Transparency – Be careful what you demand.

At the hearing to decide on whether to release the Mar-a-Lago affidavit Trump was represented by a lawyer who said nothing. It is one thing to demand full disclosure on Fox News. It is something else when it actually is before the court. Apparently.

https://tinyurl.com/2p8w2uez

Then there is this. AG William Barr was given talking points to sabotage the impact of the Mueller Report. A judge ruled that they should be disclosed. She has now been joined by a 3-0 vote on the Court of Appeals.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/19/appeals-court-backs-ruling-to-release-doj-memo-on-trump-prosecution-00052880

26 thoughts on “Transparency – Be careful what you demand.

  1. The lawsuit is by a number of news outlets. Trump is not a party to the suit. If it goes to appeal, it would be possible to file an amicus brief, but at this point Trump’s lawyers have no standing in this suit unless privileged information is brought to court.

    But as far as I am concerned, transparency should be limited only by privileged communication. Everything else should be open and public. If it hurts Trump in 2024, so be it. If it results in the impeachment of Garland, I am OK with that too. Let the truth come out no matter what it is.

    Like

  2. “Trump is not a party to the suit”

    Uh, that is kind of the point. He could have been. He certainly has standing as the target of the Search Warrant. He rants about full disclosure but when push came to shove, he was silent.

    In principle, I generally agree that transparency is better than the opaqueness but there are three factors working against it . . .

    1. National security information cannot be compromised
    2. Palpable danger to whomever reported the crimes to the FBI.
    3. Interference with the investigtion which is ongoing.

    These are points made by the government and I believe they are valid points. If an indictment is produced that would be the time for more transparency – in court.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The Constitution guarantees your right to confront your accusers. If an indictment is issued, those names come out in discovery.

      But delaying transparency through the election cycle while waiting years for a trial is unacceptable.

      Like

      1. The only person who wants to delay this through election cycles is Trump. He may be corrupt, but he knows his way around the legal system.

        He also knows the longer the followers are kept in the dark, the greater the conspiracy angle gets. Italian satellites and bamboo slivers were only the warm up stories.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. You are just not honest.

            You know very well that he could have joined the suit to release the affidavit. You know very well he could have instructed his attorney to address the court to express support for the media suit. You know these things but pretend you don’t.

            You are just not honest.

            Like

      2. “The Constitution guarantees your right to confront your accusers. If an indictment is issued, those names come out in discovery.”

        It is up to the court whether the names of the first tipsters become public. I suspect they will be redacted, at least for now. They are not the “accusers,” necessarily. But if they are named, we have mechanisms such as the witness protection program to keep the safe from Trump’s minions.

        Trump has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial. That will happen if he is indicted unless he plays his usual games to drag it out so he can bilk his followers some more.

        Like

  3. Considering the threats by a Trump and his gangs against witnesses, judges, legislators and others involved in the 1/6 investigation plus the threats against the FBI and The federal magistrate in the search of Mar a Lago, this is like investigating the Mafia.

    Except there was a certain honor code in Cosa Nostra.

    None with this capo di tutti capi wannabe.

    Liked by 1 person

          1. “Stand by”…

            Attacks on FBI office. Threats against Reinhart. 1/6. His mob is his gang, ready to obey just like many of them admitted when arrested.

            Like

          2. “It is no less petty than supposing Trump would have, or encourage someone to be, killed.”

            One of Trump’s minions has already got himself killed attacking the FBI. Pretending that the people he denounces are not in danger is dishonest.

            Like

          3. “Do you have a cite for Trump suggesting a violent response to the raid on his home”

            We have many cites describing how Trump personally approached AG Garland with implicit threats of violence by his followers.

            Like

          4. “The guy tried to break the bulletproof glass with a nail gun.”
            Does that change the fact cited showing the threat is very real?

            And he was carrying an assault rifle.

            I will stipulate that someone motivated by Trump’s lies to murder people is someone of very low intellect. EXACTLY the kind of people says he loves to have as followers. And he has millions.

            Like

    1. The weaponization of shallow thinking.

      The Mar-a-Lago affidavit justifying the search warrant is probably moot and would eventually be made public, anyway.

      AG Barr’s memo panning the Mueller report predates and is of superceding significance to the “talking points” the post worries about.

      Like

      1. “The weaponization of shallow thinking”

        You mean shallow thoughts like “Lock her up!”

        Mar-a-Lago Affidavit
        We will see how badly it is redacted, but very likely it will be very damning with chapter, verse and evidence on multiple crimes. The standard for a search warrant is probable cause. That means it is more likely than not that the crimes were committed. Get ready to start squealing how unfair it is to accuse Trump without him being found guilty.

        DOJ Memo
        It seems clear that the DOJ provided political talking points for the Attorney General to mischaracterize the findings of the Mueller Report and undermine its findings. It won’t bother you people, though. You like, nay, need to be mislead by Dear Leader. Your hunger for his bullshit is palpable.

        Like

        1. So what you are saying is the DOJ is inherently politically corrupt be it Barr or Garland. That of course lays the rock solid basis that the raid was politically motivated. I think the DOJ is in damage control mode right now and seriously considering if it is in their best interest to let this die quietly. If charges are filed, the DOJ becomes a defendant and subject to full disclosure.

          Like

          1. “So what you are saying is the DOJ is inherently politically corrupt ”

            Hardly. It was corrupt under Trump/Barr. Under Biden/Garland it has returned to probity. It is worth remembering that the extremely conservative and loyal Jeff Sessions was too honest to survive under Trump.

            I think the idea that the DOJ is in damage control mode is nuts. Since Garland took over they have done nothing they need to hide from. If anything, they have been way to slow to prosecute Trump. The evidence of his crimes is everywhere. Stealing classified materials is one of his minor offenses.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s