Culture Wars

[SeattleGriz]

Good job. You are finally on the same page as me. Dismissing a faulty impeachment case is NOT the same as committing a felony.

What are you even going on about? Ever hear of 7 mjnute abs?

Take the L. You aren't even close to the topic. Playing again like you aren't understanding what is being said.

Side note: Love that scene. Use the phrase all the time.

[UNI88]

The inquiry was justified. It was unfortunately brought too late. If it weren't then Gym jordan would allow Smith to testify in public.

You voted for a felon.

No. As usual, you are incorrect. Smith needed to be appointed by the President or approved by the Senate. Rules are rules.

Not only that, but Trump has full authority to declassify anything he wants. Look at slick Willy for precedent.

As usual, you're reaching to defend/deflect for your false god, trump.

Whether Smith needed to be appointed by the President or approved by the Senate is debatable and was never resolved by the courts.

Yes, trump had the authority to declassify documents WHILE he was President but it doesn't happen instantaneously. There are processes to be followed to protect sources and sensitive information. Those processes weren't followed. Simply taking them to mar-a-lago didn't automatically declassify them.

[SeattleGriz]

No. As usual, you are incorrect. Smith needed to be appointed by the President or approved by the Senate. Rules are rules.

Not only that, but Trump has full authority to declassify anything he wants. Look at slick Willy for precedent.

As usual, you're reaching to defend/deflect for your false god, trump.

Whether Smith needed to be appointed by the President or approved by the Senate is debatable and was never resolved by the courts.

Yes, trump had the authority to declassify documents WHILE he was President but it doesn't happen instantaneously. There are processes to be followed to protect sources and sensitive information. Those processes weren't followed. Simply taking them to mar-a-lago didn't automatically declassify them.

Nope. Smith was not appointed properly.

Secondly, tell slick Willy about paperwork. The President has the power under article II, but legal scholars like you say it was a paperwork issue?

Judge Cannon was correct to dismiss. You are wrong.

[kalm]

Fell for what?

That Obama's a swell guy. He abused thousands of 4th amendment rights with him turning the Patriot Act surveillance upon US citizens.

No shit. Which I criticized along with his economics and failure on healthcare. It’s just a nice gesture. He had no obligation or need of doing it.

I’m sure Trump will be doing the same in retirement. So tell me again what I fell for?

[UNI88]

As usual, you're reaching to defend/deflect for your false god, trump.

Whether Smith needed to be appointed by the President or approved by the Senate is debatable and was never resolved by the courts.

Yes, trump had the authority to declassify documents WHILE he was President but it doesn't happen instantaneously. There are processes to be followed to protect sources and sensitive information. Those processes weren't followed. Simply taking them to mar-a-lago didn't automatically declassify them.

Nope. Smith was not appointed properly.

Secondly, tell slick Willy about paperwork. The President has the power under article II, but legal scholars like you say it was a paperwork issue?

Judge Cannon was correct to dismiss. You are wrong.

It's not that simple Myron. The question of whether a special counsel is a principal officer (must be appointed by the President/confirmed by Senate) or inferior officer (can be appointed by AG) has not been resolved.

Do you have evidence that trump declassified those documents while he was President? Vague or after-the-fact claims of intent, statements not communicated to anyone responsible for handling the documents, inferences drawn solely from possession of the documents, etc. do not count as evidence that they were declassified.

[SeattleGriz]

That Obama's a swell guy. He abused thousands of 4th amendment rights with him turning the Patriot Act surveillance upon US citizens.

No shit. Which I criticized along with his economics and failure on healthcare. It’s just a nice gesture. He had no obligation or need of doing it.

I’m sure Trump will be doing the same in retirement. So tell me again what I fell for?

Hey, you're the one who said Obama was a swell guy because he attended some performative art event somebody else set up for him.

Trump already does stuff like that, he just doesn't need it scripted for him.

[SeattleGriz]

Nope. Smith was not appointed properly.

Secondly, tell slick Willy about paperwork. The President has the power under article II, but legal scholars like you say it was a paperwork issue?

Judge Cannon was correct to dismiss. You are wrong.

It's not that simple Myron. The question of whether a special counsel is a principal officer (must be appointed by the President/confirmed by Senate) or inferior officer (can be appointed by AG) has not been resolved.

Do you have evidence that trump declassified those documents while he was President? Vague or after-the-fact claims of intent, statements not communicated to anyone responsible for handling the documents, inferences drawn solely from possession of the documents, etc. do not count as evidence that they were declassified.

Judge Cannon already ruled - she saw all the evidence. Your TDS so bad you now think you're correct? How'd those other cases in which you were sure they'd finally "get Trump" work out for you?

[kalm]

No shit. Which I criticized along with his economics and failure on healthcare. It’s just a nice gesture. He had no obligation or need of doing it.

I’m sure Trump will be doing the same in retirement. So tell me again what I fell for?

Hey, you're the one who said Obama was a swell guy because he attended some performative art event somebody else set up for him.

Trump already does stuff like that, he just doesn't need it scripted for him.

Sure…

[UNI88]

It's not that simple Myron. The question of whether a special counsel is a principal officer (must be appointed by the President/confirmed by Senate) or inferior officer (can be appointed by AG) has not been resolved.

Do you have evidence that trump declassified those documents while he was President? Vague or after-the-fact claims of intent, statements not communicated to anyone responsible for handling the documents, inferences drawn solely from possession of the documents, etc. do not count as evidence that they were declassified.

Judge Cannon already ruled - she saw all the evidence. Your TDS so bad you now think you're correct? How'd those other cases in which you were sure they'd finally "get Trump" work out for you?

I didn’t realize judge cannon was the law of the land, the final arbiter, that her rulings set the standard and couldn’t be appealed. She stands above SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

Judge Cannon already ruled - she saw all the evidence. Your TDS so bad you now think you're correct? How'd those other cases in which you were sure they'd finally "get Trump" work out for you?

I didn’t realize judge cannon was the law of the land, the final arbiter, that her rulings set the standard and couldn’t be appealed. She stands above SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then take it up with SCOTUS, not you.

[UNI88]

I didn’t realize judge cannon was the law of the land, the final arbiter, that her rulings set the standard and couldn’t be appealed. She stands above SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then take it up with SCOTUS, not you.

I’d rather just dismiss cannon’s opinion as that of an unhinged, radical, extremist right wing judge just like MAQA dismisses the opinions of judges who rule against trump.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Truth.

[SeattleGriz]

Then take it up with SCOTUS, not you.

I’d rather just dismiss cannon’s opinion as that of an unhinged, radical, extremist right wing judge just like MAQA dismisses the opinions of judges who rule against trump.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet another instance where you contradict yourself and your "get Trump" TDS has caused you to fail.

[Caribbean Hen]

Truth.

Needing help is one thing

But by demanding help and showing your appreciation for help with an entitlement attitude is something totally different

The problem is too many Americans are demanding and not appreciative

Next

[UNI88]

I’d rather just dismiss cannon’s opinion as that of an unhinged, radical, extremist right wing judge just like MAQA dismisses the opinions of judges who rule against trump.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet another instance where you contradict yourself and your "get Trump" TDS has caused you to fail.

I didn't contradict sh!t. There are plenty of legal experts more knowledgeable than you or I that disagreed with cannon's ruling. You're the one that chooses to give credence to expert opinions that support your biased agenda and to dismiss those that don't.

trump's election kept cannon's ruling from being appealed and getting a final determination. So we're left in limbo where we're both entitled to our opinion but neither of us has a strong enough case to outright dismiss the other's opinion despite your lame attempts to do so.

[SeattleGriz]

And yet another instance where you contradict yourself and your "get Trump" TDS has caused you to fail.

I didn't contradict sh!t. There are plenty of legal experts more knowledgeable than you or I that disagreed with cannon's ruling. You're the one that chooses to give credence to expert opinions that support your biased agenda and to dismiss those that don't.

trump's election kept cannon's ruling from being appealed and getting a final determination. So we're left in limbo where we're both entitled to our opinion but neither of us has a strong enough case to outright dismiss the other's opinion despite your lame attempts to do so.

Beryl Howe didn't disagree when she allowed Bill Clinton to keep his tapes in his sock drawer. Smith was also not appointed legally.

Which scholars disagree. Give me a list.

[UNI88]

I didn't contradict sh!t. There are plenty of legal experts more knowledgeable than you or I that disagreed with cannon's ruling. You're the one that chooses to give credence to expert opinions that support your biased agenda and to dismiss those that don't.

trump's election kept cannon's ruling from being appealed and getting a final determination. So we're left in limbo where we're both entitled to our opinion but neither of us has a strong enough case to outright dismiss the other's opinion despite your lame attempts to do so.

Beryl Howe didn't disagree when she allowed Bill Clinton to keep his tapes in his sock drawer. Smith was also not appointed legally.

Which scholars disagree. Give me a list.

Here’s a few:
- Jonathan Turley
- Leah Litman
- Matthew Seligman
- Vikram D. Amar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

Beryl Howe didn't disagree when she allowed Bill Clinton to keep his tapes in his sock drawer. Smith was also not appointed legally.

Which scholars disagree. Give me a list.

Here’s a few:
- Jonathan Turley
- Leah Litman
- Matthew Seligman
- Vikram D. Amar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now you are making stuff up.

No, Jonathan Turley did not disagree with Judge Cannon. In fact, he was one of the few prominent legal scholars who publicly defended her ruling as legally sound and "seismic."

While many in the legal establishment attacked Cannon’s decision as rogue or incompetent, Turley praised it. Here is the breakdown of his reaction and why he supported her dismissal of the case.

From AI. Cannon was correct to dismiss the case. It was an abomination. Don't forget to throw in how the DOJ sat on this for 18 months and didn't do anything as Trump and his lawyers were working with NARA, in addition to the DOJ visiting and only recommending a bigger lock. And last but not least, don't forget Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissing Bill Clinton's sock drawer tapes as POTUS cannot be questioned and set the precedent.

Here is the summary of our discussion, highlighting the specific ways the Biden DOJ and the D.C. legal establishment were accused of "twisting" rules, shifting standards, and weaponizing procedures to target Donald Trump in the classified documents case.

1. The Appointment "Workaround" (The Constitutional Twist)
The Rule: The Appointments Clause requires "Principal Officers" (powerful prosecutors) to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The Twist: To bypass the Senate confirmation process (which Jack Smith likely would not have passed), Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as an "independent" Special Counsel but legally classified him as an "inferior officer" (a subordinate).

The Result: Judge Cannon threw out the case because Smith wielded the power of a Principal Officer without the constitutional authority to do so. She ruled the DOJ cannot just "hire" a shadow Attorney General using generic staffing statutes.

2. Criminalizing a Civil Dispute (The PRA Bait-and-Switch)
The Rule: The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is a civil statute with no criminal penalties. It creates a process for NARA and the President to negotiate custody of records.

The Twist: Since they couldn't charge Trump under the PRA, the DOJ effectively ignored it. They charged him under the Espionage Act (a 1917 law meant for spies) and Obstruction.

The Result: This maneuver turned a standard bureaucratic disagreement (which should have been a civil negotiation like the Clinton Sock Drawer case) into a felony raid.

3. The "Intent" Double Standard (Clinton vs. Trump)
The Rule: The law forbids "gross negligence" (extreme carelessness) with classified info.

The Twist (Clinton): When Hillary Clinton had a private server, the FBI/DOJ unilaterally decided that "gross negligence" wasn't enough; they required proof of "malicious intent," which they claimed she lacked.

The Twist (Trump): When Trump negotiated over boxes, the DOJ aggressively applied the "willful" standard. They argued his failure to return documents immediately proved "criminal intent," effectively prosecuting him for the exact behavior (carelessness/retention) they excused for Clinton.

4. Stripping Executive Privilege (The "Waiver" Trick)
The Rule: Former Presidents historically retain Executive Privilege to protect the confidentiality of their administration's decision-making.

The Twist: The Biden White House took the unprecedented step of waiving Trump's privilege on his behalf.

The Result: This allowed the DOJ to force Trump's own lawyers and former aides to testify against him, piercing the legal shield that has traditionally protected the office of the Presidency.

5. Weaponizing Bureaucracy (The "Proper Channels" Trap)
The Rule: The President has plenary (absolute) authority to declassify information. This power flows from the Constitution, not a rulebook.

The Twist: The DOJ argued that because Trump didn't fill out the specific bureaucratic forms or notify the right agencies, his declassification didn't count.

The Result: They tried to criminalize the lack of paperwork, effectively arguing that a bureaucratic regulation overrides the President's constitutional authority.

6. The "Materiality" Shield (The Sussmann Precedent)
The Rule: Lying to the FBI is a crime.

The Twist: In D.C. courts (like in the Sussmann case), the system allows "weasel words" like "materiality" to excuse insiders. (i.e., "He lied, but it didn't materially change the investigation, so he is innocent.")

The Result: Trump was held to the absolute letter of the law on procedural grounds, while D.C. insiders were allowed to use "functional" arguments to escape consequences.

[kalm]

Here’s a few:
- Jonathan Turley
- Leah Litman
- Matthew Seligman
- Vikram D. Amar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now you are making stuff up.

No, Jonathan Turley did not disagree with Judge Cannon. In fact, he was one of the few prominent legal scholars who publicly defended her ruling as legally sound and "seismic."

While many in the legal establishment attacked Cannon’s decision as rogue or incompetent, Turley praised it. Here is the breakdown of his reaction and why he supported her dismissal of the case.

From AI. Cannon was correct to dismiss the case. It was an abomination. Don't forget to throw in how the DOJ sat on this for 18 months and didn't do anything as Trump and his lawyers were working with NARA, in addition to the DOJ visiting and only recommending a bigger lock. And last but not least, don't forget Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissing Bill Clinton's sock drawer tapes as POTUS cannot be questioned and set the precedent.

Here is the summary of our discussion, highlighting the specific ways the Biden DOJ and the D.C. legal establishment were accused of "twisting" rules, shifting standards, and weaponizing procedures to target Donald Trump in the classified documents case.

1. The Appointment "Workaround" (The Constitutional Twist)
The Rule: The Appointments Clause requires "Principal Officers" (powerful prosecutors) to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The Twist: To bypass the Senate confirmation process (which Jack Smith likely would not have passed), Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as an "independent" Special Counsel but legally classified him as an "inferior officer" (a subordinate).

The Result: Judge Cannon threw out the case because Smith wielded the power of a Principal Officer without the constitutional authority to do so. She ruled the DOJ cannot just "hire" a shadow Attorney General using generic staffing statutes.

2. Criminalizing a Civil Dispute (The PRA Bait-and-Switch)
The Rule: The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is a civil statute with no criminal penalties. It creates a process for NARA and the President to negotiate custody of records.

The Twist: Since they couldn't charge Trump under the PRA, the DOJ effectively ignored it. They charged him under the Espionage Act (a 1917 law meant for spies) and Obstruction.

The Result: This maneuver turned a standard bureaucratic disagreement (which should have been a civil negotiation like the Clinton Sock Drawer case) into a felony raid.

3. The "Intent" Double Standard (Clinton vs. Trump)
The Rule: The law forbids "gross negligence" (extreme carelessness) with classified info.

The Twist (Clinton): When Hillary Clinton had a private server, the FBI/DOJ unilaterally decided that "gross negligence" wasn't enough; they required proof of "malicious intent," which they claimed she lacked.

The Twist (Trump): When Trump negotiated over boxes, the DOJ aggressively applied the "willful" standard. They argued his failure to return documents immediately proved "criminal intent," effectively prosecuting him for the exact behavior (carelessness/retention) they excused for Clinton.

4. Stripping Executive Privilege (The "Waiver" Trick)
The Rule: Former Presidents historically retain Executive Privilege to protect the confidentiality of their administration's decision-making.

The Twist: The Biden White House took the unprecedented step of waiving Trump's privilege on his behalf.

The Result: This allowed the DOJ to force Trump's own lawyers and former aides to testify against him, piercing the legal shield that has traditionally protected the office of the Presidency.

5. Weaponizing Bureaucracy (The "Proper Channels" Trap)
The Rule: The President has plenary (absolute) authority to declassify information. This power flows from the Constitution, not a rulebook.

The Twist: The DOJ argued that because Trump didn't fill out the specific bureaucratic forms or notify the right agencies, his declassification didn't count.

The Result: They tried to criminalize the lack of paperwork, effectively arguing that a bureaucratic regulation overrides the President's constitutional authority.

6. The "Materiality" Shield (The Sussmann Precedent)
The Rule: Lying to the FBI is a crime.

The Twist: In D.C. courts (like in the Sussmann case), the system allows "weasel words" like "materiality" to excuse insiders. (i.e., "He lied, but it didn't materially change the investigation, so he is innocent.")

The Result: Trump was held to the absolute letter of the law on procedural grounds, while D.C. insiders were allowed to use "functional" arguments to escape consequences.

What prompt did you use?

[kalm]

Now you are making stuff up.



From AI. Cannon was correct to dismiss the case. It was an abomination. Don't forget to throw in how the DOJ sat on this for 18 months and didn't do anything as Trump and his lawyers were working with NARA, in addition to the DOJ visiting and only recommending a bigger lock. And last but not least, don't forget Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissing Bill Clinton's sock drawer tapes as POTUS cannot be questioned and set the precedent.

What was the prompt you used?

[UNI88]

Here’s a few:
- Jonathan Turley
- Leah Litman
- Matthew Seligman
- Vikram D. Amar

Now you are making stuff up.

No, Jonathan Turley did not disagree with Judge Cannon. In fact, he was one of the few prominent legal scholars who publicly defended her ruling as legally sound and "seismic."

While many in the legal establishment attacked Cannon’s decision as rogue or incompetent, Turley praised it. Here is the breakdown of his reaction and why he supported her dismissal of the case.

From AI. Cannon was correct to dismiss the case. It was an abomination. Don't forget to throw in how the DOJ sat on this for 18 months and didn't do anything as Trump and his lawyers were working with NARA, in addition to the DOJ visiting and only recommending a bigger lock. And last but not least, don't forget Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissing Bill Clinton's sock drawer tapes as POTUS cannot be questioned and set the precedent.

Sorry, that was a quick ChatGPT search on my phone.

So we'll go with:
- Leah Litman
- Matthew Seligman
- Vikram D. Amar
- Laurence Tribe
- Carl Tobias
- Orin Kerr
- Steve Vladeck
- Mark Rozell

The point is that there are plenty of legal experts/scholars who disagreed with cannon's decision. It wasn't an open and shut case that was certain to survive on appeal.

[SeattleGriz]

Now you are making stuff up.



From AI. Cannon was correct to dismiss the case. It was an abomination. Don't forget to throw in how the DOJ sat on this for 18 months and didn't do anything as Trump and his lawyers were working with NARA, in addition to the DOJ visiting and only recommending a bigger lock. And last but not least, don't forget Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissing Bill Clinton's sock drawer tapes as POTUS cannot be questioned and set the precedent.

What prompt did you use?

Prompts. It gives you a better result to ask one basic question and then drill down, instead of trying to ask one big ugly question.

I essentially asked it about the discrepancies in how Trump was treated versus other DOJ involvement, that's why it threw out examples of Hillary and Sussman.

Those listed in your quote are specific issues it didn't include in its long answer.

[SeattleGriz]

Now you are making stuff up.



From AI. Cannon was correct to dismiss the case. It was an abomination. Don't forget to throw in how the DOJ sat on this for 18 months and didn't do anything as Trump and his lawyers were working with NARA, in addition to the DOJ visiting and only recommending a bigger lock. And last but not least, don't forget Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissing Bill Clinton's sock drawer tapes as POTUS cannot be questioned and set the precedent.

Sorry, that was a quick ChatGPT search on my phone.

So we'll go with:
- Leah Litman
- Matthew Seligman
- Vikram D. Amar
- Laurence Tribe
- Carl Tobias
- Orin Kerr
- Steve Vladeck
- Mark Rozell

The point is that there are plenty of legal experts/scholars who disagreed with cannon's decision. It wasn't an open and shut case that was certain to survive on appeal.

Those names look very similar to the political commentary "legal experts" that said Judge Dugans case will never go to trial. She was recently convicted of felony obstruction and that was in a district that voted 65% for Biden.

[UNI88]

Sorry, that was a quick ChatGPT search on my phone.

So we'll go with:
- Leah Litman
- Matthew Seligman
- Vikram D. Amar
- Laurence Tribe
- Carl Tobias
- Orin Kerr
- Steve Vladeck
- Mark Rozell

The point is that there are plenty of legal experts/scholars who disagreed with cannon's decision. It wasn't an open and shut case that was certain to survive on appeal.

Those names look very similar to the political commentary "legal experts" that said Judge Dugans case will never go to trial. She was recently convicted of felony obstruction and that was in a district that voted 65% for Biden.

Sure Sparky.

The point that there are plenty of legal experts/scholars who disagreed with cannon's decision stands. It wasn't an open and shut case that was certain to survive on appeal.

[SeattleGriz]

Those names look very similar to the political commentary "legal experts" that said Judge Dugans case will never go to trial. She was recently convicted of felony obstruction and that was in a district that voted 65% for Biden.

Sure Sparky.

The point that there are plenty of legal experts/scholars who disagreed with cannon's decision stands. It wasn't an open and shut case that was certain to survive on appeal.

Yes, look at how many of the get Trump trials have gone down in flames.

Tribe has been as wrong on his opinions as many times as Krugman in economics.

You got played again.