Very philosophical Ned Stark.

I get it. I am not disagreeing people can make your high minded arguments and believe them but if I can tell a murder 'no there is no cop waiting around that corner to arrest you', to get him, I am not going to dither about how may betrayal of the truth for that higher good, is going to ripple thru the cosmos.

Tell the lie. Capture the murderer. Keep your head and your family alive.

It's not high minded at all

Just don't ignore the very obvious downside risk of your plans when doing your calculations. Your good intentions don't make it a winning plan and it would be plain stupid to only consider the good outcomes

High minded is whole nother topic.

I am not ignoring. I am calling for pragmatic balance and you are quoting philosophy.

I am sure you would agree with my position that lying to the serial killer is ok, to get a pragmatic result in getting him stopped and arrested. If you say you agree with that, then you agree with my point. Your reply then is that you reserve the right though to consider each instance case by case though.

To that I say 'me too'. That is what pragmatists do.

There was no philosophy. It was entirely pragmatic

And yet, as you tend to do, you come in, in a way that seems to be contradictory or countering when in fact you agree with what I said. We may both draw different lines but we both would lie to the serial killer to help the cop catch him. We can argue over the other lines but neither of us can pretend we have a different view on this.

I was accepting your premise with which I have some sympathy.

But if you're going machiavellian then you better do it right. As you say we draw different lines. There's a very significant downside risk in pursueing trump at all but I think that should definitely go ahead. Manipulating the justice system for political reasons (which is the very accusation trump/etc throw) is a very dangerous move and it's not at all clear it's not a bad mistake. At the very least consider that it could backfire rather than assuming it will work as intended. I also discount the upside a fair bit as I think there's a very good chance of the upside happening wirtout any manipulation.

That's all from a machiavellian pragmatic pov. Then I might go more philosophical but I'm not sure that's going to be very productive when the level of discussion is going to be 'but ned stark'

@Rococo, or anyone else who wants to take this on.

Rococo you had prior answered a version of this question for me but let me be more specific.

As you stated prior (my paraphrase) 'if the lawyer certifies a statement on the clients behalf and as instructed, it is as if the client made the statement directly', thus the same legal jeopardy would apply to the client as if they lied on affidavit to Federal officials.

So then....


Is Trump not absolutely nailed on this with his only possible defense being one of 'I never told my lawyer to write that, she took that initiative on her own'? If that is believed then Trump would be off the hook but she would be solidly on it?


A crime was committed here (lying in Affidavit to Federal Officials) and the only questions are if someone will be charged with it (seems like that will happen) and whom that someone might be?


Anyone want to bet that unless the lawyer has contemporaneous, solid notes, or better proof, that Trump tries to deny he instructed her and tries to get her sent to jail so he can avoid it?

Trump threatens ‘big problems’ for US if he’s indicted in stolen documents scandal

Former president Donald Trump on Thursday hinted that his supporters could engage in a protracted campaign of violence if he were to be indicted for any crimes discovered in the myriad criminal investigations into his conduct. Speaking on the conservative broadcaster Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Mr Trump said an indictment would not deter him from running for president because he would have “no prohibition against running”...

Let them do it. Let's get this **** over with

I'd have to see the additional information to know how damning it is for Trump. If Trump claims that he never instructed his lawyer to write X, Y, or Z, it won't be believable. In all likelihood, she sent the proposed response to him and he signed off on it. That's certainly what I would have done if I were Trump's lawyer. And if Trump made a factual representation to me on the phone that I couldn't personally verify, and there was some non-squirrelly reason why Trump wasn't able to confirm in writing, at a minimum I would write a contemporaneous memo to the file that memorialized what he had said.

In general, I have no sympathy for any partner level lawyer who is working for Trump. You know what you are signing up for.

If one was inclined not to like lawyers you could say Trump is doing a service intaking so many out.

Again I am always perplexed at the sway this man has to have so many in Politics and law and across middle america take on very serious risk on his behalf and often crossing in to criminality, and yet seemingly loyal to him to the end, never pointing a finger at him, even as they go down. All without posing the threat of a mob boss, he might in fact be the most successful mob boss of all time.

I think a book on the power of his suasion alone could be written. I truly have seen nothing like it my lifetime. A true Cult leader with some mass appeal, I just don't get, but is clearly there and someone many would gladly accept as King and surrender their rights to.

Will he be written as a complex character by the historians or buffoon in the right place at the right time, at the only point a segment of society would accept him?

My guess is that Trump will be remembered by history as a buffoonish character, but Trumpism will viewed as a complex phenomenon.

I am confident that this judge Aileen Cannon tipped her hand and exposed the Federalist Society, and probably not in case they would have wanted her to.

Abject stupidity and just a fundamental lack of understanding of the law is possible in her rulings re the classified material and special master, all 100% in Trumps favour but that seems not believable mainly because we now know that Trump's legal team was desperate to get one of their other cases in front of her. It seems certain, in the way Trump had absolutely certainty that RvW would fall if he got his SC judge picks that someone had told Trump 'the work was done and they WILL fall in line'.

There is no work for a Special Master to do re the 100 clearly marked classified documents. He is not going to review and say the 'gov't properly classified them', as the gov't does not need to properly classify anything. It is classified by virtue of the executive saying it is. So the Special Master could simply say, 'I have no need to open or look at any of these individually, by virtue of them being marked classified, they are' and hand them over. That she requires him to do so is just a stall tactic.

That and so much more is so painfully dumb, she said the gov't did not demonstrate an imminent threat of classified documents floating out there. when the imminent threat is having classified doc's floating out there. She seems to need them to say 'N.Korea got it and here is proof...' or some such.

So i am convinced the Federalist Society has put in place people they have vetted who they know will throw out the law, in favour of partisan pushed positions with the goal of, over time pushing them to the higher courts and that she has exposed that now. I doubt very much she is the only one they have put in place like that. She had no business to begin with being promoted to being a judge, and i think that is what they look for. People who understand they only got their job because the Federalist Society expects fealty and who only got promoted to the Appellate courts and Supreme Court, above more qualified available applicants because they are expected to do their duty.

I am not saying every judge will comply once they get their job but I am saying they are picked in the belief they will comply and they had to bend the knee before getting pushed up the list for the next job. Trump KNEW his SC justices would do what they did. It was one of the most definitive statements he ever made. Someone told him (McConnell?) if we get our picks RvW will fall and they were certain. Trump just said the quiet part, out loud, in letting us in on it.

I'm inclined to agree. Will suck for the few victims but I suspect trump would be sorely disappointed by the reality and a fairly pathetic show of force masterminded by trump might be the best chance of lancing the boil.

It isn't about Alex Jones as a singular threat. I am not afraid of a hornet either. But i would be pretty alarmed if I were trapped in a closet with 2000 angry hornets.

Alex Jones promotes and appeals to a conspiratorial mindset that is deepless corrosive. Maybe the proliferation of conspiratorial thinking and the increasing disregatd for objective truth doesn't alarm you. But it should.

An ineffective attempt at violence by Trump supporters might amplify public opposition to Trumpism.

But anyone who thinks that Trump or his hard core supporters would learn some sort of lesson about the limitations of threatening or attempting violence is delusional imo.

I agree to a large extent bu its besides the point.

It could help defeat them not teach them

I am not so sure about that last sentence.

I think if there was a second call for another Jan6th type Insurrection event and to invade the Capital or any such gov't building again, most of the average working class Trumpderp folks (the realtors, police, etc) would not heed the call to travel across the country and then to invade the Capital. They might think Trump is right but having seen what happened to others who felt that being 'white and mC would protect them' did not end up protecting them.

So I think people, even if they feel it is wrong and unjust, can learn to avoid risk especially as they see Trump will remain free as they go to jail.

that said, what i do think is Trump is boiling the crowd down to an ever hardened and more violent smaller group. He is seeking to maximally radicalize the most persuadable, in the worst ways.

I feel that America, post a Trump arrest and conviction, should it happen, would be at real risk of a number of attacks on FBI offices, gov't offices etc, and another Timothy McVeigh type event.

This is fair. Trump wouldn't learn any lessons, but it's possible that some of the idiots with jobs would refrain from participating the next time. And as you say, the ones who didn't get boiled out would be worse than the median Capital rioter.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...suit-rcna48725

Sounds good. Appreciate your take, Rococo

'Deutche bank have been cooperating'. it's like music

for any who want to understand what the declassification process entails.



I would not think this is inclusive, meaning I am sure there can be other levels and procedures needed depending on what department and other factors are at play but this is generally good to understand the process and why in the 3 cases I cited prior, Trumps prior statements he had declassified stuff, failed in court and the doc's remained classified anyway.

Question to Rococo or anyone who might know...

How does this filing playing its way thru the courts impact what DOJ or Georgia might file?

This case could be adjudicated across a year or more, with various delays, and Trump can only, arguably be in one place at a time, so typically would DOJ and Georgia delay filing any actions as this works it way thru or could we see DOJ, Georgia and this all playing out concurrently?

This is a civil case. It is not at all unusual for a defendant to be defending multiple civil suits at the same time. If people delay in filing other civil claims, it would be solely for strategic reasons.

If Trump is indicted criminally, the civil suits will be stayed until the criminal proceeding is completed.

There is no way that the case between the NY AG and Trump would get to trial within a year. 3-4 years is a better estimate. If the case is resolved within a year, then there was some sort of settlement or Trump won on an early dispositive motion. (I assume the latter is extremely unlikely.)