Winning - Lawfare Silliness Falling Apart

[Charles Fout]

"The federal judge overseeing the classified documents charges against former president Donald Trump has dismissed the indictment on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed, according to a court filing Monday."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ed-cannon/


Have no doubt, the remaining lawfare cases will soon go away. 

I fully expect the Manhattan conviction to soon be vacated.

Winning.   

[davewill]

Just what I want from my President, skipping out on crimes using judges beholden to them and questionable technicalities.

This case is very cut and dried. Government says, "You have stuff you shouldn't, please give it back." Trump says, "I don't have it". FBI finds it. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Then he does the whole dance a second time.

The guy is a crook. He's always BEEN a crook. He's cheated nearly everyone he's ever done business with. There's a REASON legitimate banks won't lend him money, yet somehow we should trust him with our country.

[LevelUP]

"The federal judge overseeing the classified documents charges against former president Donald Trump has dismissed the indictment on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed, according to a court filing Monday."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ed-cannon/


Have no doubt, the remaining lawfare cases will soon go away. 

I fully expect the Manhattan conviction to soon be vacated.

Winning.   

Considering presidents can declassify any document they want, charging them with serious crimes for having classified documents obtained during their presidency is an oxymoron.

It's also a potential national security risk for the FBI to seize classified documents. If those documents were leaked, our enemies could gain information to use against us.

we should trust him with our country?

I trust him with foreign affairs
https://www.tiktok.com/@patriotdan2024/v...35?lang=en

For domestic affairs, the president has little power.  99% of Congress I don't trust, but that's another story.

[Charles Fout]

1. I wish you well.
2. I will not enter into a bickering contest with you.
3. I think you are factually wrong
4. It is not my place to diagnose you but my observation is that President Trump lives inside the heads of many Trump Derangement Syndrome victims. Surely, this may not include you. He occupies so much space inside of the heads of your fellow travelers that he may begin subleasing it

Have a nice day.

[LevelUP]

1. I wish you well.
2. I will not enter into a bickering contest with you.
3. I think you are factually wrong
4. It is not my place to diagnose you but my observation is that President Trump lives inside the heads of many Trump Derangement Syndrome victims. Surely, this may not include you. He occupies so much space inside of the heads of your fellow travelers that he may begin subleasing it

Have a nice day.

Not quarreling with someone is a good policy. 

However, to be fair, Dave's point was that Trump refused to hand over classified documents when requested, which may have been in breach of the law.

[freeloader]

The President has the legal authority to declassify documents at their discretion, but they still have to follow the law, including existing procedures. Among these are clearly marking that the documents have been declassified and reporting the declassification to the National Archives in their capacity as the federal records holder. There is no indication Trump did these things.

The President also does not own these documents. They are federal records material and are the property of the United States. Even if he had declassified them, Trump still committed a crime by retaining government documents which were not his property.

The inquiry into Trump’s handling of documents took months before his Florida compound was raided. If Trump’s intent was to comply with the laws, he/his people should have located and collected any federal record materials and turned them over to the correct depository. They didn’t. Instead, they obstructed the Department of Justice at every turn.

Trump broke the law. Period. He broke laws to which every federal employee is subject, including the President.

You may believe that he should not have been tried for these violations, as that is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that he violated federal law EVEN if he did declassify the documents.

---

Judge Cannon’s reasoning for dismissing had nothing to do with the merits of the case, but was because Congress did not authorize the funds for the special counsel as the special counsel STATUTE allows for funds to be drawn directly from the treasury without congressional authorization.

Congress chose to specifically waive its authority to authorize funding for special counsels.  The Supreme Court recently ruled that the CFPB funding structure, which does not rely on congressional authorizations, was constitutional in large part because Congress had the authority to dictate spending but created an alternative funding path. They had the power of the purse but abdicated it for the CFPB.

Any normal Supreme Court would probably overturn Cannon, but who knows with the current Court. Precedent and consistency seem to hold no weigh with them.

If Cannon’s decision is allowed to stand and Congress has to specifically authorize special counsel funding, that means it is subject to presidential veto. Thus, no special counsel will ever have teeth regarding a President as they can simply veto the funding. It also places the Special Counsel clearly under the authority of the President, so what Nixon did—trying to fire his special counsel—would be perfectly fine.

Given its recent decisions on presidential immunity, if the SC sides with Cannon and does so before the election, Biden would pretty clearly be within his authority to have Trump and the conservative members of the Supreme Court killed by federal agents.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

[LevelUP]

The President has the legal authority to declassify documents at their discretion, but they still have to follow the law, including existing procedures. Among these are clearly marking that the documents have been declassified and reporting the declassification to the National Archives in their capacity as the federal records holder. There is no indication Trump did these things.

The President also does not own these documents. They are federal records material and are the property of the United States. Even if he had declassified them, Trump still committed a crime by retaining government documents which were not his property.

The inquiry into Trump’s handling of documents took months before his Florida compound was raided. If Trump’s intent was to comply with the laws, he/his people should have located and collected any federal record materials and turned them over to the correct depository. They didn’t. Instead, they obstructed the Department of Justice at every turn.

Trump broke the law. Period. He broke laws to which every federal employee is subject, including the President.

You may believe that he should not have been tried for these violations, as that is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that he violated federal law EVEN if he did declassify the documents.

It's a very difficult argument to make that Trump should not be prosecuted for holding these classified documents because you would be trying to make a subjective opinion argument about what the legal norms should be and then having enough legal knowledge to speculate on how this will ultimately play out in the courts, which could end up in the Supreme Court.

So, I concede that you are winning this argument.

Given its recent decisions on presidential immunity, if the SC sides with Cannon and does so before the election, Biden would pretty clearly be within his authority to have Trump and the conservative members of the Supreme Court killed by federal agents.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

The principle of presidential immunity is limited to official acts performed within the scope of presidential duties.

The idea that a president could authorize the killing of political figures, including former presidents or Supreme Court justices, is not only legally unfounded but also deeply unethical and contrary to the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that immunity does not extend to actions outside the bounds of lawful executive authority.

In light of recent tragic events, it's particularly important to avoid any suggestions, implicit or explicit, of violence against political figures.