JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[foreverlax]

The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it. [Speculation as usual, to fit a narrative. Nobody is saying he has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants.]

"As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!" DJT tweet

[MDlaxfan76]

Correct. The WB told the CIA and the CIA then told the WH.

That spooked the WB, who then later (and wisely) went to Schiff's staffers. The WB works at the CIA for god's sake. He's smart enough to know when he's being set up and to take cover under the WB law.

The WB's mistake was going to the internal CIA folks in the first place -- who then leaked and outed him to the WH.

Got to the IG and invoke WB status first. Or, tbh, just go to the press instead if you want a fair hearing.

That is not the WB's first mistake. The OIG recommends going to supervisor first.

Where can I report wrongdoing?
Federal civilian employees have many options to disclose wrongdoing. They can:

tell a supervisor or someone higher up in management,
report the issue to their agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG),
file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel External link (OSC).

Does all the trip-ups from the WB not show kind of oddity in and of itself? in police work, they call that "a clue". Probably why it was messed up....b/c a knucklehead like Schiff and Brennan found a pawn, who did not follow instruction. They probably then went back to Schiff's staffers to get directions 'again'....oh wait, according to Schiff "we" did not speak to the WB before it all came out.

And how does any of that change the memorandum of the conversation where Trump ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?

Trump said what he said and it sure looks and smells like it should be impeachable.

The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it.

Very stark question: does he or does he not have the "absolute right" to do whatever he wants?

As some Republican friends said at dinner the other night: yes, it's terrible and he broke the law, but AOC is a socialist and also somebody had to stand up to China. They've given up on denying the facts and simply say that their tribal imperative outweighs the law and morality.

Yes, the "hate the liberals" motivation is very, very strong.
So, is confirmation bias...very hard to reverse opinions.

But this is the stark question, folks, because what hard line Trumpists are supporting is authoritarianism/fascism out in the open.

"absolute right".

All those assurances that the system of checks and balances will ultimately work are being put to the test.
How will we respond?

[youthathletics]

The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it. [Speculation as usual, to fit a narrative. Nobody is saying he has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants.]

"As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!" DJT tweet

Correct....he is being specific about corruption.

I suppose the legal argument is did he violate Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. We'll see.

[MDlaxfan76]

The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it. [Speculation as usual, to fit a narrative. Nobody is saying he has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants.]

"As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!" DJT tweet

Correct.
What Trump is saying is that he and he alone can characterize his actions any way he wants and that he and he alone determines whether those actions are appropriate, ethical, much less legal...he has an "absolute right" to make these determinations.

Likewise we've heard the "unitary power" theory of the Executive promulgated by his AG and the determination that, no matter what the crime, the sitting President cannot be indicted. Trump himself claims that he can't even be investigated legitimately.

Indeed, he claims that those who investigate are guilty of Treason (punishable by death). And those who report crimes under legal white blower systems are 'traitors' and 'spies' who should be executed.

There is just one remedy remaining.

So, this comes down to whether the GOP Senators will approve of Trump's theory and empower him to continue to take any and all actions he wishes under this theory, or whether they will stand for our Constitution.

And that really depends on GOP voters.
Up until now, the GOP Trumpist hard line base has totally cowed the rest of the GOP.

[foreverlax]

The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it. [Speculation as usual, to fit a narrative. Nobody is saying he has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants.]

"As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!" DJT tweet

Correct....he is being specific about corruption.

I suppose the legal argument is did he violate Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. We'll see.

I'll have to defer to the legal eagles....

[MDlaxfan76]

The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it. [Speculation as usual, to fit a narrative. Nobody is saying he has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants.]

"As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!" DJT tweet

Correct....he is being specific about corruption.

I suppose the legal argument is did he violate Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. We'll see.

No, he's not actually being specific about anything.
He's saying that he and he alone can characterize his actions any way he wants, regardless of the truth, and he can not only get away with it, he actually has an 'absolute right' to do so.

BTW, no the President does not have the "absolute right" to anything...at least under our Constitution...that's fascism.

[RedFromMI]

Yet another look at Trump's foreign calls - basically they seem to mostly be disasters, with Trump saying things that even at times horrified his staff...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Trump’s calls with foreign leaders have long worried aides, leaving some ‘genuinely horrified’

[seacoaster]

Yet another look at Trump's foreign calls - basically they seem to mostly be disasters, with Trump saying things that even at times horrified his staff...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Trump’s calls with foreign leaders have long worried aides, leaving some ‘genuinely horrified’

That is an astonishing story. Our President really is an idiot. What will happen if there is a serious international conflict?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yet another look at Trump's foreign calls - basically they seem to mostly be disasters, with Trump saying things that even at times horrified his staff...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Trump’s calls with foreign leaders have long worried aides, leaving some ‘genuinely horrified’

That is an astonishing story. Our President really is an idiot. What will happen if there is a serious international conflict?

That's old sugar's hero.

[a fan]

As some Republican friends said at dinner the other night: yes, it's terrible and he broke the law, but AOC is a socialist and also somebody had to stand up to China. They've given up on denying the facts and simply say that their tribal imperative outweighs the law and morality.

Nice. And when AOC takes office, and violates the law and morality to get what she wants, what are your friends going to do?

We're doing this to ourselves.

Let me take a wild guess: either your Republican friends come from wealthy families, or they attended State Universities. I've found that it's one, the other, or both who get all worked up over what they think is socialism.

My favorite so far is a high school acquaintance who inherited his Dad's windows company. Railed until blue in the face about socialism. Got real quiet when I pointed out that his entire business is based on Government Back home loans. Asked him to picture how much business he'd lose if Fannie, Freddie, and the countless programs like Dept. of Ag loans. He didn't understand what I was asking until I told him well over half of new home loans are backed by Uncle Sam.

Another is a HS acquaintance who was ripping on Denver giving free rides on light rail for a day. Said light rail wouldn't exist without public subsidies. Asked her if she thought the money used to build and maintain paved roads came from Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny? Lady had an MBA and a JD. It reminded me to never send my kid to where she got those degrees.

Just had another poster in another thread (really like the guy) tell me that "I guess from a certain view" that the University of Michigan Football team is owned by the government of the State of Michigan. Ummm. No. It's 100% owned by the State of Michigan no matter how you look at it.

It's downright odd....and in my opinion, pathological....the lengths Americans go to, to try and convince themselves they're self sufficient, and not dependent on government. I don't get it.

But I'd wish they'd stop taking my tax dollars before making the denials.

[a fan]

Yet another look at Trump's foreign calls - basically they seem to mostly be disasters, with Trump saying things that even at times horrified his staff...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Trump’s calls with foreign leaders have long worried aides, leaving some ‘genuinely horrified’

That is an astonishing story. Our President really is an idiot. What will happen if there is a serious international conflict?

Simple. They'll blame the Dems. Just like always.

[Trinity]

“I almost forgot. Those texts between Trump diplomats seeking dirt from Ukraine? They were sent not on State Dept email but on WhatsApp.” Greg Miller. WP

Trump’s staff is horrified? Sure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

And Trump orders cuts to NSC...you know, to make it leaner.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tle-blower

[jhu72]

“I almost forgot. Those texts between Trump diplomats seeking dirt from Ukraine? They were sent not on State Dept email but on WhatsApp.” Greg Miller. WP

Trump’s staff is horrified? Sure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

And Trump orders cuts to NSC...you know, to make it leaner.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tle-blower

…. don't worry, Victor David Hanson or one of his acolytes will explain to us how this is really a good thing and it has nothing to do with Orange Duce's desire to keep his corruptions under wraps.

[seacoaster]

The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it. [Speculation as usual, to fit a narrative. Nobody is saying he has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants.]

"As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!" DJT tweet

Correct....he is being specific about corruption.

I suppose the legal argument is did he violate Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. We'll see.

No, he's not actually being specific about anything.
He's saying that he and he alone can characterize his actions any way he wants, regardless of the truth, and he can not only get away with it, he actually has an 'absolute right' to do so.

BTW, no the President does not have the "absolute right" to anything...at least under our Constitution...that's fascism.

Another good post MDLaxfan. Right on the money.

[foreverlax]

The argument has now become that Trump has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants, not that he didn't do it. [Speculation as usual, to fit a narrative. Nobody is saying he has the "absolute right" to do anything he wants.]

"As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!" DJT tweet

Correct....he is being specific about corruption.

I suppose the legal argument is did he violate Article II, section 4 of the Constitution. We'll see.

No, he's not actually being specific about anything.
He's saying that he and he alone can characterize his actions any way he wants, regardless of the truth, and he can not only get away with it, he actually has an 'absolute right' to do so.

BTW, no the President does not have the "absolute right" to anything...at least under our Constitution...that's fascism.

Another good post MDLaxfan. Right on the money.

This is all about expanding the POTUS' powers and broadening the reach of WH counsel, which negatively impacts the oversight duties of Congress.

"Witch Hunts" are the unintended consequences of majority rule with our system of governance and they die a slow death, but they do die...either without a witch or at the stake.

The legal concepts that Trump has brought to the fore - emoluments, indictable while in office, and disclosure of potential financial conflicts - really need to be addressed. Sooner the better.

[Trinity]

Putin’s guy in Ukraine since 2004:
- Paul Manafort

2016 U.S election Putin-Trump connector:
Paul Manafort

Heart of the Mueller report:
Paul Manafort

Heart of Impeachment inquiry:
Paul Manafort

Coordinating strategy w/ Trump from prison via Rudy:
- Paul Manafort

Alexandra Chalupa

[old salt]

Memo to Chris Matthews :

Update on Javelins for Ukraine :
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/fa ... n-ukraine/
https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoin ... p-ukraine/

[Trinity]

“ Fawning over Putin
Praising Duterte for killing people
Sucking up to the murderous Saudi monarchy
Fighting w/ our UK allies to defend Putin.

Americans should see the Putin transcripts to see the full extent of trump’s humiliating treachery.”

Rep Bill Pascrell D NJ.

[holmes435]

Welcome Saudi Arabia to the G7 if Trump gets his way.

9/11. Never forget.

[seacoaster]

No surprise, but folks who have been there and done that say this White House is up to some weird sh*t:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... -alarming/

The whistleblower at the heart of the Ukraine controversy said White House officials ordered information about President Trump’s phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky to be removed from the classified server typically used to store such information and placed on a hyper-secure “code word” server. Such special protections are typically reserved for material of the gravest sensitivity: detailed information about covert operations, for example, where exposure can get people killed.

The move was highly suspicious, the whistleblower said several White House officials told him, because “the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.” On Friday, the White House confirmed that National Security Council lawyers directed that the call records be placed on that server.

I served under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and worked for four advisers on the National Security Council’s staff. I have staffed presidential meetings and phone calls with foreign leaders and spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours in the White House Situation Room. It is difficult to overstate just how abnormal and suspicious treating the call in that manner would be. It strongly suggests White House staff knew of serious wrongdoing by the president and attempted to bury it — a profound abuse of classified systems for political, and possibly criminal, purposes.

(The records of Trump’s conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi officials also were restricted to an unusually small group of officials, it now appears, though it’s unclear whether the memos were placed on the special server.)

In my almost six years on the NSC staff, I never personally saw or heard of the records of a presidential call being moved to the “code word” system. Such a move would be justified only if a president and foreign leader were discussing material so sensitive that intelligence officials with top-secret clearance had to be “read into” to access to it — an unlikely prospect, even with our closest allies. Presidents tend to discuss general foreign policy issues, not the fine details of covert actions.

Moving the memo to the code word server suggests Trump officials really did know the call was as bad as the president’s critics say it is. The argument some Trump officials are making — that they protected Trump’s conversations to avoid leaks — is scarcely less damning, if the point was to avoid leaks of conversations in which the president leveraged U.S. power for his own political advantage (or endorsed foreign interference in U.S. elections).

If the code word server was used to prevent leaks as a general matter — the most charitable interpretation — does that mean all of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders are stored there? That, in itself, would represent a remarkable departure from the intended use of the classification system.

People outside national security circles might well wonder whether a president’s calls to foreign leaders are, by their nature, sensitive enough to be placed on the special server. They are not. To be sure, presidential calls are extraordinarily well-protected, befitting their importance. Those calls are the coin of the foreign policy realm. They are carefully prepared, well-staffed by professionals and (ordinarily) used only to advance America’s national interests. They focus on peace deals, trade agreements and matters of war and peace.

The memorandums of these conversations — like the one released to Congress last week — are generated by national security professionals in the Situation Room, including career employees of the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the military. These people produce rough transcripts, which are then reviewed for accuracy by relevant experts on the NSC staff who were listening to the call and finally by people in what is known as “the Suite” — the small West Wing offices that house the NSC chief of staff, the deputy national security adviser and the national security adviser.

Once such memos are produced, very few members of the NSC staff are privy to them — usually only those working directly on issues discussed on the call. Members of the Cabinet, especially the secretary of state, may receive copies. The memos can be classified at various levels, with the classification level varying paragraph by paragraph.

Most of these memos are classified as “secret,” by default. To reach “top secret” classification, they’d have to involve information the unauthorized disclosure of which would cause the United States “exceptionally grave” national security harm. “Code word” status is reserved for the absolutely most sensitive subset of information within the top-secret category. These classifications are made purely to protect national security, never for political reasons.

Material up to “top secret” is stored on a highly secure classified computer system used by NSC staff — not the code word server. I have classified many such documents myself. Based on my experience, the standard system is where the Ukraine memo should have ended up.

....

One reason to pin down the decision-makers is to reestablish the public’s faith in the civil servants who work on intelligence matters. The NSC staff is made up mostly of patriotic and nonpolitical public servants who labor 18-hour days without glory or any interest in public attention. They walk through the gates of the White House every morning with one goal in mind: the protection of American national security. They deserve answers about what happened in this case. Most importantly, the American people deserve to have confidence in the integrity of a national security process that is designed to serve them."