Going to quote myself from the other thread:
That article would have made a lot more sense, I suppose, if I knew who Kash Patel and John Solomon were, or if the article made even the slightest attempt to explain it.
3 Likes
I’m less concerned about any one of them. I’m more concerned about all of them, or a bunch of them at once.
2 Likes
I don’t see that happening. He might if Trump has been in the same party. But you don’t help your position with Dem voters by pardoning Trump. Nor does it help to stop chaos in your opposition party.
Additionally- he probably hates that fucking guy. Let him squirm. Let his party squirm. Let a weakened Trump tear that party apart when others run against him in the primary.
I’d take that bet.
19 Likes
10 Likes
Throwing more shit at the wall.
15 Likes
Why would records planted by the FBI be covered by attorney client privilege?
From another list I’ve seen, I think we’re up to (at least) 15 different excuses, many mutually exclusive.
32 Likes
If it had been a Republican who he had worked with in the Senate, then I could see Biden pardoning him/her. But since 45 is an outsider, there’s no misplaced connection to draw upon. Biden doesn’t know him from shit.
10 Likes
It’s not like there’s all that much real difference between the two…
23 Likes
For the attorney-client privilege, I probably don’t really understand the law here fully, but it’s it more about protecting communications with and documents given to an attorney. The concept is that you don’t truly have access to an attorney if the government can seize their files, or tap the conversations you have with them. I’m uncertain how far that goes to cover document you keep yourself.
For executive privilege, isn’t that what this all started with? Documents covered by executive privilege aren’t supposed to be kept once the president leaves office, they are supposed to be turned over to the national archives so that someday when the people and secrets that the privilege protected are no longer relevant they can be released. This almost feels like an accidental admission of guilt.
No you see they planted Top Secret documents that Trump had previously declassified but didn’t take, so that they could justify raiding his home to take his lawyers documents. You need to understand the 5-D chess that Trump and the FBI are playing against each other.
/s
10 Likes
they were all protected by hipaa!
i jest. i hope.
12 Likes
Considering that none of his lawyers have SCIF access, sharing those documents with them would be a crime and them viewing the documents would be a crime. Attorney-client priviledge does not cover instances where attorney and client are criming together.
The FBI now has reason to contact all of 45’s lawyers and ask them if they viewed the documents, and if so, why did they not immediately contact law enforcement in their duties as an officer of the court?
32 Likes
My assumption was that like most searches for documents they took all the documents “found together” with the target of the search, and the claim is that documents under attorney-client privilege were taken in addition to and separately from the classified documents covered by the search warrant. It’s plausible that some document that is a result of conversation with a lawyer was sitting right next to one of the top secret files, and even though that document isn’t about the top secret file it was taken anyways, because field agents aren’t going to take a lot of time to review every sheet of paper.
So I’m not making the assumption that the target documents are being claimed that they are covered by attorney-client privilege, but that some other documents were also taken and the source is claiming those some of those other documents were coved by attorney-client privilege.
I don’t think this is a real issue though, because the FBI is supposed to have a process in place to review documents and exclude those that might be protected before they are passed on to the investigation team.
3 Likes
If the target of the search was almost anyone but 45, I would be with you. Since 45 asserted it, we can be certain it’s bullshit.
16 Likes
Biden can also waive executive privilege claims…
Meanwhile Marcy Wheeler has this piece about bringing work home with you.
12 Likes
The argument made of Fox that the search was improper is certainly bullshit. Trump, however seems the sort of disorganized person that just randomly stacks unrelated papers then shoves them off into a a box once his desk is to full without any attempt to sort anything. The likelihood that in all the boxes taken some of it was outside what was authorized by the warrant is very high, but that’s also somewhat expected an why there are supposed to be processes to deal with that. It’s mostly a bullshit argument no matter who is making it, if you keep correspondence with your lawyer in the same box you store the evidence of a crime you can expect it to get taken in a search.
4 Likes
Who the hell knows? Certainly none of us in the peanut gallery.
Nevertheless, if there’s any relevant habit that would seem likely to me with this slippery, lifelong committer of financial crimes, it’s instead that of safeguarding important (and especially incriminating) documents. Or at least making sure this or that minion does so.
16 Likes
Again, not that it isn’t physically plausible. My comment is more that, since 45 claimed it, we know it’s a lie.
Also, the boxes the FBI uses for evidence are their boxes. They wouldn’t just grab boxes of documents that were already boxed up. They use specific boxes that can be labelled and sealed with tamper-evident seals.
19 Likes
And we should believe anything Trump or anyone in his circle says because…?
19 Likes
