Let’s get started this morning with what I take to be confirmation of the overall perspective that was presented here yesterday.Thanks for reading Meaning In History!
pardon the long winded comment but i would like to offer some food for thought inspired by the lucid reasoning of this post regarding the MAL raid. And it is this: we can all agree that A ) the threat(existential?) That DJT poses to the uniparty DC establishment'/global cabal backing them is not merely in the circumstance of his becoming POTUS (again) but what his becoming POTUS (again) would allow him to do or at least give him the opportunity to do which might jeopardize them or their plans B) and if we can notice this surely Trump and of course his antagonists are operating /all along have been operating in full knowledge of this and of the particular and precise ways POTUS Trump could compromise things they are trying desperately to accomplish in secret as it were;C) and given every bit of threat he apparently is to them DJT has still been able to survive their considerable attempts to eliminate him and even continue to oppose them even as a former President; D) looking at MAL raid and preceding moves that are starting to emerge in this light how much if at all are we to grant the cabal the upper hand here? E) should we not be entertaining the very real (I would argue)possibility Trump and his team ANTICIPATED this public classification/national security secrets fight and that the real question is not whether or when they will indict DJT but what DJT is hoping to accomplish playing these "presidential records" games. His genius as far as I can tell seems to be finding ways to get the word out in spite of the speech control in place to try to stop him. The mean tweets and sensational statements can be seen I would argue as a way to trick his adversaries into promoting his message. It's an Infowar, is it not? What can we look forward to re the Russia hoax info?
While I can't pretend to read Trump's mind, you offer an interesting and provocative theory. As others have been arguing, it's difficult to believe that Trump has been unaware of the forces arrayed against him and that he has no plan.
Having read lots of commentaries and the experts on this search/raid I have come to the conclusion that they did it because they could. The law is what they say it is. All discussion is useless. Having crossed the Rubicon there is only one path forward. When Caesar did it, the result would be his triumph or, as turned out, Augustus and the eradication of any power other than that of the Emperor. That our Emperor has no clothes and that the public is getting the short end of the stick is of no importance to them. Anybody in their way has to be humiliated, marginalized, imprisoned or otherwise disposed of. We shall see in November if they can make this stick.
Taking advantage of the old Meaning in History blog rule (still in effect?) that we can offer something off-topic in comments to “briefly noted” posts, I’d like to recommend the following essay by Matthew B Crawford as an augment to Mark’s ongoing critique of Liberalism. Crawford helps answer a question I have long wondered about. How does one square the pessimism and outright authoritarianism inherent in Thomas Hobbes’s contribution to modern politics with the laissez faire optimism of John Locke’s contribution?
Quite an interesting essay. I think he misses a number of major points, however--but I say that without dismissing the essay. It remains well worth reading and pondering. What I think he misses is the one of the central influences on progressivism--as opposed to liberalism. Progressive thought in America is well known to draw its inspiration from German Idealist philosophy--Kant and Hegel in particular--as well as the later Marxist inspired thinkers who derive from that "anti-tradition". Trying to derive progressivism from Hobbes is, IMO, wrongheaded in the end. There is a connection, and it goes back into the late Middle Ages, but the path from Hegel to American progressivism is far more direct.
This is my takeaway: the deep state want to cripple Trump before 2024. The FBI used "The Ways and Means Act" i.e. any legislation they can find to get them through the door after which they can apply Sec 41 (Sec 19 PACE in UK) - to anything they find that is linked to criminal activity be it associated with the specifics of the warrant or not.
She notes that, unlike all the media overage, none of the statutes concern whether information is classified or unclassified. Basically makes it look like the statutes chosen were to prosecute Trump for illegal possession of presidential and/or military documents/photos he should not have; subsequently destroyed; and that the destruction of whatever constitutes obstruction of justice (J6?). I’m not commenting on the truth and veracity, just the possibility.
Also Redstate is reporting Russian Media Claims That They Have Read the Nuclear Secrets Stored at Mar-a-Lago
While I don’t give this much credence and see it as Russian trolling, it got me wondering if there might have been a compromise of sorts at MAL that perhaps the FBI picked up in their other duties.
Hopefully I’m just making a mountain out of a anthill.
I'm going to say something that I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on. I believe, subject to correction, that the system of classified information that we now have came into existence after, for example, the Espionage Act (1917) , and that is why "classified" information isn't mentioned. The system of classification came into existence, but the laws never changed. If you read the Executive Orders that define levels of classification they're actually very general in nature--you can read them here:
The statutes that DoJ picked are simply generic document handling statutes that have been around for a long time. Another reason for the ambiguity is the rampant problem of "over classification". So, I wouldn't get too worked up about what turns on an MSNBC legal analyst. Again, as McCarthy (and I) are saying, these statutes should not apply to the president, who is not a clerk--he occupies a sui generis position in our constitutional order.
“ So, I wouldn't get too worked up about what turns on an MSNBC legal analyst. ”
The problem I see with that philosophy is about 50% of the Country uses that MSNBC analyst’s talking points as their education points without any critical thinking on their own.
Has anyone mentioned that the fact that the FBI recruited a confidential human source within the Trump organization, in and of itself, is an intrusion upon Trump's privacy that preceded any warrant?
Paleupu - not to quibble but is it truly a fact that a confidential human source is involved? I’ve heard this bandied around quite a bit in various “news” reports but I don’t recall ever seeing it linked to a verifiable source. I’ve heard different terms used (source, source of information, confidential human source, CHS, informant, cooperator) which are not necessarily synonymous terms but are frequently used interchangeably. While similar in meaning they each have slightly different shaded meanings. A source of information doesn’t have to be a human source of information. It can be, among other things, technical. As with everyone else, I’ve seen and heard a lot of breathless reporting regarding a “mole” within Trump’s inner circle and speculation of the possible involvement of a Secret Service SA, but I cannot recall any verifiable attribution on any of it. It could be there and I’ve just miss it or perhaps I saw it and have forgotten it. If it truly turns out to be a Secret Service SA,I have some other thoughts but will put off offering those at this.
I think we do need to keep an open mind on this issue. The speculation on a human source would make sense in many circumstances. However, the fact that Trump has been in continuing negotiation with the National Archives and, I believe, the FBI, and that those agencies have visited MAL with regard to the records stored there opens the door to the possibility that no other source was actually needed.
I didn't need your amplification but it bolstered my belief that this MAL raid was egregious. Thanks for that. I, too, have to soften (confront?) my confirmation bias when reading Turley, McCarthy, Henderaker, et al (anti-Trumpers, at some level or another, with their own set of confirmation bias against 45).
I dont agree that John Hinderaker is anti-Trump. I think he's one of the best analysts out there along with everyone else at Power Line, except Paul who's gone now thankfully.
True- he has a lot of drama that comes with his good qualities I wish he would minimize. Overall though he's the best we got with Desantis a close second. Would love either or both of them in 24
I put myself in the camp who has little patience (anymore) with the opinions of McCarthy or Hinderaker about Trump. I think mainly because it seems rather apparent that the big picture you sketch Mark, is pretty much accurate. All the punditry and handwringing about the subversion of norms and standards and the integrity of institutions and the integrity of the rule of law itself, coming from right or of course left, seems a whole lot of disingenuous equivocation. Power players are exerting their power. Period. Trump, bless his pugnacious Brooklyn soul, pantses the equivocators, every time. Trump forces you to decide, and if you insist on not deciding, insist on keeping your options open when it comes to your support of Trump, you end up appearing to lack principles or a backbone or both. Something like that.
Well said, Hemsley Hawes (who I know promise to search out and follow). Almost every person afflicted with TDS (and that includes both pro- and anti-Trumpers) Make the monumental mistake of being incapable of separating the man from the message. Trump's message is a good one... Not perfect, but a good one.
Hate to be a quibbler here, but if it belonged to the President and is then removed from him, why is this not an unconstitutional taking? If Trump had a property interest, which he would have. I mean, he was the President who withstood more attacks and did more for the American people than any other, why couldn't he keep things of interest?
Not being solved quickly runs to Trump's advantage from my perspective. If Trump announces he is running, either before or after the mid-term election, he can use this blatant abuse of power by the DOJ like a club and figuratively beat Garland, Wray, and Biden over the head with it every day that goes by. None of these crooks are sympathetic figures. The campaign ads write themselves (Hunter, Hillary, Joe - The Big Guy, Comey, etc.) where known miscreants were coddled rather than prosecuted. I'm not sure a gag order would work for them with Trump running for office again - but you can bet they'll throw anything against the wall as they already have with the MAL raid.
That's why I tend to think Trump has all the cards. He is unconcerned with ill repute. He welcomes it. His adversaries are still very very concerned to not fall into I'll repute ( even as they do). They twist themselves into hypocritical knots battling him.
If Trump runs, and I think at this point it is a forgone conclusion that he is, he should run not just against whoever the donkeys come up with, but against the entire criminal enterprise that is today's democratic party. What a fat target that is.
I thought it was odd that Oliver didn’t mention the MAL raid in his weekly monologue as he typically reports on some sort of nonsense going on the US commensurate with that elsewhere in the world.
pardon the long winded comment but i would like to offer some food for thought inspired by the lucid reasoning of this post regarding the MAL raid. And it is this: we can all agree that A ) the threat(existential?) That DJT poses to the uniparty DC establishment'/global cabal backing them is not merely in the circumstance of his becoming POTUS (again) but what his becoming POTUS (again) would allow him to do or at least give him the opportunity to do which might jeopardize them or their plans B) and if we can notice this surely Trump and of course his antagonists are operating /all along have been operating in full knowledge of this and of the particular and precise ways POTUS Trump could compromise things they are trying desperately to accomplish in secret as it were;C) and given every bit of threat he apparently is to them DJT has still been able to survive their considerable attempts to eliminate him and even continue to oppose them even as a former President; D) looking at MAL raid and preceding moves that are starting to emerge in this light how much if at all are we to grant the cabal the upper hand here? E) should we not be entertaining the very real (I would argue)possibility Trump and his team ANTICIPATED this public classification/national security secrets fight and that the real question is not whether or when they will indict DJT but what DJT is hoping to accomplish playing these "presidential records" games. His genius as far as I can tell seems to be finding ways to get the word out in spite of the speech control in place to try to stop him. The mean tweets and sensational statements can be seen I would argue as a way to trick his adversaries into promoting his message. It's an Infowar, is it not? What can we look forward to re the Russia hoax info?
While I can't pretend to read Trump's mind, you offer an interesting and provocative theory. As others have been arguing, it's difficult to believe that Trump has been unaware of the forces arrayed against him and that he has no plan.
Interesting timeline of Trump’s RICO lawsuit and DOJ reaction.
https://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2022/08/13/two-pings-on-the-fbi-raid-on-mar-a-lago-classification-kerfuffle-and-trumps-rico-suit/#more-6972
Having read lots of commentaries and the experts on this search/raid I have come to the conclusion that they did it because they could. The law is what they say it is. All discussion is useless. Having crossed the Rubicon there is only one path forward. When Caesar did it, the result would be his triumph or, as turned out, Augustus and the eradication of any power other than that of the Emperor. That our Emperor has no clothes and that the public is getting the short end of the stick is of no importance to them. Anybody in their way has to be humiliated, marginalized, imprisoned or otherwise disposed of. We shall see in November if they can make this stick.
Taking advantage of the old Meaning in History blog rule (still in effect?) that we can offer something off-topic in comments to “briefly noted” posts, I’d like to recommend the following essay by Matthew B Crawford as an augment to Mark’s ongoing critique of Liberalism. Crawford helps answer a question I have long wondered about. How does one square the pessimism and outright authoritarianism inherent in Thomas Hobbes’s contribution to modern politics with the laissez faire optimism of John Locke’s contribution?
https://unherd.com/2022/05/covid-was-liberalisms-endgame/
Quite an interesting essay. I think he misses a number of major points, however--but I say that without dismissing the essay. It remains well worth reading and pondering. What I think he misses is the one of the central influences on progressivism--as opposed to liberalism. Progressive thought in America is well known to draw its inspiration from German Idealist philosophy--Kant and Hegel in particular--as well as the later Marxist inspired thinkers who derive from that "anti-tradition". Trying to derive progressivism from Hobbes is, IMO, wrongheaded in the end. There is a connection, and it goes back into the late Middle Ages, but the path from Hegel to American progressivism is far more direct.
Yep. And behind Kant and Hegel also lurks Rousseau.
Though, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mark already cited this essay.
You have a good memory. I'd forgotten until I reread his profile. However, I believe it was an earlier essay by Crawford that I discussed.
This is my takeaway: the deep state want to cripple Trump before 2024. The FBI used "The Ways and Means Act" i.e. any legislation they can find to get them through the door after which they can apply Sec 41 (Sec 19 PACE in UK) - to anything they find that is linked to criminal activity be it associated with the specifics of the warrant or not.
Margot Cleveland’s analysis of the statues upon which the warrant was based:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/08/13/margot-cleveland-examines-why-the-doj-selected-the-statues-it-did-for-raid-on-mar-a-lago/
She notes that, unlike all the media overage, none of the statutes concern whether information is classified or unclassified. Basically makes it look like the statutes chosen were to prosecute Trump for illegal possession of presidential and/or military documents/photos he should not have; subsequently destroyed; and that the destruction of whatever constitutes obstruction of justice (J6?). I’m not commenting on the truth and veracity, just the possibility.
Also Redstate is reporting Russian Media Claims That They Have Read the Nuclear Secrets Stored at Mar-a-Lago
https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/08/13/russian-media-claims-that-they-have-read-the-nuclear-secrets-stored-at-mar-a-lago-n611741
While I don’t give this much credence and see it as Russian trolling, it got me wondering if there might have been a compromise of sorts at MAL that perhaps the FBI picked up in their other duties.
Hopefully I’m just making a mountain out of a anthill.
I'm going to say something that I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on. I believe, subject to correction, that the system of classified information that we now have came into existence after, for example, the Espionage Act (1917) , and that is why "classified" information isn't mentioned. The system of classification came into existence, but the laws never changed. If you read the Executive Orders that define levels of classification they're actually very general in nature--you can read them here:
https://sonar21.com/clarifying-the-system-and-authorities-to-classify-information-trump-followed-the-law/
The statutes that DoJ picked are simply generic document handling statutes that have been around for a long time. Another reason for the ambiguity is the rampant problem of "over classification". So, I wouldn't get too worked up about what turns on an MSNBC legal analyst. Again, as McCarthy (and I) are saying, these statutes should not apply to the president, who is not a clerk--he occupies a sui generis position in our constitutional order.
“ So, I wouldn't get too worked up about what turns on an MSNBC legal analyst. ”
The problem I see with that philosophy is about 50% of the Country uses that MSNBC analyst’s talking points as their education points without any critical thinking on their own.
Did FBI really have an informant?
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1558430693356609537
This is Democrats’ last ‘desperate attempt’ to take down Trump: McFarland
https://youtu.be/95faCd49IEY
Has anyone mentioned that the fact that the FBI recruited a confidential human source within the Trump organization, in and of itself, is an intrusion upon Trump's privacy that preceded any warrant?
Paleupu - not to quibble but is it truly a fact that a confidential human source is involved? I’ve heard this bandied around quite a bit in various “news” reports but I don’t recall ever seeing it linked to a verifiable source. I’ve heard different terms used (source, source of information, confidential human source, CHS, informant, cooperator) which are not necessarily synonymous terms but are frequently used interchangeably. While similar in meaning they each have slightly different shaded meanings. A source of information doesn’t have to be a human source of information. It can be, among other things, technical. As with everyone else, I’ve seen and heard a lot of breathless reporting regarding a “mole” within Trump’s inner circle and speculation of the possible involvement of a Secret Service SA, but I cannot recall any verifiable attribution on any of it. It could be there and I’ve just miss it or perhaps I saw it and have forgotten it. If it truly turns out to be a Secret Service SA,I have some other thoughts but will put off offering those at this.
I think we do need to keep an open mind on this issue. The speculation on a human source would make sense in many circumstances. However, the fact that Trump has been in continuing negotiation with the National Archives and, I believe, the FBI, and that those agencies have visited MAL with regard to the records stored there opens the door to the possibility that no other source was actually needed.
Great information, thank you.
I didn't need your amplification but it bolstered my belief that this MAL raid was egregious. Thanks for that. I, too, have to soften (confront?) my confirmation bias when reading Turley, McCarthy, Henderaker, et al (anti-Trumpers, at some level or another, with their own set of confirmation bias against 45).
I dont agree that John Hinderaker is anti-Trump. I think he's one of the best analysts out there along with everyone else at Power Line, except Paul who's gone now thankfully.
Exactly
True- he has a lot of drama that comes with his good qualities I wish he would minimize. Overall though he's the best we got with Desantis a close second. Would love either or both of them in 24
I put myself in the camp who has little patience (anymore) with the opinions of McCarthy or Hinderaker about Trump. I think mainly because it seems rather apparent that the big picture you sketch Mark, is pretty much accurate. All the punditry and handwringing about the subversion of norms and standards and the integrity of institutions and the integrity of the rule of law itself, coming from right or of course left, seems a whole lot of disingenuous equivocation. Power players are exerting their power. Period. Trump, bless his pugnacious Brooklyn soul, pantses the equivocators, every time. Trump forces you to decide, and if you insist on not deciding, insist on keeping your options open when it comes to your support of Trump, you end up appearing to lack principles or a backbone or both. Something like that.
Well said, Hemsley Hawes (who I know promise to search out and follow). Almost every person afflicted with TDS (and that includes both pro- and anti-Trumpers) Make the monumental mistake of being incapable of separating the man from the message. Trump's message is a good one... Not perfect, but a good one.
Hate to be a quibbler here, but if it belonged to the President and is then removed from him, why is this not an unconstitutional taking? If Trump had a property interest, which he would have. I mean, he was the President who withstood more attacks and did more for the American people than any other, why couldn't he keep things of interest?
I saw this and wondered if it’s just bs on being able to reclassify stuff that’s already left the reserve.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/trump-declassified-documents-that-proved-the-crimes-of-the-fbi-biden-reclassified-them-never-told-him/
Not being solved quickly runs to Trump's advantage from my perspective. If Trump announces he is running, either before or after the mid-term election, he can use this blatant abuse of power by the DOJ like a club and figuratively beat Garland, Wray, and Biden over the head with it every day that goes by. None of these crooks are sympathetic figures. The campaign ads write themselves (Hunter, Hillary, Joe - The Big Guy, Comey, etc.) where known miscreants were coddled rather than prosecuted. I'm not sure a gag order would work for them with Trump running for office again - but you can bet they'll throw anything against the wall as they already have with the MAL raid.
That's why I tend to think Trump has all the cards. He is unconcerned with ill repute. He welcomes it. His adversaries are still very very concerned to not fall into I'll repute ( even as they do). They twist themselves into hypocritical knots battling him.
And everyone sees it.
If Trump runs, and I think at this point it is a forgone conclusion that he is, he should run not just against whoever the donkeys come up with, but against the entire criminal enterprise that is today's democratic party. What a fat target that is.
Thanks for this link. I'm going through a week of posts after vacation myself and would have missed this excellent monologue...
I thought it was odd that Oliver didn’t mention the MAL raid in his weekly monologue as he typically reports on some sort of nonsense going on the US commensurate with that elsewhere in the world.
https://americafirstreport.com/gb-news-censors-portion-of-neil-olivers-epic-monologue-that-discusses-trump-raid/