FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024

[running_coach]

@Lightnin

@Aspenglow

Richard Nixon won his election in 1972 by a landslide, taking 60.7% of the popular vote. Richard Nixon left office a year and a half later in disgrace over Watergate, on August 8, 1974.

Republicans seem to have a real problem with electing criminals to the Presidency. -

How is it a problem? They seem really good at it.

[kayaker]

@Aspenglow

Richard Nixon won his election in 1972 by a landslide, taking 60.7% of the popular vote. Richard Nixon left office a year and a half later in disgrace over Watergate, on August 8, 1974.

Does anyone today argue that Nixon did nothing wrong?

[steronz]

AIUI the act has been used most recently for high profile cases like Snowden and Manning. Snowden’s support seemed to cross party lines, while Manning’s was almost entirely within Democratic party. But in neither case do I recall anyone challenging the Espionage Act itself; rather, the specific use of it.

Maybe things were different back in the Vietnam days? It was used in the case of the Pentagon Papers, but I wasn’t alive so I don’t know how partisan that issue was or if anyone was calling for its repeal. And prior to that it seems to have been a mixed back of misuse, but frequently against socialists and communists who probably didn’t have the support of either party.

[Temporary_Name]

@kaylasdad99

As long as you’re being so ambitious, do you think you could swing me a pony?

I have a white pony and two brown ponies, which would you like?
Of course you will have to feed and groom it yourself and muck out the stall.

It seems you think my timeline is a bit too ideal, perhaps you missed that the whole point of the post was to ask what is the most ideal way Trump and his allies can hand the mid-terms to Democrats. Do you have a more ideal timeline? Or a more realistic one? Or anything at all to say about any Republican or Republican lawyer being charged before the general election in November? Absent that, do you have any comment about those same people NOT being charged, but somehow moving votes to Democrats through news about the various criminal charges they face?

Now (and I mean ‘just recently’) Biden and his trusty sidekicks have plenty of good news of their own to run on separately from Republicans shooting themselves in the foot. But still it would be so very nice of them, a grand gesture, if they would go ahead and shoot themselves in the foot anyway.

So, besides making those of us who are left leaning feel warm and fuzzy inside - does anyone believe this criminal investigation (and/or any of the others in progress) will directly effect the mid-terms??

[wolfpup]

@Lightnin

Republicans seem to have a real problem with electing criminals to the Presidency.

Republicans seem to have a propensity for electing criminals, period. Most Republicans in Congress and state houses all over are, at the very least, unprincipled weasels. There’s a good reason that Trump – who has no political ideology at all – chose the Republican Party as his path to power and grift, and a good reason that they not only tolerate his criminality but admire and defend it.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@steronz

But in neither case do I recall anyone challenging the Espionage Act itself; rather, the specific use of it.

I guess the important point being made by Lightnin here is “both sides bad - no citation needed”

[Miller]

@kayaker

Does anyone today argue that Nixon did nothing wrong?

I believe Roger Stone remains a fan.

[Kron]

I think you mean PhillyGuy as the one that brought up how “progressives have long criticized” the Espionage Act.

[Atamasama]

@wolfpup

There’s a good reason that Trump – who has no political ideology at all – chose the Republican Party as his path to power and grift, and a good reason that they not only tolerate his criminality but admire and defend it.

Exactly. Trump is not a conservative. I’m sure he really doesn’t care about guns or abortions, he isn’t religious, and honestly he is a big government proponent (as long as it benefits him). He has abused eminent domain in the past. For all his talk about protecting the borders and keeping out undocumented people, he has had no problem employing them himself. He’s neither a conservative nor a liberal, he’s a Trumpist. Whatever policy or philosophy gives Trump what he wants, that’s what he believes in.

But he found himself spouting many talking points and advocating principles that conservatives hold dear, because he wanted their support. He might have run as a Democrat, advocating climate change policies and protecting the rights of minorities if he thought he could get away with the same garbage with a D next to his name.

[carrps]

@Elmer_J.Fudd

Not without the cute accent and dimples.

And the adorable snaggle tooth.

[Great_Antibob]

@Atamasama

For all his talk about protecting the borders and keeping out undocumented people, he has had no problem employing them himself.

On this, he actually is conservative. It’s just the old school style - racial minorities (even undocumented immigrants) and women are ok to have around as long as they know their place when a white man is around, he can pay them less than market rate under the table, and he doesn’t have to live around them or rent to them.

[Ssounder]

@wolfpup

Republicans seem to have a propensity for electing criminals, period. Most Republicans in Congress and state houses all over are, at the very least, unprincipled weasels. There’s a good reason that Trump – who has no political ideology at all – chose the Republican Party as his path to power and grift, and a good reason that they not only tolerate his criminality but admire and defend it.

And IMO the reason Rs are gnashing their teeth about beefing up the IRS.
Don’t want to get audited?
Don’t cheat on your taxes.

[Atamasama]

@Great_Antibob

On this, he actually is conservative.

I’m talking about conservative principles, at least as they are espoused. I’m not talking about what conservatives actually do.

For example…

Housekeeper at Trump’s New Jersey golf club tells newspaper she is undocumented

“I’m using E-Verify on just about every job,” Trump told MSNBC host Chris Matthews during a televised “town hall” in March 2016, later adding, “I’m using E-Verify, and I’ll tell you, it works.”

And yet…

Donald Trump companies ignoring E-Verify, hiring illegal immigrants

Though if you argue that he’s just being your standard conservative politician and they are all hypocrites, okay, maybe you have a point.

ETA: Sorry if this is getting off-topic. I’m digging up crap from 2016. I think we all are drifting a bit here because there doesn’t seem to be anything new about this case right now.

[Cervaise]

@Atamasama

I think we all are drifting a bit here because there doesn’t seem to be anything new about this case right now.

So how 'bout them Mets?

[DesertDog]

@Lightnin

I’ve been wondering about this, too. To my recollection, pretty much nobody was saying anything about the Espionage Act until last week.

Well, TBF, “the Progressives” were too busy eating dead babies in pizza place basements to post much about it.

[Cardigan]

@Temporary_Name

Without letting this become a full flung hijack, does anyone have a theory as to most ideal timing? (If anyone else cares- this could be split into a separate thread.)

I would venture to say in terms of election impacts, generally the closer this happens to election day the more potential for negative impact it would have on the GOP down ballot. Timed this way it gives the right wing lie-spin machine less time to react and the public less time to habituate to the idea that the GOP is openly supporting folks who’ve been indicted for committing felonies.

That said, I don’t think the impact would be anywhere near as great as I’d hope it would be.

[Red_Wiggler]

Ben Stein (“Bueller…Bueller…Bueller”) used to get down right tearful when talking about how Nixon got railroaded.

[Lightnin]

As Kron said, I think you might be thinking of someone else. I’m emphatically not saying “both sides”.

[Peter_Morris]

Trump's Alleged Crimes at NAR-A-LAGO

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@steronz

AIUI the act has been used most recently for high profile cases like Snowden and Manning. Snowden’s support seemed to cross party lines, while Manning’s was almost entirely within Democratic party. But in neither case do I recall anyone challenging the Espionage Act itself; rather, the specific use of it.

Maybe things were different back in the Vietnam days? It was used in the case of the Pentagon Papers, but I wasn’t alive so I don’t know how partisan that issue was or if anyone was calling for its repeal. And prior to that it seems to have been a mixed back of misuse, but frequently against socialists and communists who probably didn’t have the support of either party.

There is definitely a tradition of leftist criticism of the Espionage Act.

Numerous people have criticized the use of the Espionage Act against national security leakers. A 2015 study by the PEN American Center found that almost all of the non-government representatives they interviewed, including activists, lawyers, journalists, and whistleblowers, “thought the Espionage Act had been used inappropriately in leak cases that have a public interest component.” PEN wrote, “experts described it as ‘too blunt an instrument,’ ‘aggressive, broad and suppressive,’ a ‘tool of intimidation,’ ‘chilling of free speech,’ and a ‘poor vehicle for prosecuting leakers and whistleblowers.’”[134]

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said, “the current state of whistleblowing prosecutions under the Espionage Act makes a truly fair trial wholly unavailable to an American who has exposed classified wrongdoing,” and that “legal scholars have strongly argued that the US Supreme Court – which has never yet addressed the constitutionality of applying the Espionage Act to leaks to the American public – should find the use of it overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a public interest defense.”[135] Professor at American University Washington College of Law and national security law expert Stephen Vladeck has said that the law “lacks the hallmarks of a carefully and precisely defined statutory restriction on speech.”[134] Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “basically any information the whistleblower or source would want to bring up at trial to show that they are not guilty of violating the Espionage Act the jury would never hear. It’s almost a certainty that because the law is so broadly written that they would be convicted no matter what.”[134] Attorney and former whistleblower Jesselyn Radack notes that the law was enacted “35 years before the word ‘classification’ entered the government’s lexicon” and believes that “under the Espionage Act, no prosecution of a non-spy can be fair or just.”[136] She added that mounting a legal defense to the Espionage Act is estimated to “cost $1 million to $3 million.”[136] In May 2019, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board published an opinion piece making the case for an amendment to allow a public-interest defense, as “the act has since become a tool of suppression, used to punish whistleblowers who expose governmental wrongdoing and criminality”.[137]

In an interview with Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, journalist Chip Gibbons said that it was “almost impossible, if not impossible, to mount a defense” against charges under the Espionage Act. Gibbons said defendants are not allowed to use the term “whistleblower”, mention the First Amendment, raise the issue of over-classification of documents, or explain the reasons for their actions.[129]

But you gotta pay attention to why: the act has been criticized for making it difficult to engage in government oversight for folks that want more freedom of information. It is possible to criticize the act of these grounds, without saying a word about Trump, because Trump is 100% doing the opposite: he’s stealing documents in a way that, like the Espionage Act, makes it harder to engage in government oversight.

What he did wrong is exactly what the Espionage Act does wrong; and if the Espionage Act stops him from doing wrong, it’ll be going against what it’s done in so many other cases.