If presidential records act and Clinton's socks drawer case allows the ex presidents the access to his own records, define what are personal records, and keeps his personal records, and what is more, the act define extra copies of the documents do not count as presidential records, then how can they turn a civil dispute into a criminal investigations when Trump refuses to turn in his own records? There is nowhere in the presidential records act specify that it is illegal for ex presidents to keep the documents which are classified. If it is legal for Trump to keep the classified documents when he leaves the office, then FBI should never get involved in the first place. Then the rest of investigation goes away. The prosecutor deliberately muddle the water as if Trump were an average citizen. He was not, he was the president, and the presidential records act was created for person like him. Obama certainly had the deal with NARA to have the loans of his records, classified or not. Realistically all presidents left the office with government documents for their own sake of building a library or writing books or etc. If they prosecute Trump, prosecute all of them, and let the Supreme Court define what remaining privileges a president retains once leaving the office, it is not the job of the bureau which are beneath the white house to go after the president. Our country is supposed to run as a democratic republic, not by unelected bureau. By the act of FBI, we are upending the constitution article 2 that president is in full charge of executive branch.
The case against Hillary and Biden is stronger because as a senator or secretary of state, they are not allowed to keep the security documents in the first place.
Waving a paper around doesn't imply guilt, since they don't have the paper, don't seem to know which one it was, and presumably the so-called witnesses never read it, otherwise they would state that as fact in the indictment. As far as anybody knows, Trump was waving around a cocktail napkin and just mouthing off. I don't see a problem with this accusation on a potential hypothetical document. They would have to prove that actual classified materials were in the room, and witnesses read them and be able to identify them to prove that fact, not just some silly macho bravado rants on tape. Tempest in a tea cup.
Jack Smith's wife is one of those radical left, never Trumpers, which in my view taints the case. It's hard to take this seriously, considering her radical left politics, and her incessant attacks on the former president. No charges for obstruction were brought against Clinton after 30,000 "yoga emails" magically disappeared. Additionally, if members of one party can demand that foreign prosecutors targeting their son (Hunter) be fired to avoid corruption charges, and also engage in pay to play under the nickname 'the big guy" or through a rather shady NGO (Hillary), and no charges are ever brought forth, then the rule of law is not being applied equally. Waiving a document around, boasting and blustering, in typical Donald, bombastic fashion, is hardly reason to place him in prison for the rest of his life.
This case has "get trump" written all over it. And I suspect it will only make him more popular. He's now David taking on Goliath. He's the little guy, taking on the deep state.
In many ways, it's similar to the children's story "the boy who cried wolf." The Russia collusion was a hoax. The impeachment was dubious. Unarmed, costume wearing looney's, with their feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk were called "domestic terrorists". There have been so many attempts to go after him, without any basis whatsoever, that now when they actually have something (not much, but a little) nobody cares.
If you want to stop Trump, then beat him at the ballot box. The radical left must come back to the moderate center, because they are dividing this country, and pushing more and more people into Trump's camp. RFK jr seems to be the best hope at this point. We are in civil war territory now.
Really like the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” analogy. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems reasonable and fair to factor in the “get Trump” passion that has tried to handcuff the former president from the beginning of his term. Former A.G. Barr documents this in his memoir “One Damn Thing After Another.” Can, or should a judge decide from the bench, based on what’s good for the country?
"Mr. Smith will have to convince not only a Miami jury but the American public, on both sides of the partisan divide."
Instead, he will help to increase Trump's poll numbers and support. It's incredible that once again - as the newspapers did in 2016 - they believe they are out to damage him, but its not rocket science to see they are increasing his support and the anger over the two tier justice system, particularly around the situation with Biden's $5M bribe that the same justice system is totally ignoring.
Hillary was in possession of class docs but they only gave her slap on the wrist. To prosecute Trump for the same thing is not equal justice. Case closed. I think you're trying to back track after being threatened.
Professor Dershowitz is probably used to a few “negative” responses. It’s likely we’d both vote the same way if we were on that jury. But I’m guessing that the lawyer who best presents their case in terms of law is likely to win, as jurors are instructed to follow the law, every tiny and tangled detail. Question: how can jurors be chosen who have no preconceived opinions/bias?
The ultimate aim of the Biden administration is to indict Donald Trump for Jan 6th and imprison him in conditions amounting to torture for the rest of his life, likely killing him, as they have done to many of the Jan 6th protestors. Like the Jan 6th prisoners, Trump would be subject to a bizarre travesty of justice at the hands of fanatics. This is how the courts function in third world dictatorships, not in constitutional republics with due process and the rule of law.
I would not dare to argue with the professor on matters of law, but I would ask what the court of public opinion wants to know:
If this had been anyone other than Trump, would any of this be happening?
Biden democrats would like to pretend that the answer is "yes", but most know they are kidding themselves.
The rest of us see a pattern of legal abuse stretching back to the "Russiagate" hoax and are frightened that the powers of the state are being used in such a blatant banana republic fashion.
No matter the outcome of all of Trump's legal challenges, the country will remain deeply divided. If he is imprisoned, this could quickly turn very ugly. One need not ask if this country is capable of descending into civil war. Those democrats in power who are licking their chops at the thought of throwing Trump into jail had better understand that the reaction of millions might not be "mostly peaceful". They should also consider that many in law enforcement - the very ones they have repeatedly vilified and tried to defund - might not be inclined to follow their orders.
What seems interesting here is the brazen nature of the material. Why would anyone declassify a planned attack on another country? Calls into question his judgement. What Hilary allegedly did with the server is also very bad, and one can question fairness. Will we ever know if she was trying to keep similarly sensitive classified material before she bitwashed the server’s hard drive? The nature of the material is the tipping point for me.
We do not know the whole story, suspend your judgements for a bit. Remember the entirely fabricated Russian Collusion story that Trump and the bank and money, etc and etc, all false. FBI knew about it. Furthermore, It would not surprise me one bit that Trump wave a piece of paper claiming that it were a top secret document while in reality it is not at all, given who he is.
Presidential records act allows ex president the access to his records whether classified or not. My interpretion is that it should be a civil dispute, never a criminal prosecution when Trump fails to turn in all his classified documents because the act exclude the copies of the original documents and the ex president and his representatives are entitled to the access to his records. I am damn sure that all Trump's classified documents are copies of the original documents.
Trump is the first President in our lifetime to avoid starting any new war. He instead often used threats as a means to enter a dialog, among other methods. Perhaps there is a message in here he wished, or wishes, to convey by declassifying. Part of what Trump does is say the quiet part out loud - and that's often exactly what the NeoCon Deep State wants him to shut up about. That's the crux of why they want him stopped, to keep us in war, to keep the destruction of the nation going, for personal gain.
War is a very profitable business for the military industrial complex that lobbies congress, the senate and presidents. Why do you think corrupt Biden jumped to the first opportunity to get involved in Ukraine? It's all about the money.
The first half of your post is interesting, and I agree that it was excellent that our former president kept us out of war. I’m not sure re the second half.
Change the question slightly. “Why would anyone declassify a planned state action with another country?” If there’s a good answer then let that be the defense. We should declassify all such state secrets because a true democracy requires that transparency. A pacifist state may still have top secrets. Why would anyone brazenly declassify them?
Sorry Alan. Public support means nothing now. Nixon’s guilt was established in legacy media and social media did not exist. We have people who do not accept facts if they come from legacy media
Based on your brilliant analysis Trump is burnt toast. And as you pointed out he only needs to look at the mirror to determine whose fault it is. Finally at 77 years old he is being held accountable
"Mr. Smith will have to convince not only a Miami jury but the American public, on both sides of the partisan divide."
The American public, on one side of the partisan divide, is for the most part, already fully convinced. The other side, for the most part, will never be convinced.
No matter the outcome!
Therein lies a very serious problem for the future
Let me fucking explain this to your brain dead mind. There are paintings found in your house that came from a museum. The museum says the paintings were stolen. Can you just give back the paintings? Or will you be prosecuted for theft? You have a household full of those paintings. Your defense, "I gave back the stolen paintings". Really????? Now say you have the paintings and you refuse to give them back. You say I bought them fair and square from the museum. IF IF IF you gave them back, that would be an admission of guilt. You have a valid if contested proof that the paintings are yours. But in this case, the government went after the guy who says he legally owns the paintings and he didn't steal them, while at the same time ignoring the guys who have NO EXCUSE to have those paintings. You sir, are an ASSSSSSS!!!!!!
Damn shit! YOU KNOW THIS IS A POLITICAL INDITEMENT YET YOU DO NOTHING!!!! What the fuck are you going to do when they don't like your political opinion and come after you ????? Not a fucking word about Biden getting MILLIONS as a bribe, with evidence overwhelming and hidden by the FBI. I used to look up to you as a child but you're an ass. You won't speak up. FUCK YOU!!!!!
Acting big and spouting off isn't a crime. If I told my neighbor that I intentionally broke his window with a rock and the window was not broke, would that be a crime? so the alleged audio tapes are irrelevant as the documents in question were declassified as I explain later.
Does the President classify documents by Congressional Act or Constitutional Right? I don't think an act can cancel a constitutional right.
Navy vs Egan confirms Article II of the United States Constitution regarding executive powers to classify documents.
There is no specific written legal penalty codified for a United States President who declassifies a document on their own accord. The authority to declassify documents is generally seen as a discretionary power of the President, and the exercise of that power is not explicitly limited by specific penalties in the law.
The documents became declassified when as president, Donald Trump ordered them boxed for shipment per his constitutional right under Article II. If that was a crime, which it wasn't, the crime was committed by a president while acting in his official capacity. The boxing of the documents and ordering them shipped to Florida was overt and with intent under Article II of the United States Constitution.
It is impossible to commit the crime of unlawfully retaining classified documents when the President of the United States caused those documents to be put into the public domain while operating under Executive Powers found in Article II of the United States Constitution.
The President is not a staffer that's under some form of administrative procedure for classifying documents. There is no written procedure the President is beholden to when classifying.
The indictment that was caused to be filed by Jack Smith is a fraud upon the court.
The Guinness World Book of Records for the most Criminal Charges may go to Donald Trump:
He has been charged by Alvan Bragg with at least 50 plus
Documents Prosecutor - 37
January 6th will be - ? I'm guessing 30 to a 100
Lettia James - 40 to 60
AG of Atlanta/Fulton County - 40 to 60
This could be a worlds record. I had no idea he was one of the worst criminals in history!
Compared to the Biden Crime Family, Trump is by far the father of crime! - I put him up next to Pretty Boy Floyd, or George Floyd, or Madoff or Al Capone!
Oh yeah, he may be charged with another rape. Damn, how did he live to be 75 years old and we are first finding out he was a criminal all along?
If presidential records act and Clinton's socks drawer case allows the ex presidents the access to his own records, define what are personal records, and keeps his personal records, and what is more, the act define extra copies of the documents do not count as presidential records, then how can they turn a civil dispute into a criminal investigations when Trump refuses to turn in his own records? There is nowhere in the presidential records act specify that it is illegal for ex presidents to keep the documents which are classified. If it is legal for Trump to keep the classified documents when he leaves the office, then FBI should never get involved in the first place. Then the rest of investigation goes away. The prosecutor deliberately muddle the water as if Trump were an average citizen. He was not, he was the president, and the presidential records act was created for person like him. Obama certainly had the deal with NARA to have the loans of his records, classified or not. Realistically all presidents left the office with government documents for their own sake of building a library or writing books or etc. If they prosecute Trump, prosecute all of them, and let the Supreme Court define what remaining privileges a president retains once leaving the office, it is not the job of the bureau which are beneath the white house to go after the president. Our country is supposed to run as a democratic republic, not by unelected bureau. By the act of FBI, we are upending the constitution article 2 that president is in full charge of executive branch.
The case against Hillary and Biden is stronger because as a senator or secretary of state, they are not allowed to keep the security documents in the first place.
Waving a paper around doesn't imply guilt, since they don't have the paper, don't seem to know which one it was, and presumably the so-called witnesses never read it, otherwise they would state that as fact in the indictment. As far as anybody knows, Trump was waving around a cocktail napkin and just mouthing off. I don't see a problem with this accusation on a potential hypothetical document. They would have to prove that actual classified materials were in the room, and witnesses read them and be able to identify them to prove that fact, not just some silly macho bravado rants on tape. Tempest in a tea cup.
Question: where is the document? Was it destroyed, and if so, by who? If not, where is it and who has it?
Jack Smith's wife is one of those radical left, never Trumpers, which in my view taints the case. It's hard to take this seriously, considering her radical left politics, and her incessant attacks on the former president. No charges for obstruction were brought against Clinton after 30,000 "yoga emails" magically disappeared. Additionally, if members of one party can demand that foreign prosecutors targeting their son (Hunter) be fired to avoid corruption charges, and also engage in pay to play under the nickname 'the big guy" or through a rather shady NGO (Hillary), and no charges are ever brought forth, then the rule of law is not being applied equally. Waiving a document around, boasting and blustering, in typical Donald, bombastic fashion, is hardly reason to place him in prison for the rest of his life.
This case has "get trump" written all over it. And I suspect it will only make him more popular. He's now David taking on Goliath. He's the little guy, taking on the deep state.
In many ways, it's similar to the children's story "the boy who cried wolf." The Russia collusion was a hoax. The impeachment was dubious. Unarmed, costume wearing looney's, with their feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk were called "domestic terrorists". There have been so many attempts to go after him, without any basis whatsoever, that now when they actually have something (not much, but a little) nobody cares.
If you want to stop Trump, then beat him at the ballot box. The radical left must come back to the moderate center, because they are dividing this country, and pushing more and more people into Trump's camp. RFK jr seems to be the best hope at this point. We are in civil war territory now.
Really like the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” analogy. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems reasonable and fair to factor in the “get Trump” passion that has tried to handcuff the former president from the beginning of his term. Former A.G. Barr documents this in his memoir “One Damn Thing After Another.” Can, or should a judge decide from the bench, based on what’s good for the country?
"Mr. Smith will have to convince not only a Miami jury but the American public, on both sides of the partisan divide."
Instead, he will help to increase Trump's poll numbers and support. It's incredible that once again - as the newspapers did in 2016 - they believe they are out to damage him, but its not rocket science to see they are increasing his support and the anger over the two tier justice system, particularly around the situation with Biden's $5M bribe that the same justice system is totally ignoring.
Hillary was in possession of class docs but they only gave her slap on the wrist. To prosecute Trump for the same thing is not equal justice. Case closed. I think you're trying to back track after being threatened.
Professor Dershowitz is probably used to a few “negative” responses. It’s likely we’d both vote the same way if we were on that jury. But I’m guessing that the lawyer who best presents their case in terms of law is likely to win, as jurors are instructed to follow the law, every tiny and tangled detail. Question: how can jurors be chosen who have no preconceived opinions/bias?
The ultimate aim of the Biden administration is to indict Donald Trump for Jan 6th and imprison him in conditions amounting to torture for the rest of his life, likely killing him, as they have done to many of the Jan 6th protestors. Like the Jan 6th prisoners, Trump would be subject to a bizarre travesty of justice at the hands of fanatics. This is how the courts function in third world dictatorships, not in constitutional republics with due process and the rule of law.
I would not dare to argue with the professor on matters of law, but I would ask what the court of public opinion wants to know:
If this had been anyone other than Trump, would any of this be happening?
Biden democrats would like to pretend that the answer is "yes", but most know they are kidding themselves.
The rest of us see a pattern of legal abuse stretching back to the "Russiagate" hoax and are frightened that the powers of the state are being used in such a blatant banana republic fashion.
No matter the outcome of all of Trump's legal challenges, the country will remain deeply divided. If he is imprisoned, this could quickly turn very ugly. One need not ask if this country is capable of descending into civil war. Those democrats in power who are licking their chops at the thought of throwing Trump into jail had better understand that the reaction of millions might not be "mostly peaceful". They should also consider that many in law enforcement - the very ones they have repeatedly vilified and tried to defund - might not be inclined to follow their orders.
This is all very dangerous.
What seems interesting here is the brazen nature of the material. Why would anyone declassify a planned attack on another country? Calls into question his judgement. What Hilary allegedly did with the server is also very bad, and one can question fairness. Will we ever know if she was trying to keep similarly sensitive classified material before she bitwashed the server’s hard drive? The nature of the material is the tipping point for me.
We do not know the whole story, suspend your judgements for a bit. Remember the entirely fabricated Russian Collusion story that Trump and the bank and money, etc and etc, all false. FBI knew about it. Furthermore, It would not surprise me one bit that Trump wave a piece of paper claiming that it were a top secret document while in reality it is not at all, given who he is.
Presidential records act allows ex president the access to his records whether classified or not. My interpretion is that it should be a civil dispute, never a criminal prosecution when Trump fails to turn in all his classified documents because the act exclude the copies of the original documents and the ex president and his representatives are entitled to the access to his records. I am damn sure that all Trump's classified documents are copies of the original documents.
Trump is the first President in our lifetime to avoid starting any new war. He instead often used threats as a means to enter a dialog, among other methods. Perhaps there is a message in here he wished, or wishes, to convey by declassifying. Part of what Trump does is say the quiet part out loud - and that's often exactly what the NeoCon Deep State wants him to shut up about. That's the crux of why they want him stopped, to keep us in war, to keep the destruction of the nation going, for personal gain.
War is a very profitable business for the military industrial complex that lobbies congress, the senate and presidents. Why do you think corrupt Biden jumped to the first opportunity to get involved in Ukraine? It's all about the money.
The first half of your post is interesting, and I agree that it was excellent that our former president kept us out of war. I’m not sure re the second half.
"Why would anyone declassify a planned attack on another country?"
A better question is: Why do we accept as perfectly normal the idea that the U.S. should be attacking other countries?
Change the question slightly. “Why would anyone declassify a planned state action with another country?” If there’s a good answer then let that be the defense. We should declassify all such state secrets because a true democracy requires that transparency. A pacifist state may still have top secrets. Why would anyone brazenly declassify them?
Didn’t consider this—thank you.
Sorry Alan. Public support means nothing now. Nixon’s guilt was established in legacy media and social media did not exist. We have people who do not accept facts if they come from legacy media
Based on your brilliant analysis Trump is burnt toast. And as you pointed out he only needs to look at the mirror to determine whose fault it is. Finally at 77 years old he is being held accountable
Objection Prejudicial to the case with hearsay.
Professor, great essay, as usual!
However this statement is not correct.
"Mr. Smith will have to convince not only a Miami jury but the American public, on both sides of the partisan divide."
The American public, on one side of the partisan divide, is for the most part, already fully convinced. The other side, for the most part, will never be convinced.
No matter the outcome!
Therein lies a very serious problem for the future
Let me fucking explain this to your brain dead mind. There are paintings found in your house that came from a museum. The museum says the paintings were stolen. Can you just give back the paintings? Or will you be prosecuted for theft? You have a household full of those paintings. Your defense, "I gave back the stolen paintings". Really????? Now say you have the paintings and you refuse to give them back. You say I bought them fair and square from the museum. IF IF IF you gave them back, that would be an admission of guilt. You have a valid if contested proof that the paintings are yours. But in this case, the government went after the guy who says he legally owns the paintings and he didn't steal them, while at the same time ignoring the guys who have NO EXCUSE to have those paintings. You sir, are an ASSSSSSS!!!!!!
Damn shit! YOU KNOW THIS IS A POLITICAL INDITEMENT YET YOU DO NOTHING!!!! What the fuck are you going to do when they don't like your political opinion and come after you ????? Not a fucking word about Biden getting MILLIONS as a bribe, with evidence overwhelming and hidden by the FBI. I used to look up to you as a child but you're an ass. You won't speak up. FUCK YOU!!!!!
Acting big and spouting off isn't a crime. If I told my neighbor that I intentionally broke his window with a rock and the window was not broke, would that be a crime? so the alleged audio tapes are irrelevant as the documents in question were declassified as I explain later.
Does the President classify documents by Congressional Act or Constitutional Right? I don't think an act can cancel a constitutional right.
Navy vs Egan confirms Article II of the United States Constitution regarding executive powers to classify documents.
There is no specific written legal penalty codified for a United States President who declassifies a document on their own accord. The authority to declassify documents is generally seen as a discretionary power of the President, and the exercise of that power is not explicitly limited by specific penalties in the law.
The documents became declassified when as president, Donald Trump ordered them boxed for shipment per his constitutional right under Article II. If that was a crime, which it wasn't, the crime was committed by a president while acting in his official capacity. The boxing of the documents and ordering them shipped to Florida was overt and with intent under Article II of the United States Constitution.
It is impossible to commit the crime of unlawfully retaining classified documents when the President of the United States caused those documents to be put into the public domain while operating under Executive Powers found in Article II of the United States Constitution.
The President is not a staffer that's under some form of administrative procedure for classifying documents. There is no written procedure the President is beholden to when classifying.
The indictment that was caused to be filed by Jack Smith is a fraud upon the court.
IMHO
The Guinness World Book of Records for the most Criminal Charges may go to Donald Trump:
He has been charged by Alvan Bragg with at least 50 plus
Documents Prosecutor - 37
January 6th will be - ? I'm guessing 30 to a 100
Lettia James - 40 to 60
AG of Atlanta/Fulton County - 40 to 60
This could be a worlds record. I had no idea he was one of the worst criminals in history!
Compared to the Biden Crime Family, Trump is by far the father of crime! - I put him up next to Pretty Boy Floyd, or George Floyd, or Madoff or Al Capone!
Oh yeah, he may be charged with another rape. Damn, how did he live to be 75 years old and we are first finding out he was a criminal all along?