Re: OT US Politics Again.

On 20 Aug 2024 11:35:18 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

On 2024-08-20, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>
>
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>

On 8/19/2024 9:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On 18 Aug 2024 23:41:31 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
 

The Horny Goat  <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:12:15 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
 

Still probably a bad decision, though. But then, so was the private
server itself. When working for the gummint on gummint time one really
should use the gummint server. It might even be harder to hack than a
private server, who can say?

 
Perhaps, but Washington has the right to access a server they own at
any time they choose without a warrant.

 
This is true, but government-owned mail servers have a whole host of
requirements that come down from the DHS, from two-factor authentication
on down to particular header formats.  It's a major pain in the neck
(and it's why small governmental organizations will try and use
unauthorized mail servers whenever they possibly can).
 
One of the big deals is that email is considered a public record and
consequently needs to be archived.  Its not just that it can be accessed
by some other governmental organization, it all needs to be archived
in specific ways.  This is also a pain, but in the case of something
like the Clinton server in question it's also very important for
historical reference.

 
Which all goes to show why the Trump/Republican attacks on Hillary for
having her own server had a certain ... weight and solidity ... that
the other attacks mostly lacked.
 
One of the issues was whether anything on it was classified. I seem to
recall that the story was that some things may have classified
elsewhere, but had all been declassified on reaching the State Dept.
Which sounds a bit ... loosy goosy ... to me, but then Trump was found
to have undeniably classified paper documents at Mar-a-Lago after he
left office. And, since they have it camera, tried to hide them when
asked to give them up.
 
Hillary's mail server seems almost ... quaint ... in comparison. Still
not a good idea, however.

>
Trump, as PRESIDENT of the USA, had the power to declassify ANYTHING he
wanted to.  All those supposedly classified papers were declassified by him
while he was President.
>
And now the case has been thrown out of court due to the improper appointment
of the prosecutor and the mismanagement of the papers seized from Trump's
house.  Trump has now filed a civil lawsuit against the DOJ for $100 million
due to the incompetence of the DOJ.
>
Lynn
>
>

Really? That's great news! Probably that is why european news have
completely stopped reporting on it. It was only news worthy once things
looked bad for Trump. Any eventual victories for Trump are seldom, or
never reported.

>
The charge will undoubtedly be back. I regard it as the only
legitimate prosecution of the major ones against Trump. He deserves at
least a slap on the wrist for his disregarding of classifications.  It
doesn't deserve the attention the Democrats have focused on it, but
that's politics (and how the Democrats persuaded the FBI to go full
SWAT mode for the seizing of documents is undetermined, but obviously
a great political success for them.)

They followed their normal procedures, including the normal statement
on use of deadly force, for serving search warrants. You need to
understand that anything that Trump and/or his defenders assert is a
lie. They lie like a rug (which lies by nature).

And it was a great success for the Federal Archives and the security
agencies whose secrets were being stored in boxes in the bathroom, and
a great defeat to Putin and others whom Trump favors over the USA (the
list of these scumbags is quite long).

The case got thrown out until a different special prosecutor is appointed.
The one appointed is legitimate according to Department of Justice's
rules, but other laws strongly imply that he needed to be approved by
Congress at some point in his life (and all other special prosecutors have
been.)  It all depends on definitions, as so many things do.

Or the Supreme Court (and it hasn't even been decided by a three-judge
panel of the Appeals Court, so it will take a while) determines that
it doesn't matter what Thomas' 1%-er wants, the appointment was valid
and the case is not dismissed.

But you are correct -- they could distinguish between a Special
Prosecutor with no prior office and one previously confirmed by
Congress for some office. This is a distinction which bodes ill for
young Biden's effort to make the same argument in his case.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"