties related to government secrets have not been litigated robustly. I think that is a testament to how well the system to protect sensitive information has been designed and how well the participants implement it.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Well the gist of the article is simply we don’t know. Speculation is all we have and boy is it running wild.

    I just hope Garland sent in read in TS/SCI cleared personnel to catalog these documents or Garland is guilty of a breach of security himself, provided of course that all of this stuff hadn’t already been declassified by Trump which I think he had.

    When the smoke clears, Trump will be just fine over a records dispute. Can’t say the same for Garland who had a partisan score to settle though.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Can’t say the same for Garland who had a partisan score to settle though.”

      Maybe, but not with Trump. Also, his integrity and professionalism, that was lacking during the Trump administration, will not allow him to stoop to petty “gotchas”. That is A Trump era thing.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

          1. I spent 4 years during the Vietnam era on a DD, and I can attest that being in the military did not guarantee lack of shitheadedness. I served proudly, but also under, with and over such characters. Not a majority to be sure, but veteran status does not immunize against assholedness either.

            Not saying you are in either category unless you feel maligned.

            Like

          2. If you think having been in the Navy makes it okay to slander honorable men, then the Navy failed miserably to teach you what this country is all about. And now it seems you will never learn. Sad.

            Like

          3. Learn what? How to be a supreme jackasslike you? No thanks. So hypocrisy is par for your course. Don’t hand me that line again when I call out Pelosi parrot Luria for her obvious lies.

            Like

Leave a comment