Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

It's more than likely that months before Garlands action, Trump's lawyers were made aware of the NARA view on whom should have legal possession of the Govt documents and the lawyers would have advised Trump of the NARA view that he was not in legal possession of what it saw as classified Govt documents. He could choose to put it to the USSC that he thought it his right, while a private citizen, because of what he claims to be an action of his while president of declassifying the documents and ask it to decide if he or the NARA were correct. [A simile would be of a robber claiming he did no wrong in taking some one else's property because, in his mind, he thought it was OK.] Trump went from thought in mind to actual deed on the documents. I cant see the USSC giving Trump the benefit of the doubt because of the simile unless it sticks with the anti-Govt decision-making style it's following.

Thing for NARA to do there is get his lawyers to produce to the USSC documentary [the dated instruction letter/memo which he supposedly issued while in office on declassifying documents] evidence proving Trumps case and if they can't because it never existed, then NARA subpoena the Trump lawyers to testify and hand over the NARA subpoenas and letters they got from NARA to the USSC proving it's side of the case. I cant see the Trump lawyers being stupid enough to [trying Trump's refusal tactics] tell the USSC they were claiming lawyer/client privilege and were not going to let the USSC see the Trump letter or the subpoena letters they got from NARA.

Re a trial on DOJ charges under the espionage act, there'd be no option but for the DOJ to throw the charge sheets into the NARA box and forget about a trial if the USSC went with Trump on the rightful possession issue. It's entirely possible for the USSC to decide, due to lack of standing, that Trump would not be allowed state a case as the DOJ case is backed up by legislation allegedly inclusive of documents which Trump himself approved and signed on extending the range of the espionage act. It all depends on which court sits first to hear evidence and the speed it processes the case before it.

One other thing. In signing a deal with NARA to set up the Trump presidential library, there'll doubtless be clauses in that deal on the transfer of documents of all kinds [his personal diaries, thoughts and decisions on issues he had to face while acting as the US head of state to protect it and its constitution and laws] not just Govt documents. There has to be a clause in the NARA papers he signed to set up the library giving NARA the ownership rights on Govt documents.

On the local angle, Trump has cancelled his visit to his family golf course in Doonbeg, Co Clare later this month due tp pressing matters.

Even if they were declassified (which they're not) any journalist has to be given access under a FOI act

This has been another bad week for Trump. You feel that each new scandal at this stage just turns off a bit more of the undecided middle ground voters. Biden getting a climate action bill through congress, actual aid for veterans rather than photo ops, all little things that will hold sway if they both fight the next election.

Trumps hardcore support won't waver, they'll just keep on digging. It seems to be the nature, something like pro Brexiteers in the UK who still believe that if only Brexit was done right.............

Also is the incredibly lukewarm leadership contest in the UK a sign of what's to come post Trump for the Republicans, total apathy to lookalike candidates that have nothing new to offer.

No, despite feelings I have [were I a US citizen] about bringing Trumps march to a stop. If he mentioned a specific country or person the US is currently at loggerheads with as a likely recipient, then it could amount to an act of treason, triable before Federal civil court, not courts martial. The individual states themselves can try state citizens for treason if two citizens complain of an act of treason by another citizen, and the complaint met the standards needed for charges laid out in individual state law/s. Treason is defined in federal law as levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. An image of Trump sharing a jail cell with Julian Assange springs to mind.

court martial.

Anyone have a good idea as to whether Cheney can have any effect on the outcome of the next general election?

Did she get any traction with her appeal to Dems to switch to Reps for the primaries?

Can she somehow damage Trump's electoral prospects ?

Does she have to run seriously in every state?

Could she concentrate her efforts in states where the democratic candidate has otherwise no chance but she can siphon off enough Rep voters to swing the state to the Dems?

I would say it does -and I would also say that the Dems would be honour bound to recognise her contribution in a material way.

Some post in government.She would deserve it and it would be good politics.

They should also reform their crappy 2 party system while they are at it.

Aren't there always lots of candidates on the presidential ballot paper anyway, (other than the Dem/GOP candidate)? And they don't really affect the overall result as they only get tiny votes. Ross Perot is obviously the exception people think of but there are far far more Joe Exotic or 'Rent is Too Damn High' candidates who poll 5K votes nationwide.

Unless you are willing to spends 10s of millions on newspaper/TV ads etc then you are effectively a no-body in the campaign.