Proof positive….the Woke set simply can’t accept facts that don’t fit their narrative. Imagine the mental constipation!
Son to the mother: ‘Mom, I’m beginning to think he was right about everything’
Mother replies:’ I know he was Honey but he gave people mean nicknames on Twitter, so your father and I choose to vote for complete economic and societal collapse instead’
It is very funny. Intended to comment on this article that is utter garbage. Not as a woke but as a simple-minded person.
Liberalism has a deep totalitarian component, totalitarian as established by liberals themselves, no foreign ideological contamination here.
A totalitarian government is separated from other governments in which it can not tolerate any sign of defiance or any demonstration of resistance. Totalitarian regimes are very insecure, they spot resistance, they flatten it out and they repeat the cycle over and over. One part of humanity under liberalism is clearly heading for a total society, the other part for a nihilistic society. It is very funny.
The article is utter garbage because it fails to account for the exceptional dimension of Donald Trump as a liberal. Liberals may walk in liberal clothes, liberals may walk in non liberal clothes and there is Donald Trump who is a liberal walking naked.
The notion that Trump could be unfairly treated is preposterous once his exceptionality is factored in.
That is the opposite, Trump is given much slack, like no other president before him (especially not Obama) Trump meets little resistance, no opposition.
This is when the totalitarian aspect kicks in: the slightest challenge is considered too much. Trump is a liberal and demands submission, people must be aligned with him and the slightest deviation is perceived as offensive. Of course, this is for people who Trump can submit, others like Russia, China, liberal Israel or even Canada expose Trump. It is very funny because in order to save the face, certain institutions must pretend.Even a propaganda channel like Fox news must at time deviate from Trump's narrative and Trump resents it.
Another funny thing: liberal societies share a lot of common points with criminal societies. In criminal societies, certain elements feel endangered when another element makes too noise, they do not want publicity and they work to eliminate noisy elements they consider as a danger for their line of business.
The same could happen in liberal societies/ Trump angers many liberals because he has exposed liberalism in a terminal way so they may try to get rid of Trump in order to save the liberal line of business.
Nevertheless, the article is utter garbage as it inverts the situation: Donald Trump has been enjoying complacency, he receives a slap on the wrist for things that deserve much more. Trump has demolished the appearances on liberal political and economical tenets. For liberalism, the time for pretence is over.
Proof positive….the Woke set simply can’t accept facts that don’t fit their narrative. Imagine the mental constipation!
So if you Trump supporters or apologists here don't respond to a thread critical of Tump, it's proof positive they can't accept facts that don't fit their narrative, is that how this works?
AI Overview
Yes, images released as part of the federal indictment against Donald Trump show boxes of classified documents scattered in various locations at his
Mar-a-Lago estate, including a ballroom stage, a shower, a bathroom, and a storage room, with labels like "Secret" or "Top Secret" visible, highlighting concerns about national security and alleged mishandling of sensitive records.
Shameful
New photos released by prosecutors in former President Trump's classified documents case show papers and boxes labeled "secret" tucked away with holiday decorations, clothing items and magazines.
Newly released photographs from the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago paint a picture of the haphazard state in which former President Trump kept documents marked as classified.
Why it matters: While Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the former president's alleged mishandling of classified documents has been indefinitely delayed as Judge Aileen Cannon considers a series of motions from the presumptive GOP nominee's legal team, the never-before-seen photos offer a wider glimpse into the chaotic scene investigators found.
Zoom in: Prosecutors, in response to Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment, said in a memorandum unsealed Tuesday that the boxes in which classified documents were found had "no apparent organization whatsoever."
Driving the news: The trove of images shows papers strewn across the floor of the South Florida resort and boxes clearly marked "confidential" and "secret" containing a mix of documents and a random graveyard of dated newspaper clippings, golf shirts and binders.
What they're saying: "Trump personally chose to keep documents containing some of the nation's most highly guarded secrets in cardboard boxes along with a collection of other personally chosen keepsakes of various sizes and shapes from his presidency — newspapers, thank you notes, Christmas ornaments, magazines, clothing and photographs of himself and others," the Monday court filing read.
Flashback: When Trump left the White House, "scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents," were transported to his home at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, the 49-page indictment released last year alleged.
The big picture: The South Florida case is unlikely to go to trial before the 2024 election after Cannon postponed it last month.
Go deeper: Trump's attorneys found classified docs in his bedroom months after raid
Mar 1, 2025
The way Trump tells it, he’s Alexander, Charlemagne, George Washington, Napoleon and Mahatma Gandhi all rolled into one. Yet after a decade at the top of US politics, solid achievements are few. His peacemaking flounders, his economic and trade tariff policies falter, his personal approval rating tumbles. Towering ego, ignorance, vulgarity and bottomless narcissism are Trump’s only exceptional traits.
Right now, the global and domestic upheavals triggered by Trump and Maga seem transformational. They are symbolised by the new US national security strategy – an authoritarian, anti-European, transatlantic alliance-rupturing charter. On all sides the cry is heard: “The old order perishes. Chaos looms!” Yet looked at in the round, the Trumpian moment is fleeting. Trump, 79, has three years remaining in power, at most. Even if a loyalist wins in 2028 – a huge “if” – no heir can match his monstrous appeal. His Maga coalition is fracturing.
It’s claimed Trump has permanently changed how Americans view the world. But they said that about 1930s America First isolationism, and that didn’t last, either. Time will show the Trump era to be less turning point, more freakish aberration – a sort of Prohibition for populists. In history’s bigger picture, Trump is a blotch, an unsightly smear on the canvas.
extract; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/28/donald-trump-legacy-maga-2026-tyrants
So if you're Trump supporters or apologists don't respond to a thread critical of Trump, it's proof positive they can't accept facts that don't fit their narrative, is that how this works?
You betcha!
So if you're Trump supporters or apologists don't respond to a thread critical of Trump, it's proof positive they can't accept facts that don't fit their narrative, is that how this works?
I fully anticipated one of the Woke set would try to make that argument, that Trad would speak in tongues and that Blob would find an article to serve as his brains. But no, I don’t expect anybody to respond to the rubbish Hysteria and Blob post on here every day.
This is different. This is Trump’s personal lawyer contradicting the accepted truth in a sober and totally informed way. I would have hoped that one woke person had the integrity to evaluate his message…but I was too optimistic. What a pathetic group of brain washed robots you are
It is very funny. Speaking in tongues... Liberals are vey funny people because their ability of dismissing the direct and immediate environment lead to funny situations like this one.
Liberals fail big time at universality, they keep treating themselves as above others.And it usually manifests with the belief they are owed answers while they owe no answers.
The whole of this is being put to test.
The thread claim that people could not react to the OP.as people could not take the harsh and painful garbage spewed in the text?
Is there any answer to the OP: yes or no?
Are the answer on topic yes or no?
Now that the OP found on topic answers, have the goal posts been shifted in a stunning contradictory manners that the OP would find answers yes or no? The dismissal of the direct environment allows liberals to contradict themselves...
Is contradicting the version of prosecutors not the usual job of defence attorneys yes or no?
Has not speaking in tongues grown popular under the Trump's administration as christians specialised in faking to speak in tongues are regularly invited to the white house yes or no?
Liberals should be the ones doing all the observations usually made about their hallowed political ideology. Yet when they are confronted with some, they claim they are unable to understand.
Situations are whether they are understood or not. Reporting about them is superfluous.
Considering how devastating Trump has been, he has been given free pass after free pass, especially when it is now known that the MAGA crowd invades the Capitol when they perceive foul play.
The liberal political system has collapsed.
So we lack “integrity,” huh? Really? That’s some nerve. Where’s your hero’s integrity for throwing Ukraine, an ally, under a bus while cozying up to a murderer and a dictator? And where’s yours for supporting him? Your mask hasn’t just slipped—it’s completely fallen off and exposed your fake persona.
This is different. This is Trump’s personal lawyer contradicting the accepted truth in a sober and totally informed way
I agree, a very different perspective on what actually happened
"So we lack “integrity,” huh? Really? That’s some nerve. Where’s your hero’s integrity for throwing Ukraine, an ally, under a bus while cozying up to a murderer and a dictator? And where’s yours for supporting him? Your mask hasn’t just slipped—it’s completely fallen off and exposed your fake persona."
Denise, the world isn't binary...
Here, I got Chat to draw this up. I don't have the time to research every point and see how accurate it is, but in relatively confident that this isn't a million miles off.
My query;
Which contractors have made the most money from supplying Ukrainians with armaments?
Chat Response;
Biggest U.S. contractors tied to the bulk of Ukraine-related armaments (by major contract categories)
From the U.S. Defense Department’s own Ukraine security assistance contracting breakdown (as of 19 Dec 2024):
Total shown there: $29.66B “Total Awarded” across listed categories (non-exhaustive major vendors list).
“What is the value?”
Two big U.S. money streams (same DoD source, as of 19 Dec 2024):
Separately, the DoD Inspector General reported that Feb 2022–Mar 2024 saw 2,974 contract actions valued at $29.6B for Ukraine security assistance.
Who
actually
makes the money?
Primarily:
Big European contractor example (ammo)
Europe also profits heavily, especially on 155mm ammunition:
If you tell me which country’s spending you care about most (U.S. vs EU vs UK, etc.), I can narrow it to the top firms and the biggest buckets of spending in that system.
ButtPlug....get off your platform and get with the topic.
And OBTW, stop with the slurping.....it's nauseating.
Yeah, Denise, you're right.
We should all keep batting for our side while defence contractions make billions and innocent people die.
This is different. This is Trump’s personal lawyer contradicting the accepted truth in a sober and totally informed way. I would have hoped that one woke person had the integrity to evaluate his message…but I was too optimistic. What a pathetic group of brain washed robots you are
How it it different?
Of course Trump's lawyer is going have his own take on the classified documents involving Trump and of course it's going challenge the events that led to the legal proceedings against Trump.
You posted up this WSJ opinion piece (which you go on to imply in another post is factual) without comment other than the thread title which implies its a more balanced and fair view of the case, but have you actually evaluated yourself?
This man is laying it out there for all to see in a national publication. He himself is subject to lawsuits, criminal actions and professional consequences if he is being dishonest. Trump won’t be there three years from now to afford protection, which will be your next claim.
But this confirms Woke is a one way street. Your immediate reaction is to question his credibility as opposed to saying….’that’s disappointing’….the normal reaction to legal abuse.
The brain washing is iron clad.
Hysteria how about you stay on the subject. This string is about the Docugate, it’s not about the boys dying in the Ukraine. You accuse somebody else of changing the subject just after you did it yourself….clueless.
That had to be the longest and most boring OP in the history of this board . . . well, okay, in this section anyway . . . and I'd be surprised if anyone got to the 2nd paragraph.
What makes this thread really funny is Moffie stamping his little foot in a rage because no-one really gives a shit about the vapid drivel that he's banging on about.
LMAO!
This man is laying it out there for all to see in a national publication. He himself is subject to lawsuits, criminal actions and professional consequences if he is being dishonest. Trump won’t be there three years from now to afford protection, which will be your next claim.
What rubbish. The man wrote an opinion piece. Most of what he said was subjective. He's not going face lawsuits or criminal action over an opinion piece and no one is going to claim Trump is protecting him because there is nothing to protect him from.
But this confirms Woke is a one way street. Your immediate reaction is to question his credibility as opposed to saying….’that’s disappointing’….the normal reaction to legal abuse.
I notice you didn't answer the question of have you evaluated the article yourself. One way street, don't make me laugh, you uncritically accept the premise of the article, but it's highly subjective framing of the issue where numerous points are disputable.
Comparing Trump to any modern-day US president is ludicrous. The worst before was Nixon, but he is childplay in comparison to Trump.
I must admit that Trump was unlucky with the Epstein files, because the Democrats did not release them.
However, Trump is one of the main characters in the Epstein files, so I suppose it's justice that he has to deal with the problem.
Trump's poll ratings are low and dropping. He has backed the future of Big Tech AI over America's everyday problems. The Epstein files may be the final nail in the coffin, as it looks like it will drag on over the midterms. Trump needs to be made into a lame duck, and the Supreme Court needs to take his tariff powers away by giving it back to the House.
And I knew that after Mr. Trump allowed Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and Mr. Bratt to walk around the premises at Mar-a-Lago and see where any of these documents were housed, he graciously let them know that they should just “let me know about anything they need,” or words to that effect. The first and only response to that invitation was to ask him to put a padlock on the door to the storage room full of boxed documents. Mr. Trump immediately complied with that request.
opinion?
I later learned more about the irregularities that accompanied this case as well as the Jan. 6 investigation. The Biden White House decided that the concept of executive privilege didn’t apply to Mr. Trump.
opinion?
The lawyer had applied to be a judge on the D.C. Superior Court, and he said under oath that Mr. Bratt had implied that the lawyer’s prospects would improve if “he would do the right thing” and flip Mr. Nauta against Mr. Trump
opinion?
There is no criminal penalty for a violation of the Presidential Records Act, and a senior executive of the archives eventually testified that every modern president from Ronald Reaganon had turned over classified materials after leaving office. None, until Mr. Bratt had the reins, were subject to a “criminal referral” from a politicized archivist, and none were enforced by criminal investigative tools like grand-jury subpoenas and search warrants.
opinion?
Which brings us to the resurfacing accusations—borne out by newly disclosed emails—that the Justice Department was insistent on criminal escalation while the FBI was balking.
opinion?
In 27 years as a prosecutor and more than eight in private practice, I have never seen a case with so many irregularities, with such manifest political motivation, with so many open questions about singular treatment and poor judgment.
NOW THAT’S AN OPINION ….FROM A DISTINGUISHED LAWYER.
Extremely boring deflection Mozart ... almost as sad as Trump fixating on an effing ballroom .
Wooosh!
The fire drill for us lawyers began in earnest that day. I knew some core facts—that Mr. Trump had returned numerous boxes to the custody of the archivist (the head of the National Archives and Records Administration) earlier that year; that Evan had been talking about documents with Jay Bratt of the Justice Department’s National Security Division; that Evan had searched through a bunch of disorganized documents to pull potentially classified ones and give them to Mr. Bratt.
I learned around the same time that three months earlier Mr. Bratt had issued a grand-jury subpoena for “any and all” documents bearing classification markings. He was engaging in the typical back-and-forth that occurs on document subpoenas when he suddenly reversed course on his pledge to give Evan more time. And I knew that after Mr. Trump allowed Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and Mr. Bratt to walk around the premises at Mar-a-Lago and see where any of these documents were housed, he graciously let them know that they should just “let me know about anything they need,” or words to that effect. The first and only response to that invitation was to ask him to put a padlock on the door to the storage room full of boxed documents. Mr. Trump immediately complied with that request.
Okay, the framing of this narrative from Trump's lawyer is that Trump was co-operating in the process of returning the documents in a sort of a run of the mill back and forth consultation between the relevant parties that was proceeding at normal pace. He permitted the FBI and Mr Bratt to inspect where the documents were being kept and they didn't flag any major concerns, just requesting a padlock be put on the storeroom door where the documents where being stored, which was a request Trump immediately compiled with.
The problem is this framing which is that Trump was co-operating in a routine process that the DOJ suddenly massively and unfairly escalated with the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago is complete bullshit because it omits so so many critical background details in the lead up to the raid.
Here is the timeline.
January 2021, boxes containing the documents in question are stored on a stage in a ballroom in Mar-a-Lago
March 2021, the boxes are moved to a business centre in Mar-a-Lago
April 2021, some boxes are moved into a bathroom and shower.
May 2021, Trump directs employees to clean out a storeroom to store room in a highly accessible area on Mar-a-Lago's ground floor so it can be used to store the boxes. Trump also directed some boxes be brought to his summer residence in Bedminster.
May 6th 2021 the National Archives having realized documents from the Trump Presidency were missing contact Trump's representatives and request the return of any Presidential records Trump may have kept. Due to lack of receptive responses the agency makes subsequent and repeated demands.
June 2021 the National Archives advise Trump's people that they will refer the issue to the Justice Department if they did not comply. Demands for compliance will be repeatedly made until late December 2021.
Also in the same month the documents are moved to the storeroom.
July 2021, Trump apparently shows what he calls a highly confidential attack plan that Trump explicitly states were not declassified (there is an audio recording) to a writer interviewing him.
August 2021, Trumps shows another classified document this time a map to a member of his political action committee. Trump tells the person he shouldn't be showing him it and for that person to not to get too close.
November 2021, Trump instructs his aid Walt Nauta and another person to move the documents to Trump's residence so he can review them.
December 7th 2021, Nauta discovers that several boxes of documents in the storeroom have fallen and split open revealing a document with SECRET intelligence marking on it. Nauta informs other staff of this who respond "oh no, oh no".
Late December 2021, a Trump representative informs the National Archive he has 12 boxes ready to hand over to them.
January 17 2022, Nauta transfers what amounts to 15 boxes by car to a commercial delivery truck who return them to the National Archive.
197 documents are found to have been classified.
February 2022 with the discovery of classified documents the National Archive refers the matter to the DOJ.
On two occasions in February 2022 , Trumps side claim the matter was routine, that it was no big deal and that the return process was done in a friendly way.
March 2022, FBI open their investigation.
April 12th 2022, National Archive informs Trump it intends to hand over the 15 boxes to the FBI. Trump representatives request an extension till April 29th.
April 26th Grand Jury investigation begins.
April 29th the DOJ asks Trump's lawyers for immediate access to the 15 boxes citing national security concerns and the need for an immediate assessment as to any damage done via their storage and transportation. Trump's side request another extension to be able to check to see if any documents are subject to privilege
May 10th 2022. The national archive informs Trump they will provide the FBI access to the boxes as soon as May 12th.
May 11th 2022 , the Grand Jury issues a subpoena to Trump requiring him to turn over all classified documents in his possession.
May 23rd 2022, despite being advised by his lawyers to comply with the subpoena, Trump balks saying he doesn't want people going through his boxes. Notes taken by his lawyers indicate Trump wanted to just lie to the Grand Jury Asking " Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?" and "isn't better if there are no documents?“
May 26th 2022, Nauta is interviewed by FBI and according to prosecutors repeatedly lied about his knowledge of the movement of the boxes at Mar-a-Lago. He claimed not to know of boxes being brought to Trump's residence for Trump to review or how the boxes handed over to the National Archive got to Trump's residence.
He also according to prosecutors lied about know where the documents were stored before being moved to Trump's residency and whether the documents were stored in a secure location.
June 2nd 2022, One of Trump's lawyers goes to Mar-a-Lago to search boxes in a storage room and find an additional 38 classified files. According to prosecutors when Trump was advised of this he made a plucking motion to his lawyers which is lawyers took as meaning remove anything (document) that was "really bad" for Trump.
In addition before the search conducted by this lawyer Nauta had moved some 64 boxes from the storage room to Trump's residency. By the time of the search just 30 had been moved back, meaning the lawyer was unaware of the additional 34,
June 3rd 2022, FBI Agents and DOJ lawyer show up to collect the 38 classified files. While there they are permitted to enter the storage room housing the documents but prohibited from checking any of the boxes.
Trump tells the investigators he's "an open book".
A Trump lawyer acting as custodian of records provides a sworn certification that prosecutors say falsely claim a diligent search of the boxes had been conducted and and any and all responsive documents were turned over.
Earlier on the same day, some boxes were loaded onto a plane so Trump could take to his Bedminster property.
June 8th 2022, DOJ instructs Trump lawyers to secure the storage room and preserve the room in its current state until further notice.
July 2022, the Grand Jury is showing surveillance footage of boxes being moved at Mar-a-Lago.
August 5th 2022, the DOJ applies for a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago on the ground of probable cause that additional presidential records and classified documents were being stored there.
August 8th 2022, Mar-a-Lago is raided and find an additional 102 classified documents, mostly in the storeroom but 27 were found in Trump's office.
So instead of Trump's lawyers version of events, one of his client's cooperation in a routine matter and unfair persecution from a vindictive Justice Department, what we have is the prosecutors version of events. Trump unlawfully kept hold of classified documents (opinion?), initially for several months failed to store them securely and later transported them insecurely (opinion?), knowingly and carelessly showing some classified documents to people he knew were not authorized to see them (opinion?) He slow balled his response to the National Archive requests for the return of the documents (opinion?), then failed to return all classified documents (opinion?), and when pressed on it, directed his lawyers to commit a crime in removing documents that made him look bad and knowingly directing his representatives to lie about having done both a diligent search and having returned all documents.
I later learned more about the irregularities that accompanied this case as well as the Jan. 6 investigation. The Biden White House decided that the concept of executive privilege didn’t apply to Mr. Trump.
Yes this is precisely opinion. The Biden White House did no such thing. It was not a blanket ruling that Trump does not have executive privilege, it was a case-specific determination that executive privilege could not be used to block a criminal investigations, courts have repeatedly that that executive privilege is qualified and not absolute.
It's also interesting to note that the Trump White House decided to deny executive privilege to Biden's former aids in unrelated investigations and to Biden himself regarding his own records.
Trump and his supporters never miss a chance to be hypocrites it seems.
Federal prosecutors, aided by a friendly judge in the District of Columbia, invoked the rarely employed “crime fraud exception” to obliterate attorney-client privilege in the case of Mr. Trump and Evan.
Also I note you skipping this bit where Trump's lawyer has issue the use of the "crime fraud exception" to as he calls it obliterate attorney-client privilege in which prosecutors were aided by a friendly judge. Of course he labels the judge "friendly" to imply he's biased against Trump and his ruling are therefore dubious. Another interpretation of this, is that it's irrelevant if a law is rarely used, what is relevant is if there was enough evidence to support its use. Jack Smith the special council provided enough evidence to convince a judge it was warranted, and subsequent evidence recovered (the lawyers testimony and the notes taken) indicate it was a completely justified use of that law.
I also note you skipped over him highlighting the push back from the Justice Department on Trump requesting a special master which he got in a ruling via he Trump "Friendly" Judge Aileen Cannon. A ruling that was consider extremely controversial by many practising lawyers and experts on American law. Some of these lawyers and experts might even be considered DISTINGUISHED!
The lawyer had applied to be a judge on the D.C. Superior Court, and he said under oath that Mr. Bratt had implied that the lawyer’s prospects would improve if “he would do the right thing” and flip Mr. Nauta against Mr. Trump
Again framing. A person being accused of a criminal offense might be offered a lighter sentence if he got another suspect to provide evidence against a more senior person up the chain in an organisation or a kingpin type character. It's extremely common for reduced sentences in exchange for truthful co-operation in federal cases, although typically pressure is applied on the person they want to flip directly. Applying pressure on the lawyer to convince Mr.Nauta to flip against Trump as the lawyer labelled it wasn't illegal providing Nauta remained truthful in any testimony he provided against Trump.
There is no criminal penalty for a violation of the Presidential Records Act, and a senior executive of the archives eventually testified that every modern president from Ronald Reaganon had turned over classified materials after leaving office. None, until Mr. Bratt had the reins, were subject to a “criminal referral” from a politicized archivist, and none were enforced by criminal investigative tools like grand-jury subpoenas and search warrants.
Again framing. Irrelevant if their was no criminal penalty for the violation of the Presidential Records Act. There absolutely is a penalty for the willful retention of classified documents. Willful retention of classified documents carries a penalty of up to 5 years in prison. If the documents contained classified nation defence information that could be penalized under the the Espionage Act which carries up to 10 years in prison and obstruction the return of such documents carries penalties of up to 20 years in prison.
Ever modern President has indeed handed over classified materials after leaving office, but critically none behaved in Trump's extremely negligent, uncooperative and deceitful manner.
Which brings us to the resurfacing accusations—borne out by newly disclosed emails—that the Justice Department was insistent on criminal escalation while the FBI was balking.
Disputes between the Justice Department and the FBI over how to proceed in cases are not uncommon. But even if the Justice Department chose to try to prosecute this case for political reasons that doesn't automatically mean the case had no merit on its own and should have not of been pursued. Ultimately it never got to court so its merits will forever remain untested in the court of law.
In 27 years as a prosecutor and more than eight in private practice, I have never seen a case with so many irregularities, with such manifest political motivation, with so many open questions about singular treatment and poor judgment.
NOW THAT’S AN OPINION ….FROM A DISTINGUISHED LAWYER.
Yes that is indeed an opinion. But ah yes, cap letters DISTINGUISHED, that really makes everything he said gospel.
That had to be the longest and most boring OP in the history of this board....
You're not wrong, hell, it's painful.
Buttplug loses himself in the moment when he leaps onto a stage.
Here is the timeline.
January 2021, boxes containing the documents in question are stored on a stage in a ballroom in Mar-a-Lago etc.
Yes a long tedious witch hunt which in the end came to this:
DOJ lacked:
That absence is significant.
Nor did it have a plausible criminal motivation. If this ever went to the Supreme Court there would have been very little appetite to make a criminal of a President for retaining documents.
Yes this is precisely opinion. The Biden White House did no such thing. It was not a blanket ruling that Trump does not have executive privilege, it was a case-specific determination that executive privilege could not be used to block a criminal investigation
‘Which of course hinged on Trump doing something criminal….in the end this was decided in the court of public opinion. Clearly those pesky voters took it for what it was, a political witch hunt.
Applying pressure on the lawyer to convince Mr.Nauta to flip against Trump as the lawyer labelled it wasn't illegal providing Nauta remained truthful in any testimony he provided against Trump.
It wasn’t applying pressure it was a bribe…..help us get Nauta to nail Trump and we’ll get you the job you want.
Willful retention of classified documents carries a penalty of up to 5 years in prison. If the documents contained classified nation defence information that could be penalized under the the Espionage Act which carries up to 10 years in prison and obstruction the return of such documents carries penalties of up to 20 years in prison.
So you think Trump was at risk for 20 years in jail….yes that was going to happen…in the immortal words of Roberto Straus in Moon over Parador….’you’re a funny guy’.
Disputes between the Justice Department and the FBI over how to proceed in cases are not uncommon. But even if the Justice Department chose to try to prosecute this case for political reasons that doesn't automatically mean the case had no merit on its own and should have not of been pursued.
It was political, thanks for finally considering the possibility, The FBI weren’t dragging their feet because they loved Trump, they understood it was political and divisive.
Yes that is indeed an opinion. But ah yes, cap letters DISTINGUISHED, that really makes everything he said gospel.
Well he was head of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Division..,,what are your legal credentials?
cl
No ‘likes’ then Blob? You sure know how to hurt a guy…..hahaha!
It is very funny. As soon as liberals feel challenged about their hallowed liberal political system, they claim they do not understand what it is about. Which does not matter since liberals do as they are. Words do not summon their acts, they describe their acts. Acts that exist without words describing them.
This thread is another liberal dispute (showing again liberals' inability to discuss or debate) and demonstrates the liberal escalation feature, that is a statement of power. Any time further elements are required supposedly to reach the goal of getting convinced.
Liberals picture themselves as people who can be convinced as long as elements are provided. Yet they keep demanding stronger and stronger elements. Of course, liberals do not want to get convinced. They play power games and this is another of their power games.
Here:
DOJ lacked:
See how the liberal mind is perverse. Trump is reported as given oral instructions yet suddenly, an out of character move is demanded (Trump should have written notes), a witness saying to hide documents when the main grievance is that documents were carelessly exposed to the public. And even more, that a dude like Donald Trump packed, labelled or concealed documents.Again, this sounds like very Donald Trump.
And again, the total absence of universality. See how liberals are quick to determine people are drug traders and blow them out of waters and will keep demanding more and more evidences for other things.
"It was political, thanks for finally considering the possibility, The FBI weren’t dragging their feet because they loved Trump, they understood it was political and divisive."
Spot on...... exactly what I posted the other day
Nice long shot spreading on site. In the end Smith lay charges in the Florida court. The trial backfiredx because it was proven in court that the photos that was dished out to the media ewas fake and nopt taken at Mar-el-Lago, bot was taken elsewhere and could not be used in the case - he Judg e ws not amused when that came out.
Then the Judge made a ruling based on UN Jurisprudence in which the Prosecutor ( Smith) and teh FBI must submit all documents to the court for inspection by the defense team within 14 days from the date of ruling/ Smith and the F BI ignred the ruling and the Judge then .issued a new ruling to rpoduce all documents - failing which they would be charged with undermining the Court,
So after taking 32 boxes of documents from Trumps House - the FBI delivered 21 boxes to the coourt - from some of which document were missing. The Judge gave them a week to urn the other 11 boxes - as well as the documents midding from the 21 returned documents, Smith nd the FBI failed to comly again.
The resut was dismiss the charges against TRump based on undermining of the rule of law during the court case by the Justice Department and the FBI.
Yes a long tedious witch hunt which in the end came to this:
LOL, you talk about the woke side not being able to accept facts that don't suit their preferred narrative. And here you're just flippant dismissing a long and exhaustive timeline of Trump's inappropriate and deceitful handling of the classified documents because it makes your side look bad.
You call it long and tedious but know too well Trump could have avoided most of it if he just returned all the records he kept to the National Archives in a timely manner. He would of just got the same slap on the wrist Biden and Hilary Clinton got and be told that was naughty, don't do it again.
DOJ lacked:
That absence is significant.
The full details of the warrant were not fully revealed. Redactions in the warrant affidavit were to protect the identity of cooperating witnesses and FBI agents who might otherwise be exposed to threats or retaliation but going from that and media reports, it's likely the warrant was obtained on the back of a tip off from a person close to Trump that there was more classified documents to be recovered. This was after Trump's side had provided a sworn certificate of Trump's side having done a diligent search and having returned all relevant records.
Under US law a single tip off indeed be enough for the authorization of a search warrant. When considering the matter a judge will look at how the detailed the tip off is, how the informant knows knows the information, whether police corroborate any part of it, whether the informant has a track record of reliability and whether the tup show signs of reliability. If these factors add up to probable cause a judge can issue a warrant even if it was tip off from a single person.
But here's the kicker part, Trump did challenge the validity of the warrant but Judge Aileen Cannon a judge many experts consider highly favourable to Trump rejected his core claim that that the FBI mislead the Judge who approved the search and denied his request for a Franks hearing the formal process for challenging a warrant based on alleged false statements.
She did allow Trump to challenge on two narrow issues to proceed, whether attorney-client privilege was improperly pierced and whether the warrant was too board. But the overall validity of the warrant remained.
So all that stuff about the DOJ lacking X, Y and Z is an irrelevant smoke screen from Trump's camp. The DOJ/FBI went with enough evidence to a judge to convince the judge to authorize the warrant. The validity of the warrant was challenged afterwards by Trump but his core challenge to its validity was rejected by another judge.
Nor did it have a plausible criminal motivation. If this ever went to the Supreme Court there would have been very little appetite to make a criminal of a President for retaining documents.
Irrelevant again. A motivation does not need to be established for the issuing of the search warrant.
‘Which of course hinged on Trump doing something criminal….in the end this was decided in the court of public opinion. Clearly those pesky voters took it for what it was, a political witch hunt.
Criminality was never proven one way or another because the case was ended due to Trump becoming President. He was neither found guilty nor exonerated.
Ah yes the court of public opinion is the same as a court of law. The election was decided primarily on the economy. The classified documents case by that point was simply a side note and will done little more than reinforce the views that people already had of Trump one way or another.
It wasn’t applying pressure it was a bribe…..help us get Nauta to nail Trump and we’ll get you the job you want.
So it was, however the claim is disputed and as it's never been proven remain just an allegation.
So you think Trump was at risk for 20 years in jail….yes that was going to happen…in the immortal words of Roberto Straus in Moon over Parador….’you’re a funny guy’.
I'm just stating the fact's that the lack of a criminal penalty over retaining of Presidential records was irrelevant when Trump was potentially guilty of other offenses and I listed the maximum penalties for those offenses.
Your position on a lot of these stuff seems to be basically Trump was President, therefore its ridiculous regardless of any potential crime that he could face some sort of criminal penalty.
It was political, thanks for finally considering the possibility, The FBI weren’t dragging their feet because they loved Trump, they understood it was political and divisive.
Hold up, I've said in the past with regards to some of Trump legal cases in New York, that I didn't rule out the possibility that some cases were being brought by prosecutors looking to make a name for themselves by claiming Trump's scalp, but that didn't automatically mean the cases were without merit. The FBI frequently have disagreements with the DOJ, but again it's irrelevant if the case was political and divisive if the case has legit merit. Any case involving a former, current or potential future President is going to be inherently political in nature. It's like you want a President to be above the law entirely.
Well he was head of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Division..,,what are your legal credentials?
I love this classic bit of Moz hypocrisy. Appeal to authority. But this is the same man who dismisses experts on climate change, the experts on medical science, the experts on economics and trade.
But you gotta love the fact that Trump apologists here go on and on and on about the validity of the warrant but refrain from acknowledging that the raid recovered additional classified documents which indicates the warrant was entirely justified, while holding the view that blowing up alleged drug boats and killing people without due process is justified. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Just a whole lot more micro argumentation. The big picture is Trump had nothing to gain by his document regime, was never caught instructing anybody to do anything illegal and was targeted because the Justice Department under Biden saw a technical legal path to try to destroy him.
There are no great legal questions in play here, it’s largely a matter of common sense. Which the American voter on balance showed by ignoring the claims in the election.
It was a political witch hunt based on a technical non crime…which failed, live with it.
Just a whole lot more micro argumentation. The big picture is Trump had nothing to gain by his document regime,
Having nothing to gain is not the point, an anarchist burning down a building gains nothing but his behaviour is still illegal.
Trump was holding on to classified documents he shouldn't have and regardless of his intentions (possibly just something he wanted to show off about) that is illegal.
was never caught instructing anybody to do anything illegal and was targeted because the Justice Department under Biden saw a technical legal path to try to destroy him.
Never caught?, there was evidence to suggest Trump caused false statements to be made which is illegal. However because of the technicality of him becoming President resulting in the closing of the case, it never got to the stage where it was proven or unproven in court.
There are no great legal questions in play here, it’s largely a matter of common sense. Which the American voter on balance showed by ignoring the claims in the election.
Trump supporters, absolutely blasé about American security issues when it suits them, of which Signal gate is another example. Trump can literally do anything no matter how illegal and morally dubious it is and without being willing to subjectively analyse any evidence they defend him "crying witch hunt" and repeating whatever narrative Trump comes up with.
The American voters voted on the economy, this was merely another one of these things that merged into all the other things that happened around Trump that just further reinforced peoples opinion of Trump one way or another. Inflation and Biden being viewed responsible for it is what won Trump the election.
It was a political witch hunt based on a technical non crime…which failed, live with it.
It was investigation and criminal case based on evidence that indicated serious crimes. It didn't fail, Trump stalled the legal process out long enough to get at least 4 years of immunity by becoming President.
Having nothing to gain is not the point, an anarchist burning down a building gains nothing but his behaviour is still illegal
An anarchist has everything to gain by burning down a building….his life objective. Nobody has suggested a plausible reason Trump wanted to break the law to retain documents. He had no such objectives.
Never caught?, there was evidence to suggest Trump caused false statements to be made which is illega
What evidence, showing contempt for the investigation….I repeat for the third time:
DOJ lacked:
they defend him "crying witch hunt" and repeating whatever narrative Trump comes up with.
Perhaps because of the disgraceful Russian Collusion charge and impeachment attempt, a second impeachment about January 6th and the almost embarrassing documents charge. Personally I thought January 6th disqualified him from re-election. It was a major lapse of judgement, but it certainly wasn’t an attempted coup.
It was investigation and criminal case based on evidence that indicated serious crimes.
Serious crimes which hurt nobody and had no plausibly achievable gain.
An anarchist has everything to gain by burning down a building….his life objective. Nobody has suggested a plausible reason Trump wanted to break the law to retain documents. He had no such objectives.
Sharkbok: Retaining the documents is breaking the law. Then not willingly return them after months, despite numerous requests by the government. The very fact that they had to be retrieved by the government was a further criminal offence. One of the lawyers who represented Trump in his business court case said this was an open and shut case if the government could have gotten it to court. What Trump's motives were remain unclear. He could have argued in court that because he was cheated in the election, he had the right to hold onto the documents, but that it bullshit as he was no longer a government official.
DOJ lacked:
None of this has to be proven. The very fact that he had the documents and refused to return them was the crime.
Serious crimes which hurt nobody and had no plausibly achievable gain.
Trump was communicating with Putin during Biden's term, which is highly irregular. He was no longer a government official, so why would he be communicating with a country that was a national threat (e.g. threatening nukes and invading a country)?
Republican officials (e.g. Marco Rubio) said that Russia did attempt to interfere with the 2016 elections to get Trump into office. As to how much impact - if any - is unknown.
The collusion looks plausible just because Trump and Putin get along so well. Why would an American president get along so well with a KGB Mafia authoritarian ruler who has appointed himself for life in Russia?
Nobody has suggested a plausible reason Trump wanted to break the law to retain documents. He had no such objectives.
It could of been as I said something he wanted to show off with given's he's on record as having done that, perhaps it was hubris and a sense of a entitlement that lead him to genuinely believe he could keep the files, maybe he felt the that the National Archive was only looking for the files because he thought Biden Put them up to it and he instinctively wanted to fight it, maybe given his legal history he just has a tendency of deny everything, fight everything and never admit your wrong. Or maybe just maybe he's imbecilic deranged moron and he doesn't know himself why he does half of the things he does, but that's all irrelevant because holding on to classified documents that you're no longer authorized to have is illegal regardless of your motivation for holding on to the documents.
What evidence, showing contempt for the investigation….I repeat for the third time:
As I said a Trump representative signed a sworn certificate stating that not only had a diligent search been performed been done but all relevant documents had been return. Trump even though not the signature on the certificate was responsible for the false statements within it.
Then we have the testimony of Trump's lawyers which indicated that Trump wanted them to commit an illegal act in removing documents that were bad for him when more additional classified documents were uncovered.
Then we have the question mark of who directed some of the classified documents to be transported to Trump property in Bedminster.
Of course we never got to court and you can act like the total unique and exceptional circumstances of Trump becoming President for a second time resulting in the dropping of the case is some sort of definitive exoneration of him rather than kicking the can down the road for 4 years if not indefinitely.
DOJ lacked:
Your using the lack of public knowledge of how the DOJ/FBI established probable cause for a warrant to make an argument from ignorance.. As I've said it's likely a tip off from some close to Trump, but regardless a judge found whatever evidence presented as compelling enough to grant a warrant and a second judge who is known to be highly favourable to Trump dismissed Trump's attempt to challenge the validity of the warrant.
Perhaps because of the disgraceful Russian Collusion charge and impeachment attempt, a second impeachment about January 6th and the almost embarrassing documents charge. Personally I thought January 6th disqualified him from re-election. It was a major lapse of judgement, but it certainly wasn’t an attempted coup.
Russian Collusion, oh give me a break, you post that absolutely embarrassing tripe again. Here let me get the worlds smallest violin to play for you. Damn right January 6th should of disqualified him for re-election, if America had a proper justice system that couldn't be gamed by the rich he should of gone to jail.
Serious crimes which hurt nobody and had no plausibly achievable gain.
Ah so classified documents, they don't need to be safely stored and it really doesn't matter who has access to them, because no harm came from Trump's crime. Let's set the example that the powerful are exempt from justice. And let's set the example that obstruction of justice is acceptable as well.
Trump was communicating with Putin during Biden's term, which is highly irregular. He was no longer a government official, so why would he be communicating with a country that was a national threat (e.g. threatening nukes and invading a country)?
Russian Collusion the sequel? He was a candidate, candidates speak to political leaders of other countries. In the absence of anything concrete it means nothing
or maybe just maybe he’s imbecilic deranged moron
Or maybe he’s playing chess and you’re playing checkers.
Then we have the testimony of Trump’s lawyers which indicated that Trump wanted them to commit an illegal act in removing documents that were bad for him when more additional classified documents were uncovered.
I repeat for the fourth time:
DOJ lacked:
‘Russian collusion oh give me a break
What 9 years of this nonsense is enough for you?
Ah so classified documents, they don’t need to be safely stored and it really doesn’t matter who has access to them
And yet if a whistleblower reveals confidential information he is protected by the press annd andmired by the Woke set. And Clinton’s sock drawer case was really very conveniently different.
The truth is this is a lax area and should be tightened up. But in this instance Trump was cooperative as his lawyer attests. This whole thing has no more legitimacy than Russian collusion.
I remain gobsmackingly astounded that Trump holds any seat in any govt after his hysterical Jan6 tirade of anger & abuse.
Shame on you Mozart & cohorts. :(
Ffs seek help & guidance.
AI Fact check:
The claim is partly accurate and partly misleading. Some of the “lacked” items are too narrowly framed or contradicted by what is in the indictment and later court filings.?
So, as a rhetorical list to suggest “they have nothing,” it is inaccurate; as a very literal list of specific kinds of “smoking gun” proof (written order, taped command, on?camera packing), parts of it are narrowly true but leave out the substantial circumstantial and testimonial evidence DOJ actually has.
Or maybe he’s playing chess and you’re playing checkers
I know that's just a metaphor, but I can't help at laugh at the idea that Trump knows how to play chess. SNAP would be to complicated for him.
I repeat for the fourth time:
DOJ lacked:
Repeat it a hundred times its completely irrelevant no matter how many times you bring it up.
The FBI obtained a legally approved warrant from a federal judge for the search of Mar-a-Lago...end of story.
What 9 years of this nonsense is enough for you?
Yes 9 years of idiot republicans saying Russian Hoax is quite enough, it was nonsense 9 years ago, it's still nonsense now.
And yet if a whistleblower reveals confidential information he is protected by the press annd andmired by the Woke set.
What a bullshit apple to oranges comparison. As if Trump was holding on to the documents to be a whistleblower. There is no suggestion that any of the classified documents that Trump was holding on to indicated indicated wrong doing on the part of the government.
And Clinton’s sock drawer case was really very conveniently different.
You really are laying out these bullcrap comparisons thick and fast Yes it was different in a very important manner, those recording in Clinton's sock drawer were personal records, not classified documents. Their was no classified information in the recordings. And it was a third party conversative group that sought for those recording to be transferred over to the National Archives, not the national Archives themselves.
The truth is this is a lax area and should be tightened up. But in this instance Trump was cooperative as his lawyer attests. This whole thing has no more legitimacy than Russian collusion.
I'd agree that given the situation with Trump, Clinton, Biden and Hegseth the handling and communication of classified information in Washington seems incredibly lax given these people are handling some of the most sensitive security information on earth, it's a potential treasure trove of intelligence for state actors hostile to the US. The President who holds the highest office the land should be setting the example and not one that of the rules don't apply apply to him.
But Trump cooperating, lol that's why he was set to be charged with 5 counts of obstructing the course of justice and 1 count of making false statements. The Trump apologists, miniature Karoline Levitt's reading from their assigned script from the teleprompters. Least Levitt is smart enough to get paid to be dishonest, the lemming's on here do it for free.
The Russian hoax as it's called is the hoax with no legitimacy.
Name the five charges Trump was cherged with and what was the outcime of the cjarges,
We have been through most of this enough…but this deserves a response:
What a bullshit apple to oranges comparison. As if Trump was holding on to the documents to be a whistleblower. There is no suggestion that any of the classified documents that Trump was holding on to indicated indicated wrong doing on the part of the government.
Where did I say or even imply that was Trump’s motivation. I mention whistleblowers because they are a fact of life and very little is said about national security when they breach confidentiality.
You have a problem with jumping to conclusions. You have another problem, believing everything the Woke side puts out there but impugning the motives of anybody on the right. Very naive.
There isn’t one uniquely honest set of politicians. Nor are there any countries that are totally right in everything they do. We have to live with imperfection…and we have to live with imperfect leaders. Many predictions about Trump’s fate and failures have been made this year. The year ends with all the economic predictions, at a minimum, looking pretty silly.
Many predictions about Trump’s fate and failures have been made this year. The year ends with all the economic predictions, at a minimum, looking pretty silly.
It is very funny because predictions demand a reliable connection to the things you want to predict. Trump have battered many liberal tenets, political and economical tenets alike. This places liberal economists in a very uncomfortable position. Liberal economists have justified many painful economical measures on the rest of the world for the sake of their liberal economics tenets. And now, Trump is breaking the mirror in thousands pieces. This places them in a very difficult place where they can no longer predict accurately without confessing the hidden parts of their tenets.
Liberals reframe, redefine everything in an effort to get away with things.
For example, the US speak of an affordability crisis. There is no economical indicator for affordability. Except of course purchasing power. Which is dismissed by liberals (as shown multiple times on this board) as speaking about purchasing power would expose liberal economies. On many occurrences, liberals on this board threw in GDP numbers to score points. When faced with other metrics like PPP things, they cowered. They could not take it.Because it shows that places around the world, life is getting more and more affordable. Which is unbearable.
Liberals live more and more in a deep state of cognitive dissonance. They rely on metrics that are disconnected from their demands and requests. The markets are booming, the growth numbers are through the roof, yet the problems on a daily basis remain. It is going to be very hard in this context for liberal economists to predict properly as correct predictions mean they reject their own liberal tenets. Liberal tenets used to inflict punishment on a large share of humanity. Large share of humanity that is increasingly growing in power.
But you gotta love the fact that Trump apologists here go on and on and on about the validity of the warrant but refrain from acknowledging that the raid recovered additional classified documents which indicates the warrant was entirely justified
Great logic applied here .....break the rules... find something, and then suddenly it's all legit.
It's kinda like saying, Hey, I broke into your house illegally, but I found my stolen TV, so the break in was justified......classic.
You have a problem with jumping to conclusions. You have another problem, believing everything the Woke side puts out there but impugning the motives of anybody on the right. Very naive.
I have said this for ages now.....
Where did I say or even imply that was Trump’s motivation. I mention whistleblowers because they are a fact of life and very little is said about national security when they breach confidentiality.
Why did you even bring it up if weren't making a comparison. Whisteblowing potential serves a public good and doesn't always compromise national security. When it does it's a complex grey area both legally and ethically and while generally the "woke" left of them are more supportive of whisteblowing than the republicans (let me guess Republican's who do support whisteblowers are RINO's?) that support drops off dramatically when national security is potential compromised.
You have a problem with jumping to conclusions. You have another problem, believing everything the Woke side puts out there but impugning the motives of anybody on the right. Very naive.
You have a problem too, its called Woke Derangement Syndrome. I was driving home one day when I heard a woke radio station talk about climate change, distracting me from the woke condition of the road, I hit a woke pothole which gave me a woke flat tyre, I called for a pick up truck which was driven by a man of woke ethnicity. When I got to the garage I released it was also woke when I saw a rainbow flag behind the counter. They replaced my flat trye but charged woke prices for it. Woke Woke Woke.
It's like you have gone into competition with Trad trying to out do his use of the word liberal.
There isn’t one uniquely honest set of politicians. Nor are there any countries that are totally right in everything they do. We have to live with imperfection…and we have to live with imperfect leaders.
No one stated otherwise.
Many predictions about Trump’s fate and failures have been made this year. The year ends with all the economic predictions, at a minimum, looking pretty silly.
Not necessarily, economic predictions are normally qualified predictions for example " if Trump does X, Y, Z the economy will most likely do this" but if Trump only did X, part of Y and none of Z then it's not the prediction was wrong, its that underlying assumptions the prediction was based did not come to pass fully.
Great logic applied here .....break the rules... find something, and then suddenly it's all legit.
It's kinda like saying, Hey, I broke into your house illegally, but I found my stolen TV, so the break in was justified......classic.
Where did I say that rules can be broken. I repeat again, the FBI obtained a legal warrant from a federal judge to conduct that search of Mar-a-Lago, when Trump challenged the validity of that warrant a second judge upheld the validity of that warrant. No rules were broken.
.
Hulle weet nie wat ons weet nie.
Stav read the string on solar power posted by blob and see how capitalism solves problems as opposed to government. Embrace the ingenuity of man working for his own benefit….read Atlas Shrugged, it’s still relevant.
And have a Woke New Year….may all your anxieties diminish and all your friends be real Irishmen. Sing the songs of your fathers….the West’s Awake, is a good one.
The voice of Trump runs very powerfully on this thread.
48,503 posts
Aug. 8, 2022, will stay imprinted in my memory like no other day. Donald Trump had retained me as his lawyer a few months earlier, and I was still getting to know the players who formed his legal team as well as the many others who offered advice or service to the former president. I knew there was a slow-burning issue about his retention of potentially sensitive documents. I had told my chief counterpart, Evan Corcoran, that on Monday the 8th I would participate in a charity golf tournament and would be unavailable for any work issues.
My phone started ringing repeatedly at 10 a.m., just as the tournament was starting. After ignoring it a couple of times, I answered and angrily reminded Evan that I was off for the day. He responded: “The FBI is at Mar-a-Lago.” So much for my game.
The fire drill for us lawyers began in earnest that day. I knew some core facts—that Mr. Trump had returned numerous boxes to the custody of the archivist (the head of the National Archives and Records Administration) earlier that year; that Evan had been talking about documents with Jay Bratt of the Justice Department’s National Security Division; that Evan had searched through a bunch of disorganized documents to pull potentially classified ones and give them to Mr. Bratt.
I learned around the same time that three months earlier Mr. Bratt had issued a grand-jury subpoena for “any and all” documents bearing classification markings. He was engaging in the typical back-and-forth that occurs on document subpoenas when he suddenly reversed course on his pledge to give Evan more time. And I knew that after Mr. Trump allowed Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and Mr. Bratt to walk around the premises at Mar-a-Lago and see where any of these documents were housed, he graciously let them know that they should just “let me know about anything they need,” or words to that effect. The first and only response to that invitation was to ask him to put a padlock on the door to the storage room full of boxed documents. Mr. Trump immediately complied with that request.
I later learned more about the irregularities that accompanied this case as well as the Jan. 6 investigation. The Biden White House decided that the concept of executive privilege didn’t apply to Mr. Trump. Federal prosecutors, aided by a friendly judge in the District of Columbia, invoked the rarely employed “crime fraud exception” to obliterate attorney-client privilege in the case of Mr. Trump and Evan. Prosecutors harangued theoretical witnesses at Mar-a-Lago—down to maids and gardeners—demanding multiple interviews, scoffing at their testimony and threatening to summon them to Washington to testify before a grand jury.
The worst government misconduct was alleged by a lawyer representing Walt Nauta, a personal aide to Mr. Trump. The lawyer had applied to be a judge on the D.C. Superior Court, and he said under oath that Mr. Bratt had implied that the lawyer’s prospects would improve if “he would do the right thing” and flip Mr. Nauta against Mr. Trump. In an August 2023 court filing, special counsel Jack Smith described the allegation as “implausible, if not ludicrous.” But Mr. Bratt retired from the Justice Department this January, which likely ended whatever tepid effort the Office of Professional Responsibility was willing to make at uncovering the truth.
I caught some CNN criticism for referring to the documents case as a dispute about an overdue library book, but it was an apt parallel. The Presidential Records Act does a few things—it urges the archivist and former presidents to work together on deciding which documents would be deemed presidential records (sent to the National Archives) and which are personal (and kept by the former president). There is no criminal penalty for a violation of the Presidential Records Act, and a senior executive of the archives eventually testified that every modern president from Ronald Reaganon had turned over classified materials after leaving office. None, until Mr. Bratt had the reins, were subject to a “criminal referral” from a politicized archivist, and none were enforced by criminal investigative tools like grand-jury subpoenas and search warrants.
If you doubt this was all singular treatment, read the opinion in Judicial Watch’s 2012 lawsuit against the National Archives. The judge ruled that Bill Clinton’s 79 audiotapes of candid discussions about his presidency with a historian were considered personal by Mr. Clinton and thus protected from forced disclosure to the archives. It helped Mr. Clinton’s characterization that he kept all the tapes in a sock drawer, and the judge pointed out that the Presidential Records Act gives former presidents great power to make these personal and presidential determinations.
Which brings us to the resurfacing accusations—borne out by newly disclosed emails—that the Justice Department was insistent on criminal escalation while the FBI was balking. The FBI, which is ultimately subordinate to the attorney general and Justice Department, apparently pushed back against Mr. Bratt, telling him that there was no probable cause for a crime (the requirement for a search warrant) and that since Evan was cooperating with them in good faith, they should continue to gather these documents through the typical process of cooperation, even with some give and take on deadlines or particular documents.
The FBI was pushed into escalation by a hell-bent prosecutor who saw his chance for glory—a chance to prosecute a former president who was about to run again. (Mr. Bratt invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when deposed by a House committee in May 2025, and his lawyer audaciously accused the Trump administration of seeking “to weaponize the machinery of government against those they perceive as political enemies.”)
Even after Mr. Smith took control of the two investigations, the drumbeat of win-at-all-costs continued. The Justice Department fought the idea of a special master to manage the discovery process in the Mar-a-Lago case. I remember approaching Mr. Bratt after a hearing in which the jointly approved special master began to engage in the process (before the Justice Department appealed and shut it down with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) and asking what Mr. Trump and his team could do to satisfy the government’s need for documents and end the investigation. All I got was a smirk from an emboldened prosecutor, supported by a packed courtroom of friendly media and kindred spirit Andrew Weissmann of Mueller probe fame.
Some questions remain unanswered:
In the meeting at which Mr. Bratt allegedly threatened Mr. Nauta’s attorney over the judgeship, other prosecutors were in the room. Has anyone reviewed all of their internal communications to see what they had to say before, during and after that meeting?
Did Mr. Smith’s team shift the grand jury to Florida at the last minute solely because of a venue issue with the documents being retained in Florida or because his troops had regularly engaged in questionable conduct in the District of Columbia? Why, for instance, did one of his prosecutors ask Trump lawyer Tim Parlatore 48 questions she should have known would require him to invoke attorney-client privilege, and why did she suggest to the grand jury that the former president was “not cooperating” by invoking the privilege?
What internal communications took place within the Justice Department before Mr. Smith demanded a speedy trial on the eve of the election, surely aware that thorny issues under the Classified Information Protection Act would typically slow the trial of a nonincarcerated defendant by a year or more? Did any voice of reason chime in to urge that Mr. Smith tell the court that prosecutors aren’t on a political clock, are fully transparent with their discovery, and will try the case whenever the court wants them to?
As a special counsel, Mr. Smith answered to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who answered to President Biden. Mr. Garland has always insisted that Mr. Smith was unfettered by supervision. Did the attorney general really abrogate his duty to supervise Mr. Smith’s work?
In 27 years as a prosecutor and more than eight in private practice, I have never seen a case with so many irregularities, with such manifest political motivation, with so many open questions about singular treatment and poor judgment.
“The truth will out,” Shakespeare observed in “The Merchant of Venice.” If he was right, the recently disclosed battles over criminalizing noncriminal conduct may be the beginning of the process. Only once it is complete can the Justice Department regain its honor, and the FBI return to its crime-fighting roots.
Mr. Trusty is a partner at Ifrah Law and a former chief of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Gang Section.