Don't forget being a mid-season 2 addition to a crime-drama for a 2-parter serial killer case. The FBI excels at that.
Mar-A-Lago Raid
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
This is something interesting I haven't seen anywhere in the coverage. First off no one, not even the President, has the authority to declassify nuclear documents. Its just not allowed. Those always have to be top secret.
Secondly with the way the Espionage act is worded, everyone at Maralago, from the residents, guests and employees, are on the hook for this. They all could be charged, even if they didn't know there were classified documents on sight.
Last edited:
Don't believe a word that guy says. He was semi-interesting when he was doing goofy legal analysis of fictional court scenes, but he's absolutely useless on any serious issue. He lost my attention pretty much for good with his hot take on the Trump-Ukraine phone call where he basically got every single thing wrong.
I don't believe a word you say, so I'll take everything LegalEagle says as gospel truth.
I can see what he says, and then wait 6 months and find out everything he said would happen is wrong. To roughly quote that video about the Ukraine Trump call, "this won't just go away". Sure buddy, good prediction.
Well as with all things regarding law, Devin’s own catch phrase is “It depends”. And bear in mind that just because something has dropped off the public radar does not mean the matter is forgotten or abandoned where it counts. Lots of law is laborious and tedious. So in six months there will be a clearer picture because other experts will have been dissecting it. Decidedly not shocked.
You might have noticed Trump was impeached over that. And then something else somewhat significant happened regarding Ukraine which dramatically affected the foreign relations landscape between Ukraine and the USA.
Trump was impeached over being Trump, the phone call was entirely irrelevant. The effort to impeach him started two and a half years before the phone call even happened.
You might notice, if you think it through, that Russia began invading Ukraine during the Obama Administration, stopped advancing during the Trump Administration, and then launched into full invasion in the Biden Administration. I won't go so far as to blame Democrats, but implying Trump's phone call instigated Russia invading is both bold and comically anachronistic.
To be fair, Trump openly withheld military spending from Ukraine, unless they helped him beat Biden. That's pretty on the fucking nose helping Russia. But I mean Trump is a Russian asset, its been proven time and again, so its hardly surprising.
I think the key factor of why I enjoy Legal eagle is that he goes over the laws and statutes in detail with numbering so you can go look up stuff for yourself. His opinions are his own, but thats the funny thing about law, "opinion" is its catch phrase, thats WHY we have so many courts and appeals courts. Its all interpretation of the law. I think he makes it very clear he's never sold himself as being some sort of law Nostradamus. I will point out however, he felt strongly throughout the trial it was unlikely Rittenhouse would be found guilty based on the laws being be addressed.
One problem is a lot of what's being discussed currently has no precedent. So much of what trumps been doing challenges the legal systems ability to actually enforce laws. So much of it, even in this situation are laws without a clear penalty. So legal Eagle can show us codes and laws that are technically being broken, but he can't look at a crystal ball and tell us whats going to happen.
Oh, it started earlier with the soliciting of foreign involvement in an election, but the phone call was not "irrelevant" -- it featured heavily in proceedings. And rightfully so. You characterise it as being about "being Trump" as if "being Trump" isn't objectionable precisely because of the constant unethical behaviour.
I wasn't implying that. Trump did not instigate the Russian invasion.
My point was that the context of foreign policy between the US and Ukraine has obviously massively changed, so it's a bit ridiculous to think someone's credibility is tanked if they made a prediction based on the prior context that didn't pan out.
It's funny you still think that's what happened.
That's not what happened. The prosecutor general of Ukraine attempted to proactively offer that information to Trump by means of Giuliani. Trump passed the issue back to Zelensky to look into, while advising against surrounding himself with the same people. Zelensky responded that they'd have a completely new prosecutor general in office to handle it. The two of them, in that phone call, talked about ousting specifically the guy instigating the rumors.
It didn't pan out before the invasion. His take was that it was clearly and obviously a quid pro quo with no other reasonable explanation, and then it wasn't at all.
To be fair to reality, which I know you two are having a tough time right now, it is literally what happened, and it was illegal.
Trump administration broke law in withholding Ukraine aid, watchdog says as Senate prepares for impeachment trial
The Trump administration broke the law by witholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine over the summer "for a policy reason," a top government watchdog said Thursday.
www.cnbc.com
Timeline: How Trump withheld Ukraine aid
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates betrayals of public trust. Sign up to receive our stories. The Trump administration’s 55-day halt this summer of hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance and weapons sales to Ukraine was initially...
publicintegrity.org
I'm talking about Russian interference.
And I know you don't think any of this happened blah-de-blah, but that allegation is factually why impeachment proceedings began earlier than the Ukraine call.
It was, though.
You can't expect us to disregard the credibility of the guy for holding a position that we also hold (as do most of the people who investigated it). As far as I'm concerned, you're just willing to excuse and overlook gross violations of ethics for reasons of political sympathy.
That aid had a specific deadline, the money was released prior to that deadline. Your own sources indicate that to you.
An allegation that originated from where? The Democratic Party. Like, are you talking about the questionable intelligence reports suggesting the Trump could be blackmailed by Russia (paid for by the DNC)? Or are you talking about the time Hillary Clinton kept her files on an unsecured server as Secretary of State, got hacked by Russians, and convinced half of America that only happened because Trump told them to?
I mean, I would hope you would accept your initial assessment was incorrect. I can't fault people in particular for thinking that when all we had were very partial retellings of a phone call, but with all the text messages they released later on, reading into it should make very apparent that Trump was the mark, not the instigator.
To be fair the investigation did prove Trump illegally withheld money to Ukraine in order to pressure Ukraine to open investigations into Trump’s political rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden. Sending the money after being caught illegally withholding it doesn't actually make it legal to withhold it.
It's amazing that you believe something that didn't happen is illegal when it isn't. The degrees you are removed from reality are adding up fast.
Uh no. You being a cultist for Trump doesn't make reality change. It did happen. It was illegal. It was proven. You believing otherwise is kinda irrelevant because reality doesn't care about your beliefs.
Once again: I don't care whether you personally credit the allegations or not. That's irrelevant. You stated that impeachment proceedings started before the Ukraine call, as if that somehow discredits the idea that the Ukraine call was involved at all. I pointed out why proceedings started earlier. It does not matter one jot to that point whether or not you think it's true or not.
I've not heard a single thing that would indicate the assessment is incorrect, because the Ukraine call didn't merely "go away". It went on to have a significant role in later proceedings. Which... entirely vindicates the statement he made.
It's amazing that you can just assume we'd credit your opinion over that of the Government Accountability Office and the House Intelligence Committee.