this is a you-say-potato, Repubs-say-pohtahtoe kind of issue. Dems opened this can of Pringles . . . gonna be hard to put the chips back in the can
He's as crooked as they come. Also not straight, and it's downright shameful that any gay man is in the party of hate.
well this will make folks' head explode Update: More Ethics Observations On The Trump Indictment {Expanded} https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/06/11/update-more-ethics-observations-on-the-trump-indictment/ here's a fun one: 9. Finally, Althouse found this quote in a live chat during a live stream of Trump speaking at the Georgia GOP Conference: “Who gets a federal indictment with 100 years potential jail time and comes out to do an event?! The man is titanium!!” I think for every potential voter Trump loses because of the indictment, he may pick up more because of this factor. I admired Bill Clinton’s mettle during the Lewinsky scandal, and I have to admire Trump’s resiliency and determination through his latest travail as well as the hate and abuse aimed at him during the past seven years. It doesn’t mean he’s fit to be President, and it won’t make me less determined to do what (little) I can to try to make sure he isn’t the GOP candidate in 2024. But as the pathetic father in “Little Miss Sunshine” keeps saying (he’s a failed self-actualization guru), successful people never give up, and refuse to lose. If nothing else, Trump is a role model for that. more at the link
Jack Smith was trusted to oversee war crime cases by… the world. But yes, let’s trust the legal mind of a guy that looks like he’s just finished a line of coke every time he talks.
The PRA is very clear about what is a presidential record and what is a personal record. I’m so old I remember when hard disks were seized from the White House during Iran-Contra and NARA archivists had to sort through and categorize each email as presidential or personal. In fact, I’m so old I remember NARA archivists spending years transcribing Nixon tapes and making the same determinations.
Funny story … Graham by training is a lawyer so he should know better. Thus, we can take what Graham is saying as shameless partisan dribble.
Here are the definitions of presidential and personal records. You can't argue that the records Trump had were personal--a President does not have discretion to categorize a presidential record as a personal record. And you can't argue that he needed time to separate personal records from presidential records because under law that has to be done before a president leaves office. § 2201. Definitions As used in this chapter-- (1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form. (2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term-- (A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but (B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified. (3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes-- (A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business; (B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and (C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
Never has one moderate Democrat worked so tirelessly in the defense of a corrupt Republican former president. Lol…
related Outside the Beltway: What happens when you lose [Insert Name]? by Matt Bernius Throughout the Trump years, whenever a new legal problem for the then-President came up, his allies and supporters on the interwebz would invariably turn to iconoclastic lawyer Jonathon Turely. And there was good reason for that. Turley has impressive legal credentials, including his holding the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School. He’s also a difficult individual to pin down politically.* Turley has argued that GWB administration officials should be prosecuted for war crimes, against special treatment for religious institutions and the death penalty. He also defended the Second Amendment, argued for the Clinton Impeachment and against the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. In recent years, he’s best known for being a fierce defender of former President Trump, in particular during his first Impeachment. During the investigation into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and the subsequent impeachment procedures, Turley was a regular figure on Fox News arguing against impeachment. In fact, while he declined an offer to be part of the Trump Impeachment Legal Team, he was the sole witness called by the Republicans in the House Hearings. Throughout this time, Turley repeatedly took the position that while he was not a Trump supporter, it was his responsibility to represent the facts as he saw them. As a results, in comment threads here on Outside the Beltway and other sites, it was comment to see Trump supporters citing Turley as proof of Democratic Party over reach (example 1 and ex 2**). Often you’d see constructions like “Even Jonathon Turley…” or “Legal expert Jonathon Turley, who isn’t even a Trump supporter…” used to prove their case. This is totally understandable behavior. It’s great to have a credible expert on your side, especially one who doesn’t publicly identify as being “on your side.” But what happens when said credible expert takes a position counter to an accepted viewpoint? When Former President Trump announced his indictment on Thursday, Fox News again turned to Turley expecting that he’d most likely defend Trump against excessive prosecution. And they had good reason to as Turely had already expressed skepticism about this entire investigation (example 1 and example 2). And some of that skepticism was present when he appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Thursday night: “Turley told Hannity he was waiting to see what the indictment held, but said “if this indictment is basically a bunch of close calls, I think there’s going to be a great deal of recriminations.” Turley even suggested Trump could use the trial as a boost for his campaign, selling his mugshot to whip up his supporters and vowing to self-pardon himself if he’s re-elected.” https://www.businessinsider.com/fox...ley-trump-indictment-extremely-damning-2023-6 However, after reviewing the indictment, Turely’s position changed significantly by his next appearances on Friday: “It is an extremely damning indictment,” Turley, a conservative jurist and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, said. Turley said the indictment detailed specific instances of Trump’s alleged misconduct. “The special counsel knew that there would be a lot of people who were going to allege that the DOJ acted in a biased or politically motivated way. This is clearly an indictment that was drafted to answer those questions,” Turley said. “It’s overwhelming in details.” The Fox News commentator noted that the indictment included direct quotations from Trump passed along by cooperating witnesses testifying under oath. “The Trump team should not fool itself,” Turley said. “These are hits below the water line.” He noted in a separate segment on Fox News that a photo showed classified documents stacked in a bathroom at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate in Florida. “It’s really breathtaking,” Turley said. “Obviously, this is mishandling. Putting classified documents into ballrooms and bathrooms … borders on the bizarre.” https://www.businessinsider.com/fox...ley-trump-indictment-extremely-damning-2023-6 Unlike in the past, I don’t think there is any way to interpret Turley’s comments in a way that is particularly favorable to Donald Trump. The question is, does that matter? Does Turley’s analysis of the indictment have any impact on the thinking of same the Trump supporters who regularly quoted him as a credible expert in the past? If you are reading this and think Turley’s wrong here, what led you to that position? And, also if you think he is wrong now, why did you previously think he was right on other issues? To what degree does one’s support of a heterodox thinker*** have more to do with where they land on certain issues than the reasoning that got them to said positions? * – Based on my understanding of his positions, I think Turley is best classified as a classic libertarian, with a strong belief in individual and also civil rights. ** – In searching through the archive, I discovered that a number of examples of people relying on Turley have been pulled because the folks advancing those arguements were disinvited to OTB (see for example Drew and Keef) and many of their posts were removed. *** – For the record, I have pretty mixed feelings on Turley. He is without a keen legal mind and I appreciate his principle stand on many issues around the criminal legal system, in particular his advocacy against the death penalty. That said, he’s not someone I would go to immediately as a legal expert. I also want to be clear that my writing this is not intended to play the same game (i.e. “Even Jonathon Turley says Trump is in trouble and was irresponsible in handling the documents”). He just happens to provide a really timely example of having someone who has been held up as credible expert by folks on a given side of partisan issues who is now expressing an opinion that isn’t as supportive to said side. Note a similiar arguement could be made around Bill Barr.
I'm sorry, but @ROXRAN needs to see some actual evidence on the table before he can dismiss it and then pretend it doesn't exist.
