Not at the time of the appointment.He served as Solicitor General under JFK - approved by the Senate. Black Jack was never approved by the Senate for anything.
Archibald Cox - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Docs case dismissed!!!
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
true, but the Supremes will never hear it before Trump is in office and then it turns back into a pumpkin.
Aren't libs always telling us censorship by a private company doesn't violate free speech rights?
That law has long since expired. It went bye bye after the Ken Starr investigation.
I remember a discussion about this issue when USA Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to look into Cheney et. al. The discussion about why SC had to be an existing officer of the United States was clear.
Once again, this is on Garland who should be let go. The left effort to get Trump has corrupted many important safeguards in the federal judicial system from FISA warrants to special counsels, to misuse of federal statutes.
I don't know what that means, but I laughed.
It isn't. I didn't say it was. But I've heard conservatives say it was. So have they come to the realization we were right, ie free speech isn't what they thought?
MSNBC can show anyone they want when they want and I'll be sure not to watch it (except Steve Kornacki as he's really good).
I'm almost ALWAYS happy about a decision that limits federal power - or at least makes it follow some rules.
This stuff goes back to Marbury v. Madison!
And I always try to remove the names.
"Is this something an AG can do to a President" - NOT "can Garland do this to Trump."
This decision frames the issues pretty tightly for a SCOTUS review, so I am good to go.
Law geeks UNITE!
What exactly makes you think the prosecutor is crooked? Wasn’t he Trump appointed? Oh well I see how that WOULD make you think that, since many of them are. More likely it’s the crooked Trumper judge.
Yeah, according to Herr, he wasn't prosecuted because he was a confused old man who the jury wouldn't judge objectively because they'd feel sorry for him.
Garland has too much dirt on Joe. It's why no one in Biden's administration has been fired.
We have that, more or less. National Archives has a lot of discretion. They could ride Trumps ass and let Clinton alone and the reviewing court will usually have to accept archive’s decision.
Throw in Hillary’s CRS (can’t remember shit) defense, and Biden’s SOF ( senile old fart) defense and we have a mess . The use of the law to go after Trump also impacts the system as we see weird statutory interpretations and misuse of statutes to prosecute him.
Cox wasn't appointed under the same law as Starr. That act, originally passed in '78 and then later renewed, did expire in 1999.
Cox was appointed under the same laws as Smith.
That is all great, but if a president can walk into the top secret vault (metaphor) and empty it out on their way out of office is an important question to get answered. If yes, I suspect congress would want to tighten that? Maybe not, who knows with congress. It is possible congress will decide if the court says it is illegal to open it up to make it legal.
A large part of my job has been computer security. On occasion, for various reasons, I have had to temporarily look the other way at a vulnerability. I always hate that. Vulnerabilities need to be patched immediately is my mindset.
I haven't followed everything closely but my opinion has always been that if Trump is prosecuted then Biden and Pence should be prosecuted also. I know, i know they voluntarily gave their illegal documents back but if I recall correctly Trump just wouldn't give them back voluntarily but didn't put up any resistance. If you rob a bank and get caught then giving the money back voluntarily doesn't make you less guilty of robbing a bank.
You must be thinking of Biden, since he's the only one who wrote a book after he showed his writer the classified docs.
I wonder if this staffer was planning to write a book:
In August or September 2021, more than six months after he was no longer president, Trump showed a classified map of a military operation in a foreign country to someone working for his political action committee who also did not have a security clearance. Trump acknowledged that he should not be showing the staffer the map and warned the staffer not to get too close.
Key moments in Trump indictment: Flaunting classified material, stowing boxes in Mar-a-Lago bathroom
The criminal indictment unsealed by the Justice Department against Donald Trump includes allegations that the former president stored classified documents in a bathroom and shower at his Florida club and suggested his lawyers conceal the presence of some documents. The indictment also accuses...
apnews.com
Dammit, I tuned in just to watch it. (not really, but it would have been Must See TV)
Don't know, but we do know who DID write a book, don't we?I wonder if this staffer was planning to write a book:
In August or September 2021, more than six months after he was no longer president, Trump showed a classified map of a military operation in a foreign country to someone working for his political action committee who also did not have a security clearance. Trump acknowledged that he should not be showing the staffer the map and warned the staffer not to get too close.
Key moments in Trump indictment: Flaunting classified material, stowing boxes in Mar-a-Lago bathroom
The criminal indictment unsealed by the Justice Department against Donald Trump includes allegations that the former president stored classified documents in a bathroom and shower at his Florida club and suggested his lawyers conceal the presence of some documents. The indictment also accuses...
Thing about Cox is, he wasn't considered partisan. He was a Constitutional scholar and well respected by both sides. Getting Senate approval would have been no problem.
The same certainly can't be said about Jack Smith.
I agree on your first point re Cox. But legally that doesn't matter. The issue is that that case went to the SCt. In the Mueller case, they took the statements there as binding precedent. In this case, Cannon decides they were non-biding dicta.
This is where the meat of the argument will be in the 11th Cir.
It would be easier to do if it weren't the law in Indiana:
A knowing, intentional, or reckless disclosure of an SSN in violation of the new law is a felony, which carries up to 3 years' jail time and up to $10,000 in fines. A negligent disclosure is an "infraction," which carries up to 1 year jail time and up to $5,000 in fines.
Similarly, any violation of the data disposal law is a misdemeanor carrying up to 60 days' jail time and up to $500 in fines; if the violation involves the data of more than 100 persons or is a second violation, then the penalties increase to up to 1 year jail time and up to $5,000 in fines
Our people aren't supposed to have SSN numbers on their computers. But I am certain many of them store tax forms/W2s/other info that have their own on it.
Sure it does.... How could the prosecute Pence and then not prosecute Biden? The only think they had differentiating the cases is that Trump didn't give his back voluntarily. My opinion is that all should have been prosecuted.
And guess what, after Jan 20 of next year charges can still be filed against Biden. Nothing the previous special prosecutor decided is cast into stone. He couldn't have any way since the DOJ has long held a sitting president cannot be indicted. I don't have a deep emotional attachment to Biden, if he violated the law he violated the law. Let the court decide.
I understand your point, but I also get why they differ. The government first and foremost wants the documents back and secured. If Mr Jones has documents he shouldn't, they want him to get ahold of the authorities and arrange for their return ASAP. Will Mr. Smith do that if he knows he has 10 years waiting for him? Or will he try to just hide them better?
I would have no issue with all being prosecuted, except it would deter people from reporting themselves if they find they accidentally had classified documents.
Trump's punishment should be far worse given refusal to comply when caught. Just like trying to escape police adds penalties for us peons.
Your argument is analogous to complaining that a cop should not give a guy a speeding ticket for going 100 mph in a 70 mph zone, since the same cop did not give to other guys speeding tickets for going 72 mph in a 70 mph zone.
You can't really compare Trump's documents crimes (hundred of documents, repeated lies about where they were, moving them around to hide them, showing them off to people, clear lack of cooperation) with the serious but less extensive documents crimes of Biden, Pence, Clinton, etc.
You are correct. So my comment only applies post-watergate. But it is still valid. There was no law or regulation about special counsel at that time. A brief review shows the senate judiciary committee insisted Richardson appoint a special counsel as a condition of his confirmation. Could be enough to make a difference, but if pushed the senate would likely have confirmed Cox.
The current process for special counsel appointment and authority didn’t happen until a few decades later.
Given senate involvement, I don’t know what the result would have been at that time to a smith-type challenge.
It took over a year to get the documents back and they had to take him to court to accomplish it.
He even lied that all documents were returned.
Are we giving him brownie points for not getting into a fist fight with the agents that had to come to Mar a Lago to physically retrieve the documents?
That seems to be a rather low bar. Don't get in a fist fight and we will pretend you didn't resist lmao.
Biden, Pence, Clinton, don’t have the PRA. It appears that the documents, or a major part of , were delivered to MAL by the GSA. Trump didn’t “take” them. The evidence that Trump lied about them is mushy since surrogates handled the discussions. He did show some docs to supporters which he claims ( questionably) were declassified so there is that. Then the FBI staged that photo and later leaked or deliberately published it. Not a good look.
The bottom line is I believe the entire dispute could have and should have been handled through negotiations. Garland personally set the criminal prosecution in motion then hired smith to push it.
there were discussions for a long time. May 6 of 2021 is when the Archives told Trump they knew he had documents. They sent many requests threatening to go to the FBI. The so-called raid happened August 8, 2022.
You suggest he claims to have declassified the documents, there are two cases where witnesses said otherwise:
July 21, 2021: Trump allegedly shows a military “plan of attack” that he says is “highly confidential” to a writer interviewing him at his Bedminster property. Trump remarks, “as president I could have declassified it. ... Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret,” according to the indictment, citing a recording of the interview.
August or September 2021: Trump allegedly shows a classified map relating to a foreign military operation to a representative of his political action committee at his Bedminster golf course, the indictment says. Trump tells the person that he shouldn’t be showing anyone the map and that the person shouldn’t get too close.
I highlighted writer, hopefully Dan sees that, and the claim is there is a recording.A timeline of events leading to Donald Trump's indictment in the classified documents case
The 49-page federal indictment of former President Donald Trump lays out a stunning timeline of events, detailing allegations that he not only mishandled sensitive material, but also took steps to hide records and impede investigators.
apnews.com
At any point, for over a year, Trump could have told the archives that there are too many documents and he needs help to go through them. We don't know why he didn't. What is that saying that people liked to use here before, "play stupid games win stupid prizes"? If he took this seriously he could have resolved it WELL with a year. There was something he wanted to hold onto. I don't necessarily think for nefarious reasons, but something he wanted. Otherwise, why go through all the work of moving boxes away from the room the lawyer is going to search (and not just having Archives look themselves)?
Similar threads
