Robert Barnes on the Trump indictment
I don’t agree with Barnes on a host of things such as foreign policy or the JFK assassination, but I have long found him to be very sharp on legal matters – after all, that’s his area of expertise. I think he’s spot on here.
I’m also at least slightly encouraged by his analysis of Trump’s chances of acquittal in the Florida court. Initially I thought this case would be tried in DC, and that meant the prosecutors could phone it in and Trump would be found guilty. In Florida, it’s somewhat less so. But I’m not as sanguine about Trump’s chances of acquittal even in Florida. I’ve seen too many miscarriages of justice in recent years. And the pressure will be enormous from the left, including pressure on the judge (even now there’s a cry that she should recuse herself; see this).
Most of the writers on the issue of the Trump indictment and future trial ignore a great many of the points Barnes is making here:
No-one should be sanguine, and the pressure will indeed be enormous. Jack Smith is a truly sinister character (doing the bidding of the odious Garland), and the likelihood of further indictments is very high (in Georgia and in the District of Corruption, no doubt with multiple charges and multiple counts). Our once-vaunted legal system has been utterly subverted into a system of (in)justice, while our elections are now so corrupt and the donkeys so intent upon winning “by any means necessary” that it hardly matters who will be representing opposition to the left, which is now fully totalitarian and utterly evil.
If Trump is acquitted in Florida, the left and MSM will attribute it to the Trump appointed judge.
If found guilty, they will holler “We told you so!”
Judge Cannon will be doxxed, and she will have protesters outside her home, you can take that to the bank. If that doesn’t get her to step aside, what’s next? Do the protests become riots, with Molotov cocktails being tossed?
She needs to say up front “If somebody doxes me, or threatens me or my family, they’re going to have 10-15 years to think it over and deeply regret it!”
I like what Barnes says about the “deep state” wanting control over its secrets. Nothing more readily destroys the notion of a Republic – of a government being of and for the people – than the existence of government secrets controlled by unelected bureaucrats.
Sagacious Conrad Black:
https://www.steynonline.com/13554/the-disintegration-of-the-free-world
On the other hand, if again, Trump didnt create his own real and significant problems for the media to happily occupy the airtime with, we could be discussing Joe and Hunter’s corruption. But no…
like the way they covered the twitter files, oh wait, they buried that in the mariannas trench,
they covered up an act of high treason and bribery, for three years, from the party we have lavished 150 billion dollars on,
My latest post, ‘Cricket Morality’, is relevant to the topic of selective prosecution:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/69592.html
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution says this and ONLY this: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How does Barnes assert that this puts all executive power in the hands of the President, and only the President? What am I missing?
I think he meant article 2, article 1 referred to Congress, more to the point is the presidential records act, which was missing in the whole ham sandwich on pumpernickel
miguel you are right. I went back and listened again, it is ARTICLE 2, not the 2nd Amendment. Thank you.
Excellent. I learned a lot.
Barnes’ sweeping confidence in their malfeasance means only that other jurisdictions will have to step up and prosecute him.
But is the DOJ creating more and more people who are just unmoved by their predictable charades? Are people more and more like me?— increasingly cynical and listening less and less to to their illegitimate prostitution of the law?
The year ahead to next years conventions will be long, almost 14 months. That’s a lotta circus time.
All this time, we’ve been told, without it actually being said because if it were said, nobody would believe it, that some GS11 in something vaguely related to intel or law enforcement or defense can “classify” something and there’s nothing the Chief Executive can do about it.
That’s the implication of the narrative. I mean, Trump can’t do anything about it. Dems…sure. But, subliminally we’re supposed to believe it as if it were actually true.
Said GS11 works at the direction of the President, does what it is presumed thePresident wants done, and if the President wants it undone, it’s undone.
its a variation of oprah’s stunt ‘you get an indictment, you get an indictment, et al,
well there are about a million people with declassifying authority, and that was at the time of arkins publication (how he was never prosecuted is sort of a mystery, a decade ago)
Richard Aubrey:
Every low level official who classifies a document does so with delegated authority. The President has ultimate authority, he delegates it to his cabinet secretaries, and they in turn delegate to their subordinates. It all goes back to the President. Barnes’ assertion that Trump retains that authority after Biden’s inauguration is something I would like to see confirmed by a more recognized Constitutional authority.
“Judge Cannon will be doxxed, and she will have protesters outside her home, you can take that to the bank. If that doesn’t get her to step aside, what’s next? Do the protests become riots, with Molotov cocktails being tossed?”
She is Cuban, her community will protect her.
My favorite part was his condemning the cowardice of Trumps lawyers who folded so quickly and violated lawyer -client privilege.
I remember Mary Richards going to jail instead of giving up a source.
they put jeff clark in jail for reasons, we don’t even recall, same with peter navarro, with the approval of local magistrates,
F.
If Trump claims he declassified the docs prior to the inauguration, can he pack them up the next day? For that matter, do we know when they were taken to M a L?
the gsa packed the boxes, he didn’t have anything to do with them at the site, there are so many travestys of mockery of a sham here* like the ica that relied on danchenko’s beer gossip,
*from classic woody allen,
Excellent commentary by Barnes. I wish that President Trump had someone of his caliber working for him.
@ David Foster > thanks for linking your post, ‘Cricket Morality’ — I confess that I thought first of Jiminy the animated insect, rather than the English game.
As Jonathan commented there: [Insert famous quote from A Man for All Seasons.]
Your prior post, “Harvard–A View From 1835,” also seems pertinent to me, as we are experiencing the current social, economic, and political debacle largely for the reasons elucidated therein (I am channeling Harvard rhetoric of the past).
It’s impossible not to see the relevance of this comment from Xennady:
Of course, the imposition of their various idiocies began some time ago, certainly with Wilson, possibly earlier.
And it’s not limited to Presidents: consider the modern era’s astounding lack of educational diversity among the justices of the Supreme Court. Even purported conservatives are tainted by their alma mater’s environment (some more than others, of course).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices
“Cricket morality.”
Fairness?
Um, don’t think the word “fair” exists in the Democratic Party lexicon.
Well, unless by “fairness” one means whatever is good, or useful, for the Democratic Party, AND whatever hurts, kneecaps or destroys the Democratic Party’s political opponents—and/or anything that might pose a danger to the Democrats.
The Democratic Party has hijacked the nation.
Fairness?
“Biden” lies all the time and “his” lies are supported by the corrupt media, which also suppresses and/or misrepresents (by whitewashing) anything that might prove detrimental to the Democratic Party.
Fairness?
“Biden” insists that trans-women MUST be able to compete in sports—as women.
Fairness?
That parents are potential terrorists for caring about the education of their children; That parents are potential terrorists for caring about the welfare of their children;
that children MUST be allowed to transition (and hence cause themselves tremendous harm); that children MUST be taken away from their families if their parents resist this madness.
Fairness?
“Biden” has weaponized the DOJ, FBI, IRS, CIA, etc. and believes that INTIMIDATION and ENTRAPMENT OF “his” political opponents is entirely “within the law”.
Fairness?
Well, YES actually—if one relies on the definition of “Fairness” above.
What are we even talking about here? Since all this is obvious.
+ Bonus:
“Is this why Tara Reade fled to Russia? UPDATED”—
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/06/12/is-this-why-tara-reade-fled-to-russia-n557339
H/T Instapundit.
Related to “fairness”!
“How The Left Learned To Love The Espionage Act”—
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2023/06/12/how-the-left-learned-to-love-the-espionage-act/
To be sure, once realizes—fully comprehends—that EVERYTHING the Democrats charge Trump with is the fruit of their own projection (i.e., as it relates to their own criminality and totalitarian goals), things become much easier to understand—well, except for so-called liberals who have been entirely seduced/sucked into the rot.
IOW, as THE political party of DESTRUCTION (and therefore, PARANOIA) they MUST NEED to assume that Trump is out to destroy them.
Ergo, they MUST destroy him first.
AKA the Totalitarian (gussied up as TRANSFORMATIONALIST) mindset.
…keeping in mind that the Democrats are the Party of RESISTANCE(!!!)…
(Resistance to what? You ask…??)
File under: Orwell is their textbook; Lenin/Stalin their inspiration.
Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » GO READ AND WATCH: Robert Barnes on the Trump indictment.
YEP! It sure looks like “Biden” will have to ABSOLUTELY DESTROY Dreyfus J. Trump!
(But then we already knew that…)
And if “he” also has to destroy the country to do it…well, that was the plan all along (AKA TRANSFORMATION)…but it sure will be convenient to be able to blame Trump for that too!! I tell ya’…Thank the powers that be for DJT!!
“Trump Vows ’25 Retaliation After Biden Broke ‘Seal’ ”
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-2024-presidential/2023/06/12/id/1123296/
…Hey, looking at it from another angel(!), it’s how one transforms absolute corruption to absolute purity! Cf.:
“Hillary Clinton…tweet hawking ‘But Her Emails’ gear in response to Trump indictment”
https://nypost.com/2023/06/09/hillary-clinton-ripped-for-tweet-hawking-but-her-emails-gear/
Hold on! Are ye’ sayin’ that “Biden”‘s not the only one who’s corrupt??)
And in case anyone was wondering….
“We’ll Save You the Time: The Trump Records Indictment Is Banana Republic BS, Too”—
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2023/06/12/well-save-you-the-time-the-trump-records-indictment-is-banana-republic-bs-too-n1702454
H/T Instapundit.
Not that anyone should take PJ Media’s word for it, of course…
(OTOH, WHO are the alternatives…)
– – – – – – – – – –
As long as we’re glancing through Instapundit, here’s some interesting dope on that unsavory (and in equal measure, abysmally dishonest) mega-creep, Dr. VAX, himself: Peter Hotez…
https://instapundit.com/589335/
Richard Aubrey:
You wrote: “If Trump claims he declassified the docs prior to the inauguration, can he pack them up the next day? For that matter, do we know when they were taken to M a L?”
Declassification that I have seen involves actually involves a notation on the document that it was “declassified by ___ on (date).” I see no reason Trump could not have done that with a pen. That document is considered declassified when the notation is complete. There is no waiting period or further action required.
I think it is fair to assume the documents were packed by government employees (GSA?) when he departed the White House — i.e., some time between Jan 1 and Jan 20, 2021.
My question is whether or not Trump has the authority to access and declassify documents after Biden was sworn in. I believe previous presidents were granted that authority as a courtesy without anyone seriously questioning it. In Trump’s case, though, Democrat lawyers will use any pretext whatsoever to attack him. I believe this is referred to as “lawfare.”
pineapple republic, (tomato tomatoe)
neo – This guy is John Eastman 2.0. Intelligence assessments generated by executive agencies and battle/defense plans generated by the military are not Trump’s presidential records. The Presidential Records Act did not amount to a stealth amendment to the Espionage Act. (Frankly, that’s the kind of argument that leftists make when the law that has actually be enacted doesn’t meet with their approval.)
It sure looks to me as though Trump violated the letter of the law. It sure looks to me as though he did “jerk around” the DOJ for 18 months, lied to the DOJ, tried to get his lawyers to destroy evidence, and then hid evidence from his lawyers to trick them into making false statements to the DOJ.
The founders demonstrated that there actually is a time to flaunt an oppressive government and its laws, but the founders understood exactly what that entailed . . . lives, fortunes, sacred honor, and such. Trump is a dilitante. He wants all the glory and power of transgression with none of the cost. He is very much the mirror image of the modern left in that regard.
If the government was so oppresive that it justified Trump keeping documents that he had no legal right to keep, lying to the DOJ, hiding evidence from the DOJ, and the like – then Trump should say that, and understand exactly what it means.
But that’s not what he’s doing. He argument is that he should get away with it because Hillary did and Biden is. He’s not wrong on the facts, but nothing about this episode makes America great again. He’s just trying to make himself another demonstration that, in 21st Century America, the powerful can break laws with impunity. He’s just made himself the next chapter in current American decline.
neo – This guy is John Eastman 2.0. Intelligence assessments generated by executive agencies and battle/defense plans generated by the military are not Trump’s presidential records.
==
Trump had plenary discretion to declassify anything he cared to.
they went after eastman too, for offering advice about alternate (legitimate) certifications
what part of they are not after me, I’m just in the way,’ did you miss,
https://www.frontpagemag.com/did-the-10m-bribes-to-the-bidens-really-come-from-russia/
The Manhattan Contrarian agrees with Mr. Barnes’ legal analysis.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-6-10-thoughts-on-the-federal-trump-indictment-its-shockingly-weak
It’s entirely possible that “Biden” also agrees with “Manhattan Contrarian”.
Since we all know—well, some of us—that all this masterful malarkey(TM) is just another massive “Biden” effort to get Trump out the way, tie him up in bands of kryptonite, stick garlic chewing gum on the soles of his winged brogues.
(Pssst. It’s called “LAWFARE”. Some of us may have heard the term before…. The Democrats seem to be experts at it; either that or they’ve confused LAWFARE with “THE LAW”. Honest mistake, no doubt …)
I don’t think this case ever makes it to trial but if it does I don’t think a conviction is at all likely. In a case that is going to be decided purely on political lines I’m pretty sure that there will be at least a couple of Trump supporters who will not vote to convict no matter what. Florida isn’t DC, New York or Minneapolis and Trump isn’t Derek Chauvin.
The notion that Trump is responsible for his legal problems may be the most outrageous take I’ve ever seen. This is worse than crazy.
Trump was targeted in early 2016 by the deep state and has been abused relentlessly since.
As Obama henchman David Plouffe tweeted in June, 2016:
“It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.”
I despair for my country that supposedly intelligent people can observe the last seven years and think that Trump somehow deserves the thousands of truckloads of S**T that have been illegally and corruptly dumped on him by Big Brother. If someone can’t figure out something so basic and so well-documented, they are clearly too stupid to tie their own shoes.
Sean Collins of Spiked has this to say about Donald Trump (which I heartily concur).
“As I’ve argued before on spiked, the ‘respectable’ authoritarianism of the Biden administration has been much more effective and dangerous than the amateur authoritarian moves made by Trump when he occupied the White House. The Department of Justice, the FBI and other state agencies are now far too politicised. But that doesn’t mean Trump is worth defending. Even if he’s not found criminally guilty over the classified documents, he has certainly been reckless and proven himself unfit to be president. Clearly, Trump is no match for Biden’s authoritarianism – indeed, his self-destructive habits makes him an easy target for his political enemies.
Populist politics in the US needs to grow up and move on from Trump. Those who remain anchored to Trump will only sink with him.”
“…Trump isn’t Derek Chauvin…”
Well put.
Except that for the perverse, pathetic, prize, paranoid prix who have hijacked the country he’s WORSE.
And has been, and will be, treated accordingly.
(As will any other potential GOP candidate. I mean, how difficult should it be to stage massive, full-blown race riots in the “KKK” State of Florida?????)
My question is whether or not Trump has the authority to access and declassify documents after Biden was sworn in.
Barnes’s point seems to be that simply by taking them out of the WH prior to noon on 1/20/2021 they were de facto and de jure declassified, his property, to do with as he wishes.* The precedent (not that any is needed) is the Clinton “sock drawer” case.
*Within reason. I presume he can’t subsequently ship them to Kim Jong-Un, but he’s not accused of that.
“…amateur authoritarian moves made by Trump….”
Um, could you remind me, in me’ dotage, just what THOSE might have been.
(This LOOOONG COVID business has been affecting my memory. My sanity, too, though that should be pretty obvious…but one has got to soldier on…)
Thanks in advance!
the lockdowns who were imposed everywhere but sweden, yes you get a dollar other than that, facts without evidence,
The Clinton case Barnes kept referencing came out in favor of BJ because the court ruled that if the President does (or orders to be done) something that you may not do with a classified document, the President implicitly declassifies that document. So President Clinton stuffing tapes full of sensitive information in a sock drawer outside a controlled area implicitly declassified those tapes.
By the same token, President Trump moving documents to Mar-a-Lago, someplace classified documents aren’t allowed to go, implicitly declassifies them. As President, he literally cannot mishandle classified information, at least in a legal sense. To have a case, those documents would have to date from after Biden’s inauguration.
(To be clear: the President can’t declassify anything after his term is up, but he doesn’t have to explicitly tell anyone about the declassification he does, either. The “Yes, I totally declassified that back when I was President, yup, really!” defense is a valid one.)
Unless (or until) current case law is overturned.
miguel cervantes – “what part of they are not after me, I’m just in the way,’ did you miss,”
I didn’t miss any of it. It’s a lie. Every word of it. They are absolutely after Trump because they hate him. They’re after us too, but Trump is not “in the way” at all. Trump is facilitating them by throwing elections and allowing them to remain in power.
stan – Have you considered the possibility that (i) Trump is being persecuted by the government and his political opponents; AND (ii) his behavior makes their job a whole heck of a lot easier.
It’s really not that difficult to understand.
Bauxite,
Stop. Just stop. Read ham sandwich nation. Read Three Felonies a Day. It doesn’t require that you go to law school to get a clue.
Then you’ll understand just how extraordinarily CLEAN Trump is. Repeat – how extraordinarily CLEAN Trump’s life must be.
Once you have mastered a basic understanding of reality, we’ll talk again. It’s really not that hard to understand. Try harder.
Is Trump perfect? Of course not. Just name someone else in the history of national politics who is cleaner (other than George Washington).
The only analysis I have seen of what kinds of things can be considered personal presidential records under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) is Andy McCarthy here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/frivolous-trump-argument-no-1-classified-intelligence-reports-compiled-by-government-agencies-are-personal-records-under-the-presidential-records-act/
The Bill Clinton sock drawer thing was about tapes of an interview that he (Bill Clinton) gave to a reporter/author while he was president. Trump is alleged to have kept, showed to others, and refused to return intelligence assessments generated by intelligence agencies, battle/defense plans generated by the military, and other similar documents. It’s not hard to distinguish Clinton’s interview tapes from the types of things that Trump kept. The question is whether the distinction is relevant under the statute.
In other words, just because Bill Clinton’s sock drawer interview tapes were considered presidential records under the PRA does not necessarily mean that the Trump documents are too.
Can anyone point to analysis reaching a different conclusion than McCarthy? Manhattan Contrarian begs the question and just assumes that the Trump documents are covered by the PRA. I didn’t see Barnes address this either, although, admittedly, I did not watch all 50 minutes of the video.
stan – The man’s soley owned business was convicted of several felonies and is under investigation for civil violations. He’s under indictment over an arrangement that saw him pay six figures to porn star as part of a non-disclosure agreement. Now he’s indicted again for hoarding government records, refusing to return them, and lying about whether he returned all of them.
For someone who’s so “CLEAN,” they’ve certainly found a lot of skeletons to go after.
@Bauxite:under investigation… under indictment
Guilty until proven innocent in Bauxite’s world. Government’s version of the story is good enough for him…
Bauxite:
If they label non-criminal acts as criminal, there are lots of things to go after.
Plus, Three Felonies a Day. Just be glad you’re not targeted by the feds; they would find plenty of skeletons for you or for anyone.
Re Stormy Daniels, a lifelong celebrity such as Trump often pays money to get get someone to go away, and that’s not illegal.
@Harry Mallory: “If . . . Trump didnt create his own real and significant problems for the media to happily occupy the airtime with, we could be discussing Joe and Hunter’s corruption. But no…”
We can discuss Joe’s and Hunter’s corruption anytime. Are you suggesting that Trump’s creation of his own problems is what prevents the media from discussing the Bidens’ corruption?
@Harry Mallory:If . . . Trump didn’t create his own real and significant problems for the media to happily occupy the airtime with…
Remember Vice President Quayle? Remember how the media talked about nothing but “potatoe” for weeks? Mitt Romney’s dog cruelty and forcible haircutting of gays? Sarah Palin’s anything?
As long as the mainstream media gets to select the narrative they can always find anything to talk about instead of what threatens Biden, and they will. They will inflate nothing into something. If all else fails, they can find a dumb Republican state legislator or county commissioner, quote them out of context or speaking off the cuff, and demand that all Republicans disavow that remark, and keep THAT going for weeks. They’ve done it before.
The legacy media are ignoring Biden corruption because he’s their guy and they don’t want to report it. The Trump situation has nothing to do with that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12191425/Trump-heads-famous-Cuban-restaurant-Versailles-Miami-court.html
neo – Doesn’t the issue of whether the documents are covered by the Presidential Records Act go to whether non-criminal acts are being labeled as criminal acts?
If the PRA doesn’t give Trump a right to possess and share the documents, then possessing and sharing them was a criminal act, no?
Now Bragg is another matter. (Although I’m not as enamored of the “celebrites pay hush money to porn stars all the time” argument as you are.)
https://twitter.com/alx/status/1668724538752880641
bauxite.
There’s precedent: Hillary, Bill, and Joe, for starters. What they did was worse than the accusations against Trump and everything was okay. Thus…whatever this is is okay.
Richard Aubrey – That’s not how it works. The statute is what it is. If you do the thing that the statue forbids and have the level of intent that the statute calls out, then you’ve committed a crime, whether the prosecutor chooses to charge you or not.
Assume that the prosecutor has failed to charge other people who committed the same crime, but then he decides to charge you anyway. That’s bad form and potentially abusive, but it’s not going to be a defense if you’ve actually committed the crime. “Your honor, I may be guilty as sin, but the prosecutor shouldn’t have charged me because he didn’t charge this other guy for doing the same thing!” That argument doesn’t get you very far.
This whole thing is just typical of what you get with Trump though. It is very clear that Democratic administrations have abused their power by failing to charge Democrats with mishandling of classified information crimes. So what does Trump do? He goes out and commits a classified information crime! I suppose he’s provided a (minor) service by so vividly demonstrating the double standard and the corruption of Biden administration. But he very likely committed a crime! Just like Hillary. Just like Biden.
If the prosecutor hates you, about the dumbest thing you can do is go violate the letter of the law and dare him to indict you. That’s basically what Trump has done.
Think Clint Eastwood. “Go ahead. Make my day.” So Trump did.
if it wasn’t a notorious prosecutor, who had failed on two occasions, nearly led to war with his malfeasance who ignored the operative statute, and there is reason to suspect has fabricated evidence now, then maybe I would credit the effort,
add to that the unaccountable crimes of the razorback, zaphod, and scranton crimes and I say no
the peanut gallery
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1668684898733793283?cxt=HHwWhoCx8eCErqguAAAA
Apparently, for some of the more astute and Uber-analytical amongst us, Russia-gate is not a thing…or not so very awful.
(Neither are any of the other atrocities… Apparently…)
Bauxite.
I didn’t say that getting away with something is a defense for the next accused. What I meant is that, unless you have contemporaneous records of your outrage about the Clintons’ similar issues, and Biden’s, you have no credibility here.