The outcome of this all depends on whether we are still a nation under law or not. Somehow, I don't think the ghouls behind this are booking their bug out flights to Paraguay quite yet. They intend to get Trump by any means, fair or foul. Let's hope sanity - and the Law - prevails.
True. However, Trump does himself no favours by continuing to push the jab. I still can't work out whether the guy is playing 4D chess or he's out of his depth.
Yes, he WAS out of his depth when the medical professionals all counseled the vax, but he never insisted on it and would be questioning it now given the problems it has caused. He did suggest remedies which worked, and the professionals all conspired to prevent their use. I no longer trust my medical practitioners.
That's a very interesting substack and I'll try to read it in more detail later. My impression is that, as I've been saying, FBI/DoJ is purposely trying to confuse matters. They can't make this about the PRA because there are no criminal penalties--so, no search warrant available. OTOH, while they claim this is about a criminal investigation, they use words like "improper", which doesn't indicate criminal intent. More importantly, they don't get into any rebuttal of Trump's claim that the docs are declassified. That's important because this is a unique case--never before have claims like this been made against the Original Classification Authority, the POTUS. He is not a clerical person and is not bound by the laws for underlings. No warrant should have issued without that issue being thoroughly hashed out.
They really should have thought this through. I suspect the going is going to get rough as they move up the judicial ladder. Getting a Trump hating non-judge to approve the warrant is very different from getting real judges to buy off on this stuff. Plus, it opens the door to going after any president in future--unless they plan on only Dem presidents from here on out.
A very significant problem with this affidavit -- that everybody has overlooked -- is that it’s based on hearsay, which is not proper.
In fact, this affidavit is deceptively worded, because with this very carefully worded statement in paragraph 7, it gives the false impression that it’s based on the personal knowledge of the author of the affidavit: “The facts set forth in this affidavit are based on my personal knowledge . . . AND information obtained from other FBI and U.S. Government personnel.” (Emphasis of "and" added.)
Thus, by stating that some of the unspecified alleged “facts” set forth in this affidavit are based on “information obtained from other FBI and US Government personnel,” a Judge is left to guess which alleged "facts" may be based on the personal knowledge of the author of this affidavit and which alleged "facts" may be based on the impermissible hearsay “information obtained from other" unnamed and unidentified “FBI and US Government personnel.”
Therefore, 99.9% of this affidavit could be based on speculative, unverifiable gossip and contrived or imaginary “facts” allegedly provided by unnamed and unidentified “FBI and US Government personnel.”
In other words, this affidavit is rank hearsay!
Such a blatantly defective, hearsay affidavit should have been rejected by the Judge.
I think that's the bottom line, but there may be an additional factor that I'm going to try to express. But that addition is additional--not an alternative theory.
Lots of things going on. Here's what I had in mind as one of the drivers in this--the fact that Trump is the first POTUS under PRA who isn't simply riding off into the sunset and may be intending to put those docs to real practical use. Shows the PRA was poorly thought out, which could have been expected from a Watergate inspired law.
The outcome of this all depends on whether we are still a nation under law or not. Somehow, I don't think the ghouls behind this are booking their bug out flights to Paraguay quite yet. They intend to get Trump by any means, fair or foul. Let's hope sanity - and the Law - prevails.
Well, the latest Get Trump strategy is: Those bad vaxes are all his fault!
Someone needs to create a good roadrunner meme with the part of W.E Coyote played by (insert villainous group here).
True. However, Trump does himself no favours by continuing to push the jab. I still can't work out whether the guy is playing 4D chess or he's out of his depth.
Yes, he WAS out of his depth when the medical professionals all counseled the vax, but he never insisted on it and would be questioning it now given the problems it has caused. He did suggest remedies which worked, and the professionals all conspired to prevent their use. I no longer trust my medical practitioners.
JC had some informed coverage of the redacted Affidavit this morning:
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-saturday-august-c18
That's a very interesting substack and I'll try to read it in more detail later. My impression is that, as I've been saying, FBI/DoJ is purposely trying to confuse matters. They can't make this about the PRA because there are no criminal penalties--so, no search warrant available. OTOH, while they claim this is about a criminal investigation, they use words like "improper", which doesn't indicate criminal intent. More importantly, they don't get into any rebuttal of Trump's claim that the docs are declassified. That's important because this is a unique case--never before have claims like this been made against the Original Classification Authority, the POTUS. He is not a clerical person and is not bound by the laws for underlings. No warrant should have issued without that issue being thoroughly hashed out.
They really should have thought this through. I suspect the going is going to get rough as they move up the judicial ladder. Getting a Trump hating non-judge to approve the warrant is very different from getting real judges to buy off on this stuff. Plus, it opens the door to going after any president in future--unless they plan on only Dem presidents from here on out.
As they say, "the process is the punishment". This is just Impeachment Part III. (Or IV, or V, I can't keep track anymore.)
Very interesting, indeed! Glad to hear this!
A very significant problem with this affidavit -- that everybody has overlooked -- is that it’s based on hearsay, which is not proper.
In fact, this affidavit is deceptively worded, because with this very carefully worded statement in paragraph 7, it gives the false impression that it’s based on the personal knowledge of the author of the affidavit: “The facts set forth in this affidavit are based on my personal knowledge . . . AND information obtained from other FBI and U.S. Government personnel.” (Emphasis of "and" added.)
Thus, by stating that some of the unspecified alleged “facts” set forth in this affidavit are based on “information obtained from other FBI and US Government personnel,” a Judge is left to guess which alleged "facts" may be based on the personal knowledge of the author of this affidavit and which alleged "facts" may be based on the impermissible hearsay “information obtained from other" unnamed and unidentified “FBI and US Government personnel.”
Therefore, 99.9% of this affidavit could be based on speculative, unverifiable gossip and contrived or imaginary “facts” allegedly provided by unnamed and unidentified “FBI and US Government personnel.”
In other words, this affidavit is rank hearsay!
Such a blatantly defective, hearsay affidavit should have been rejected by the Judge.
Ken, hearsay as you're using the term applies to trial testimony. It's OK in affidavits of this sort.
But would Trump be dumb enough to a) not keep copies, and b) keep them in his bedroom safe?
I think that's the bottom line, but there may be an additional factor that I'm going to try to express. But that addition is additional--not an alternative theory.
Lots of things going on. Here's what I had in mind as one of the drivers in this--the fact that Trump is the first POTUS under PRA who isn't simply riding off into the sunset and may be intending to put those docs to real practical use. Shows the PRA was poorly thought out, which could have been expected from a Watergate inspired law.