In their minds Trump represents them and an attack on Trump is an attack on themselves. This is how master con men and cult leaders work. You convince followers that your enemies are their enemies. Trump knows this well and that’s what at rallies he talks about how those investigating and criticizing Trump are really coming after them (his supporters).
I get the impulse here, I really do, but never hire lawyers with your d*ck. My great step-uncle always said the more unattractive your lawyer, the more diligent and attentive to detail they’ll be…
I could honestly see Trump taking them so he could brag about all the bigly Top Secret documents he has. Nobody has more Top Secret documents than he does. It's yuge. Seems like the kind of guy clown who would get an ego boost just from having something like that and being able to brag about it.
Trump has been known for hiring people on how they look. As a promoter and TV star he believes that if someone looks the part they will do a better job.
Althouse https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-spectacle-of-former-president.html August 31, 2022 "The spectacle of a former president facing criminal investigation raises profound questions about American democracy, and these questions demand answers." Wrote the Editorial Board of the NYT in "Donald Trump Is Not Above the Law,"which went up last Friday. I didn't read it at the time because the headline is so banal, but I looked back at it because someone told me that the NYT editors were calling for the indictment of Trump. That's not the case. They're only saying that "If Attorney General Merrick Garland and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then they must seek an indictment too." That is, the editors reject the idea that there's room for discretion, for consideration of when and whether to prosecute a former President. But I ran into that quote I put in the post title — it's in the first paragraph — and I've been thinking about the contradiction inherent in claiming to be protecting "democracy" and acting to deprive the people of the opportunity to vote for a particular political candidate. The urgency to stop Trump feels like a mistrust of the people. The deplorable subsection of America shouldn't have elected him the first time — so goes the elite opinion — and we can't let those people have another chance to give this man power. That's anti-democratic, and yet isn't it why the oligarchy presents itself as serving democracy? That's my question. Is it one of the NYT editors' "profound questions about American democracy"? I doubt it, but I will finally read this thing and let you know if — by off chance — the elite editors of the NYT notice the contradiction: Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation.... Trump is framed as the attacker of democracy, rather than as a candidate in a forthcoming democratic election. He's going to wreck elections, not participate in them. Doing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents. Why not attempt to stay in power by any means necessary or use the power of the office to enrich oneself or punish one’s enemies, knowing that the law does not apply to presidents in or out of office?... Trump pursued available remedies and didn't get very far, then participated in a big demonstration, but do you want to criminalize seeking court remedies and delivering momentous speeches? That doesn't approach "by any means necessary." And it's odd to include on that list "us[ing] the power of the office to... punish one’s enemies," because that sounds like what is being done to Trump. A week after the attack, the House impeached Mr. Trump for the second time. This editorial board supported his impeachment and removal from office; we also suggested that the former president and lawmakers who participated in the Jan. 6 plot could be permanently barred from holding office under a provision of the 14th Amendment that applies to any official who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to those who have done so.... Now, that would get into "by any means necessary" territory, stretching the legal text in an effort to prevent Trump from running for office again. Why can't you let the people vote for whomever we want? In the name of democracy, you mistrust democracy. The threat that Mr. Trump and his most ardent supporters pose to American democracy has metastasized. Again, Trump is portrayed as the enemy of democracy. Even now, the former president continues to spread lies about the 2020 election and denounce his vice president, Mike Pence, for not breaking the law on his behalf.... Part of democracy is critiquing democracy. Both sides do it, and both sides lie. The "Russia collusion" hoax dogged Trump throughout his presidency. We need to be able to debate about defects in the voting and vote counting process, even as we also need to be able to declare a winner within a practical timeframe. Would the NYT denounce things like "Not My President Day" or all the people who think Al Gore won in 2000? No, there won't be any principled demand to suppress lies — and spin and exaggeration and strained legal arguments — about elections, and if there were, it would be a despicable attack on freedom of speech. The remedy for what they see as lies about the election is simply more speech. I understand their frustration: Why do people keep believing what the NYT believes it knows to be lies? But that's always the problem with freedom of speech. People tell and believe a lot of lies. If you want democracy, you can't let that flip you out into hysteria. Concentrate on the next election and defeat your opponent at the polls. If your response is, no, because my opponent might win and we can't take that risk, then you don't believe in democracy. Posted by Ann Althouse at 12:57 PM
I am not a lawyer, but how in the hell is she going to explain this? Either she lied or she was lied to, I don't exactly see trump allowing ANYONE to go through his personal stuff.......I think more of a "wink-wink" from trump that he has nothing and she took him at his word, but then why in the hell is she going around on talk shows saying he is innocent? Girl, get yourself a GOOD lawyer and STFU before you say anything more to incriminate yourself 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. The same filing also includes an affidavit from Trump himself, indicating that he “authorized Alina Habba to search my private residence and personal office located at The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida for any and all documents responsive to the Subpoena.” Habba indicated she conducted similar searches at Trump’s residences and office at his Bedminster estate. link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...newsntp&cvid=30622f8bff604f47bc403fe2d58e674e
Probably a good rule of thumb. My grandmother had an accountant named Mr. Crook; she said he had to be extra honest because he already had one strike against him. I'm also not a fan of the theory that Trump planned to sell top secret documents. Mostly because it is completely speculative. Even your average conspiracy theory has more nominal evidence than this one does. But also, if he was going to sell them, they'd be gone by now. The older secrets get the less valuable they become. I can see the ego-trip. He might be emotionally wrestling with the demotion from one of the most powerful people in America to regular joe in one day, and pretending like he still has control over America's biggest secrets could assuage the pain. But I can also see him wanting to leverage the information when he gets into his own election cycle. Maybe selectively leak documents to the press anonymously to shape the narrative. But, that's also mere speculation. I'm content to just see what happens.
Geez.. You’re quoting Althouse quoting an NYT op-Ed that she didn’t even read all of yet she is making a definitive critiques. Since I did read that whole post a couple of quick comments. Althouse seems to forget that we are not a pure democracy and never have been. The argument that people should be able to vote for whoever they want ignores that the Constitution already restricts who can run for office. In fact she even cites the 14rh Amendment. Next office isn’t a right but a privilege as shown by those very Constitutional requirements. Even if we consider it a right rights can be restricted or revoked base in wrong doing as long as due process is followed. She also brings up the argument that we shouldn’t be denying or punishing people the ability to legally challenge an election. No one is doing that and Trump had his days in court which were all defeated. Illegal attempts to challenge an election are by definition illegal and should be punished. Several of Trump’s supporters are facing that right now. Althouse is arguing that there is an overarching right to vote and elect whoever you want. First off you can vote for whoever you want by writing in whatever name you want. In 2016 A 15 year old going by “Deez Nuts” got many primary votes. For the reasons stated above even if he got the most votes couldn’t serve. I seriously doubt Althouse would’ve agreed with lifting Constitutional standards so Deez Nuts could be President.
The three possibilities I see are: 1. She is a bad lawyer who wasn’t diligent. 2. Trump misled her and hid the documents from her. 3. She went along with Trump wanting to not be truthful in regards to the subpoena.
Why Trump kept the documents is an important political question but I don’t think it matters much legally. Just holding onto classified material no matter the reason is a crime.
Idk about y’all, but I highly enjoy seeing Trump’s top notch team of lawyers self-incriminate and contradict themselves…it’s pretty entertaining it still astonishes me how they can be this dumb if these were my lawyers, I’m thinking we’re fcked
now it’s “just because a document still has a marking show it’s classified doesn’t mean it’s actually classified”
Althouse left out a whole lot on her talk about Trump's attack on democracy. Nobody wants to try Trump for filing court cases and having a demonstration. THAT IS A DISHONEST SUMMATION OF TRUMP'S ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY. She left out Trump's demand to seize voting machines. She left out the plans to insert counterfeit electors and replace the legitimate electors. She left out the plan to delay the certification so they could have Congress vote by state in order to declare Trump the winner, thus tossing out all of the votes of the citizens. It's as if a person wore a ski mask to rob a bank and was sentenced to 30 years in prison and then asking, "Has our society really decided to lock people up for 30 years for simply wearing ski masks?" Even for her, this was a poor attempt. There is no doubt when looking at all of the evidence that Trump attacked our democracy. What is gained by allowing Trump to commit crime after crime?
This is the danger of Trump. Legally he’s been terrible both in his own behavior and in his “legal” team. He hasn’t even been indicted because of politics. It’s clear that the DOJ and SDNY are cowed because of politics and just a few moments we see Ann Althouse making a political argument that somehow allowing voters to vote for who they want should override issues of Justice and Constitutional Principle. I hate to see it but Trump is winning over law enforcement because he’s convinced so many people of the dangers of what might happen if he is actually held to criminal account.
His message is already accessible to those that follow, they have an entire network for him and his peeps. His message is not going to make a greater impact on his followers as a candidate, in fact it will galvanize the people that don't want him in office even more, and that's a fair amount of Republicans. You can continue to think of him as some huge boogie man, but I know he is just a guy with a lot of crazy followers and not any real threat of gaining back the presidency.
