Mar-a-Lago raided
-
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
And the special master is……
Rudy Giuliani.
lol
Shouldn’t this post be in the dark or inappropriate humor thread?
-
Weird since (a) the fat guy isn’t the executive, Jolly’s President is. And (b) the DOJ is part of the executive. “Executive privilege” is generally raised contra Congress.
Hers seems to be a minority viewpoint. Even eccentric.
Probably won’t matter much in practice.
wrote on 5 Sept 2022, 21:51 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
“Executive privilege” is generally raised contra Congress.
I think the special master is being appointed to ascertain whether there is any attorney-client privileged information in the seized documents, not executive privilege.
As to executive privilege, a court (in 2012) ruled that recordings that Clinton made, while in the White House, were his property, and he could refuse to turn them over. HIs power to declare pretty much anything "personal" is broad.
They were found in his sock drawer.
-
wrote on 5 Sept 2022, 21:54 last edited by
Sorry about the source, but it sums up Jon's president...
Won't be long and Jon can rejoice in conservatives wearing a scarlet M.
-
wrote on 6 Sept 2022, 20:25 last edited by
Reactions to the ruling that granted Trump a “special master”:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/biased-corrupt-trump-judge-defied-115235971.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/06/trump-judge-mar-a-lago-documents-grim-future/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/05/us/trump-special-master-aileen-cannon.html
-
Reactions to the ruling that granted Trump a “special master”:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/biased-corrupt-trump-judge-defied-115235971.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/06/trump-judge-mar-a-lago-documents-grim-future/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/05/us/trump-special-master-aileen-cannon.html
wrote on 6 Sept 2022, 20:30 last edited by George K 9 Jun 2022, 20:41@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Reactions to the ruling that granted Trump a “special master”:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/biased-corrupt-trump-judge-defied-115235971.html
Interesting that the judge who approved the warrant was an Obama-appointed judge isn't mentioned.
And the "Legal Expert" quoted in that piece, in 2022 said the US Constitution is "actually trash." He said that Walker, as Senator would not have any independent ideas, LOL.
So, there's that.
Edit to add:
Weismann makes the same comment about the "Trump appointed" judge while ignoring the Obama appointed judge.
He also says that there's no need for a special master because it applies to a "small subset" of documents.
How does he know that? Has he seen them? He implies that there's no need because the documents have already been examined. So, we should trust the FBI. Right.
-
@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Reactions to the ruling that granted Trump a “special master”:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/biased-corrupt-trump-judge-defied-115235971.html
Interesting that the judge who approved the warrant was an Obama-appointed judge isn't mentioned.
And the "Legal Expert" quoted in that piece, in 2022 said the US Constitution is "actually trash." He said that Walker, as Senator would not have any independent ideas, LOL.
So, there's that.
Edit to add:
Weismann makes the same comment about the "Trump appointed" judge while ignoring the Obama appointed judge.
He also says that there's no need for a special master because it applies to a "small subset" of documents.
How does he know that? Has he seen them? He implies that there's no need because the documents have already been examined. So, we should trust the FBI. Right.
wrote on 6 Sept 2022, 22:00 last edited by@George-K , yeah, not much luck finding opinion pieces that agree with the decision to grant the request for special master. I tried to look for any opinion piece by Jonathan Turley but only found him talking about it on Fox News rather than in a written opinion piece. :man-shrugging:
-
wrote on 6 Sept 2022, 22:16 last edited by
IOW, you don't have an answer for George's questions...
-
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
“Executive privilege” is generally raised contra Congress.
I think the special master is being appointed to ascertain whether there is any attorney-client privileged information in the seized documents, not executive privilege.
As to executive privilege, a court (in 2012) ruled that recordings that Clinton made, while in the White House, were his property, and he could refuse to turn them over. HIs power to declare pretty much anything "personal" is broad.
They were found in his sock drawer.
wrote on 6 Sept 2022, 22:19 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Jun 2022, 22:20@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
“Executive privilege” is generally raised contra Congress.
I think the special master is being appointed to ascertain whether there is any attorney-client privileged information in the seized documents, not executive privilege.
As to executive privilege, a court (in 2012) ruled that recordings that Clinton made, while in the White House, were his property, and he could refuse to turn them over. HIs power to declare pretty much anything "personal" is broad.
They were found in his sock drawer.
“His property” /= “covered by executive privilege”
e.g. Trump’s three (?!?) passports. He didn’t say “those are covered by executive privilege”, he said “those are mine”
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 01:08 last edited by
Material on foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities seized
Some seized documents were so closely held, only the president, a Cabinet-level or near-Cabinet level official could authorize others to know.
A document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was found by FBI agents who searched former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and private club last month, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about classified material stashed in the Florida property.
Some of the seized documents detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them. Only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet-level official could authorize other government officials to know details of these special-access programs, according to people familiar with the search, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive details of an ongoing investigation.Documents about such highly classified operations require special clearances on a need-to-know basis, not just top-secret clearance. Some special-access programs can have as few as a couple dozen government personnel authorized to know of an operation’s existence. Records that deal with such programs are kept under lock and key, almost always in a secure compartmented information facility, with a designated control officer to keep careful tabs on their location.
Very disturbing on two accounts:
- If it's true, well then, it's very disturbing.
- Did this leak come from the FBI? If so, that says a lot about the organization. "People familiar with the investigation..."
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 01:26 last edited by
Yeah that’s a bad look. I guess that’s why it was leaked.
-
Material on foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities seized
Some seized documents were so closely held, only the president, a Cabinet-level or near-Cabinet level official could authorize others to know.
A document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was found by FBI agents who searched former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and private club last month, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about classified material stashed in the Florida property.
Some of the seized documents detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them. Only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet-level official could authorize other government officials to know details of these special-access programs, according to people familiar with the search, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive details of an ongoing investigation.Documents about such highly classified operations require special clearances on a need-to-know basis, not just top-secret clearance. Some special-access programs can have as few as a couple dozen government personnel authorized to know of an operation’s existence. Records that deal with such programs are kept under lock and key, almost always in a secure compartmented information facility, with a designated control officer to keep careful tabs on their location.
Very disturbing on two accounts:
- If it's true, well then, it's very disturbing.
- Did this leak come from the FBI? If so, that says a lot about the organization. "People familiar with the investigation..."
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 01:36 last edited by@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Did this leak come from the FBI? If so, that says a lot about the organization. "People familiar with the investigation..."
Seen on Twitter: "The information was so top secret and classified that someone at the FBI leaked it to the Washington Post. What a world."
-
@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Did this leak come from the FBI? If so, that says a lot about the organization. "People familiar with the investigation..."
Seen on Twitter: "The information was so top secret and classified that someone at the FBI leaked it to the Washington Post. What a world."
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 09:05 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Jul 2022, 09:09@George-K except… no. Describing the information is very different than the information itself.
“He had the nuclear launch code in his desk” /= “he had the nuclear launch code 667hggH63jol7 in his drawer”
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 09:06 last edited by jon-nyc 9 Jul 2022, 09:08
By the way, Do you think there is a single adversary of the US whose intelligence service doesn’t have a Mar Al Lago membership? Or first world ally, for that matter.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 09:24 last edited by Catseye3 9 Jul 2022, 09:34
Not a chance, referring to other countries' having our launch codes. Probably also the reverse.
Although maybe it's not so easy. Wiki: "Gold Codes (launch codes) are generated daily and provided by the National Security Agency (NSA) to the White House, The Pentagon, United States Strategic Command and TACAMO. For an extra level of security, the list of codes on the card includes codes that have no meaning, and therefore the president must memorize where on the list the correct code is located."
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 09:48 last edited by
“Launch codes” was merely a colorful example. My point was a description of the information is not the same thing as the information itself.
-
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 14:13 last edited by
Sure, China can launch our nukes whenever they want.
And Mr. Biden can launch theirs.
-
By the way, Do you think there is a single adversary of the US whose intelligence service doesn’t have a Mar Al Lago membership? Or first world ally, for that matter.
wrote on 7 Sept 2022, 16:50 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
By the way, Do you think there is a single adversary of the US whose intelligence service doesn’t have a Mar Al Lago membership? Or first world ally, for that matter.
Probably not the ones who have already bought the Bidens.
-
wrote on 8 Sept 2022, 20:36 last edited by
The DOJ is appealing the “special master” decision:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.68.0_1.pdf
-
The DOJ is appealing the “special master” decision:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.68.0_1.pdf
-
That’s odd. Are you sure that’s correct?
Are you sure they didn’t appeal the injunction on the criminal investigation? That would make more sense
wrote on 9 Sept 2022, 01:22 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Are you sure they didn’t appeal the injunction on the criminal investigation? That would make more sense
I meant to say that the DOJ is appealing Cannon's Sep. 5 decision. I expect the appeal to also include the "injunction", but we probably have to wait for the appeal brief to see the full scope of the appeal.