As someone who has handled classified documents for over 20 years what's your take on Trump's decision to share classified documents concerning the location of US nuclear submarines with an Australian billionaire with no clearance who happened to be a member of Mar-a-Lago and a friend of Trump's. Trump allegedly discussed US nuclear subs with foreign national after leaving White House: Sources Trump revealed US nuclear submarine secrets to Australia businessman: Media
“Had warts?!” The man sexually assaulted women. Is threatening to invade our allies. Had a charity for kids that defrauded people. Made fun of a crippled guy. Made sexual comments about his daughter. Cheated on at least one wife. Tried to withhold aid from California (the first time) because they didn’t vote for him. He doesn’t have “some warts.” He’s a narcissistic sociopath who views both the Presidency and you as tools for his enrichment.
the question, as my simple, unhinged mind understands it, is if the entire special counsel is a legit thing. How can one appoint another, certainly a maga fan to edit it, when the legislation or justification for the special counsel is null and void? if a new one was to be appointed, they would appoint her eminence Cannon to be the new special counsel. She could then take another three years lounging at ML to let it die on the vine before issuing a work of fiction on a Friday night before djt goes on a tweet storm blaming everyone for everything. Who would sign up to put their name on something they didn't prepare? entertain the legal argument, delay the decision on who to appoint until djt sworn in. even you should be able to acknowledge it is a proven strategy by djt to run out the clock to avoid prosecution. keep throwing it against the wall..it is the maga way
criminal? if it happened the way it was reported, and documented in the recorded testimony from Pratt, should someone like that ever be given access to classified info again? note it wasn't only reported, the recorded, under oath, interview with Pratt is in the file. Pratt had emails where he talked about it with others shoirtly after it happened. Trump allegedly discussed US nuclear subs with foreign national after leaving White House: Sources - ABC News In those interviews, Pratt described how -- looking to make conversation with Trump during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago in April 2021 -- he brought up the American submarine fleet, which the two had discussed before, the sources told ABC News. According to Pratt's account, as described by the sources, Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump -- "leaning" toward Pratt as if to be discreet -- then told Pratt two pieces of information about U.S. submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected. In emails and conversations after meeting with Trump, Pratt described Trump's remarks to at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company's employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers, the sources told ABC News.
AG Garland could easily say "Yes, the issue raised about Smith appointment is legitimate. I'm appointing a new one tomorrow. Jack Smith will be his deputy and they will work together to get the Report turned into me before the 20th of January and I will release it to the public." What is the issue with that?
It seems your issue is with voters that elected Trump as anyone elected POTUS is going to have access to classified information. You cannot pull a POTUS' clearance like you can for rank and file members of the DoD.
if he didn't have authority to appoint smith, how would he have authority to appoint anyone else. then the new appointment gets challenged in court.. make you a deal, djt agrees not to challenge the new appointment or their authority or the release of the report before the inauguration and he'll appoint someone not named jack smith. sounds fair
my issue is he should have been prosecuted for his egregious and repetitive felonies and not allowed to even run. an AG trying to be politically correct delaying the J6 case until after the hearing and a corrupt, incompetent judge insured that he didn't face justice for his crimes. we should all have a problem with anyone being above the law, especially our leaders compromising our national security and then using the legal system to delay/deny justice while screaming lawfare.
The AG has the power to appoint Special Counsel's but they to have been confirmed by the senate at some point in their current position. AG Garland could just appoint a new Special Counsel that meets that requirement before Jan 20th. Make Smith his deputy and get the report turned in. If the new Special Counsel is not going to file anything in front of the court, I do not think Trump would have a venue or standing to challenge his appointment since he would be working on a DoJ internal report at that point. Cannon concluded that statutes Garland said gave him that power did not in fact do so. Garland's only alternative would be to appoint someone who had been confirmed by the Senate or ask Congress to pass a law specifically giving him authority, she added. Clarence Thomas signaled how he might rule on a challenge to Trump special counsel. Would other justices follow?
So you are mad at AG Garland for being politically correct? If so, shouldn't you also be mad at him for not appointing a new Special Counsel when the appointment issue was identified and talked Smith into being his Deputy?
Chutkan did rule on it and found Smith's appointment had no issues. So we have a Circuit split on the issue. Smith is still a Special Counsel on the Jan 6th Case, so I believe he could turn in a report on that one if he gets it in ahead of a SCOUTS hearing. If Smith's appointment issue goes to the SCOTUS and they were to side with Cannon over Chutkan, I do not think Smith could submit the Jan 6th report.
Biden can and should request delivery of the report from his AG. Biden then simply calls a news conf. and releases it to all attendees. After all we know he has 100% immunity thus there are no repercussions on DoJ, Smith or Garland. Why hide anything?
If you are talking about the Documents case, I think if Biden did that, it could result in Garland and Smith having criminal exposure if happens while is Trump appealing the case and if he wins at the SCOTUS. Not sure Garland and Smith would be on board for that. The Jan 6th case, I think it would be fine to do ahead of a SCOTUS hearing.
Sharing classified information with someone not cleared for it can certainly be harmful. What’s not known is the accuracy of the reporting. Additionally, it’s not known if the information given was accurate. It is was just made up data, it wouldn’t be classified. If accurate data it would be classified but, as president, he can certainly declare the information unclassified but since this was verbally released he would most likely be told that he should refrain from talking about it. There have been a number of instances of presidents verbally releasing classified information but most people are unaware because the goal when that happens is to ignore it and hope it gets off the front page.
As long as the report comes out so we can see it, it matters not. No semantics are required. Just release it.
But you would have likely put Garland and Smith is legal jeopardy if it happened that way and the Trump DoJ would be able to prosecute them for violating the law. Do you think that Garland and Smith would go along with that?
I'll split hairs with someone else. Just release it and let the chips land where they may. We paid for it, no need to hide it. Curious why trump doesn't want it released. It's not out of concern for garland or Smith.
