- Reaction score
- 22,822
- Points
- 1,360
I think you meant to say Trudeau…
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,228
- Points
- 1,160
There are very few cases on Treason in the US because s. 3 of Article III was designed to set limits to the crime.
There are two case from early on that show that you do not need a state of war or a hostile foreign enemy to constitute treason, however.
The Whiskey Rebellion case of the 1790s was essentially an armed tax revolt and two were convicted of treason but later pardoned. In the Aaron Burr case in 1807, the issue was a conspiracy to set up an independent country within Mexican territory and taking part of the Southwestern States with that. Burr was found not guilty primarily on this reasoning:
In other words, a mere conspiracy is not enough, action in furtherance of the conspiracy is required. Much as Trump apologists wish to gloss over January 6th, it did constitute an assembly of men and women, who acted violently, for the treasonable purpose of stopping the lawful activity of Congress in fulfilling its duty of certifying the election of Trump's opponent.
IMHO, based on the previous view of the US courts in applying treason in non-war circumstances but in anti-government actions, Trump's activities could be viewed as treasonable. That said, looking at this particular Supreme Court's record, I doubt that they would let any conviction against him stand. (Unless of course Republicans finally see the light
)
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Of course you would say that.There are very few cases on Treason in the US because s. 3 of Article III was designed to set limits to the crime.
There are two case from early on that show that you do not need a state of war or a hostile foreign enemy to constitute treason, however.
The Whiskey Rebellion case of the 1790s was essentially an armed tax revolt and two were convicted of treason but later pardoned. In the Aaron Burr case in 1807, the issue was a conspiracy to set up an independent country within Mexican territory and taking part of the Southwestern States with that. Burr was found not guilty primarily on this reasoning:
In other words, a mere conspiracy is not enough, action in furtherance of the conspiracy is required. Much as Trump apologists wish to gloss over January 6th, it did constitute an assembly of men and women, who acted violently, for the treasonable purpose of stopping the lawful activity of Congress in fulfilling its duty of certifying the election of Trump's opponent.
IMHO, based on the previous view of the US courts in applying treason in non-war circumstances but in anti-government actions, Trump's activities could be viewed as treasonable. That said, looking at this particular Supreme Court's record, I doubt that they would let any conviction against him stand. (Unless of course Republicans finally see the light
But you'd be wrong.
Ruddy deep state apologists.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,598
- Points
- 1,160
Bizarre.... just bizarre.... as per SOP 
Solomon Lartey is a former White House staffer who was responsible for archiving presidential documents. In the last year, he spent hours taping up documents that had been torn to pieces. (Submitted by Solomon Lartey)
For the last year of his work at the White House, Solomon Lartey spent hours taping together documents that had been torn to pieces. They came, he said, from the office of U.S. President Donald Trump.
"We had to make it neat, so it could be flat, so it could be scanned," he said. "We were told not to tell anybody that we were doing this."
Lartey was a records management analyst with the National Archives in Washington, D.C. for 20 years, part of a team that collected and archived anything that passed through the West Wing.
Everything the president touches, from memos to emails — and even handwritten sticky notes — has to be documented under the Presidential Records Act as historical records.
But when Donald Trump took office, a new kind of document began coming into his office: scraps of paper that needed to be laboriously reassembled.
At first, Lartey assumed that the ripped documents were from Trump's presidential campaign — things he "didn't want." However, it soon became clear that the president was destroying documents while in office.
"So, they gave us all clear scotch tape," he said.
'They gave us Scotch Tape': Former White House archivist had to reassemble documents ripped up by Trump
'It became a challenge, like when you’re doing a puzzle'
Solomon Lartey is a former White House staffer who was responsible for archiving presidential documents. In the last year, he spent hours taping up documents that had been torn to pieces. (Submitted by Solomon Lartey)
For the last year of his work at the White House, Solomon Lartey spent hours taping together documents that had been torn to pieces. They came, he said, from the office of U.S. President Donald Trump.
"We had to make it neat, so it could be flat, so it could be scanned," he said. "We were told not to tell anybody that we were doing this."
Lartey was a records management analyst with the National Archives in Washington, D.C. for 20 years, part of a team that collected and archived anything that passed through the West Wing.
Everything the president touches, from memos to emails — and even handwritten sticky notes — has to be documented under the Presidential Records Act as historical records.
But when Donald Trump took office, a new kind of document began coming into his office: scraps of paper that needed to be laboriously reassembled.
The president's 'unofficial filing' system
Tearing up papers has been President Trump's "unofficial filing" system since coming into office, reports Politico, adding that it's a clear contrast to previous administrations that had strict protocols for filing.At first, Lartey assumed that the ripped documents were from Trump's presidential campaign — things he "didn't want." However, it soon became clear that the president was destroying documents while in office.
"So, they gave us all clear scotch tape," he said.
- Reaction score
- 6,341
- Points
- 1,160
Wow, still lots of love out there for Trump. Do the mods think we can keep this thread to reported incidents, court moves, case procedures, etc and leave the childish, TDS only posts to the bin? It sounds like kids making fun of the boogeyman so he isn't so mean to them.
- Reaction score
- 22,822
- Points
- 1,360
So only elements of a Deeply Fractured US that don’t have any negative aspects to Trump is what you’d like to see?
Didn’t you say you were bowing out of this thread for a while until some real facts came out about the Mar-A-Lago FBI raid? And yet here you are, not being able to help yourself from claiming the world will end if the TDS posts aren’t binned…
- Reaction score
- 6,341
- Points
- 1,160
That is not what I said at all. And I'm pretty darn sure you understood my participation from previous posts, but here you are addressing a problem, but failing to provide a solution, instead you attack me personally. But feel free to try and denigrate my opinion anyway. I also said I was trying to stay neutral and only participate with giving facts and educated rumors from the MSM only. Which I have been mostly doing. Your own comments aside, I'm only attempting to keep it on course and away from tangents. I find the constant, childish swipes at Trump distracting. If they are legal opinion or educated guesses, I don't have a problem.
If you want to spill your guts in angst and hypersensitivity over him, that's on you. But does it belong in the thread? That's the question you should have asked first before you decided to attack me. What do those comments add to the narrative? Do they fit our rules about how we speak about politicians?
I can also make this point and observation simply as nothing but a reader who doesn't participate also.
Your point is misdirected and moot.
Back on the subject of Trump’s Document Stash: there will be a hearing on Thursday in which the judge who granted the warrant will hear arguments for and against the release of the affidavit outlining the grounds for the search. A variety of news agencies and organizations have filed motions for the release of the affidavit.
news.yahoo.com
DOJ has already filed a 13 page omnibus response objecting to the various motions. Grounds for objection include protecting ongoing investigative steps, protecting the identifies/willingness of person or persons who are cooperating or might in future, and (this is significant) protecting the integrity of ongoing Grand Jury proceedings. The brief is an interesting read for anyone who wants more insight into the considerations that go into dealing investigative materials before an indictment.
This is all pretty much in line with what I laid out in recent days. Given the strength of the written brief by DOJ, the judge is being pretty solicitous to the movants in granting an in person hearing.
My prediction, if anyone cares, is that the motions will not be granted and that the affidavit will be ordered to remain sealed by the issuing judge. We may see a bit of a legal sideshow where some party or parties appeal that to a higher court, but it should be a no brainer to keep it sealed at this point.
With a lot of evidence to examine and statements to quietly take, this may slow down and go quiet between now and the midterms. DOJ doesn’t like open investigative activities that could have a political impact when elections are approaching. We also don’t know if this investigation is being synced at all with the federal January 6th criminal investigations.
Federal judge sets hearing on motion to unseal Trump search warrant affidavit
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who approved the warrant for the FBI to search the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate, has scheduled a Thursday hearing on a motion to unseal the affidavit that prosecutors used to secure it.
DOJ has already filed a 13 page omnibus response objecting to the various motions. Grounds for objection include protecting ongoing investigative steps, protecting the identifies/willingness of person or persons who are cooperating or might in future, and (this is significant) protecting the integrity of ongoing Grand Jury proceedings. The brief is an interesting read for anyone who wants more insight into the considerations that go into dealing investigative materials before an indictment.
This is all pretty much in line with what I laid out in recent days. Given the strength of the written brief by DOJ, the judge is being pretty solicitous to the movants in granting an in person hearing.
My prediction, if anyone cares, is that the motions will not be granted and that the affidavit will be ordered to remain sealed by the issuing judge. We may see a bit of a legal sideshow where some party or parties appeal that to a higher court, but it should be a no brainer to keep it sealed at this point.
With a lot of evidence to examine and statements to quietly take, this may slow down and go quiet between now and the midterms. DOJ doesn’t like open investigative activities that could have a political impact when elections are approaching. We also don’t know if this investigation is being synced at all with the federal January 6th criminal investigations.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,216
- Points
- 990
Sidebar from the raid and current legal proceedings-
Plausible, implausible, plausible to a point? Pure chicken little?
If the constitutional premise is valid, how does that bode for the US being a modern democracy (as we know it) vs. reverting to a pure Republic? Can that republic hold?
Plausible, implausible, plausible to a point? Pure chicken little?
If the constitutional premise is valid, how does that bode for the US being a modern democracy (as we know it) vs. reverting to a pure Republic? Can that republic hold?
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
Bizarre.... just bizarre.... as per SOP
'They gave us Scotch Tape': Former White House archivist had to reassemble documents ripped up by Trump
'It became a challenge, like when you’re doing a puzzle'
Solomon Lartey is a former White House staffer who was responsible for archiving presidential documents. In the last year, he spent hours taping up documents that had been torn to pieces. (Submitted by Solomon Lartey)
For the last year of his work at the White House, Solomon Lartey spent hours taping together documents that had been torn to pieces. They came, he said, from the office of U.S. President Donald Trump.
"We had to make it neat, so it could be flat, so it could be scanned," he said. "We were told not to tell anybody that we were doing this."
Lartey was a records management analyst with the National Archives in Washington, D.C. for 20 years, part of a team that collected and archived anything that passed through the West Wing.
Everything the president touches, from memos to emails — and even handwritten sticky notes — has to be documented under the Presidential Records Act as historical records.
But when Donald Trump took office, a new kind of document began coming into his office: scraps of paper that needed to be laboriously reassembled.
The president's 'unofficial filing' system
Tearing up papers has been President Trump's "unofficial filing" system since coming into office, reports Politico, adding that it's a clear contrast to previous administrations that had strict protocols for filing.
At first, Lartey assumed that the ripped documents were from Trump's presidential campaign — things he "didn't want." However, it soon became clear that the president was destroying documents while in office.
"So, they gave us all clear scotch tape," he said.
Sorry, but I'm a ripper as well.
Most of my projects start off with scribbles. Many of them are ripped because I find them unsatisfactory. Also they fit into the circular file more easily.
Also, on more mature projects I prefer to work on paper than electronically. I can find stuff more easily. They are easier to annotate and the annotations are more obvious. Once the analysis is complete my review process involves tearing up all those sheets that I wish to discard and then sort through the intact ones to create my final draft.
Tearing is.
- Reaction score
- 22,822
- Points
- 1,360
So to repeat the question, you want us to bin all the posts that you judge to be TDS?
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
The origins of “Justice must be seen to be done”
Few sentences have been quoted more often than the aphorism: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”. This dictum was laid down by Lor
The purpose of the Courts, like Parliament, is fundamentally one of dispute resolution with an intent to maintain the common peace. The Courts need to carry the public with them when they make their decisions. Not that the public must agree with the Courts but the public must accept the validity of the Courts. In my opinion it is easier to accept the validity if the debate is transparent.
- Reaction score
- 1,592
- Points
- 1,260
Which is why if there are charges and a trial it will indeed be aired in open court. Blowing the confidentiality of an ongoing investigation is neither doing Justice nor letting it be seen to be done.The origins of “Justice must be seen to be done”
Few sentences have been quoted more often than the aphorism: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”. This dictum was laid down by Lorwww.barandbench.com
The purpose of the Courts, like Parliament, is fundamentally one of dispute resolution with an intent to maintain the common peace. The Courts need to carry the public with them when they make their decisions. Not that the public must agree with the Courts but the public must accept the validity of the Courts. In my opinion it is easier to accept the validity if the debate is transparent.
- Reaction score
- 6,341
- Points
- 1,160
I'm suggesting you bin posts that add zero content to the thread. If you judge any of mine as such, fill your boots.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
A Deeply Fractured US
I challenge anybody to look at this voting record of the District of Columbia and ask themselves if this is truly what you would want in a recruiting pool of bureaucrats. Is this record going to convince anybody of the Red Team that they are not facing inherent biases?
www.270towin.com
I challenge anybody to look at this voting record of the District of Columbia and ask themselves if this is truly what you would want in a recruiting pool of bureaucrats. Is this record going to convince anybody of the Red Team that they are not facing inherent biases?
District Of Columbia Presidential Election Voting History - 270toWin
Information on how the residents of District Of Columbia have voted in presidential elections. Includes trends and polls for the 2020 election, as well as a District Of Columbia voting history and narrative.
www.270towin.com
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
I'm a ripper as well.
But, from the post you quoted, this seems to be the difference between us and a POTUS,
Well then, scotch tape it is.
That's assuming that the National Archives has more success with Trump than they had with Obama and Bush.
- Reaction score
- 8,481
- Points
- 1,160
I would disagree, especially when the debate concerns a public person and is being held in public. And especially when there seems to a constant drip of selective leaks from the inspectorate.
- Status
Similar threads
