Tiber727
7mo ago
I'd argue we should do neither. whether the amount of homeless went up or down, it may not have anything to do with the homeless orgs at all. They didn't make the problem, and they may deserve anywhere from 0-100% of the credit for each person who is no longer homeless, or 0-100% of the blame for failing to solve the problem.
For best results, you'd need metrics that represent what the homeless org did, how well it worked, and the reasons why it didn't work better. In the FBI's case it would be things like the number of cases investigated vs solved, time spent per investigation, etc.
Tiber727
7mo ago
There's evidence suggesting some Russians are shooting Ukrainian soldiers after they've surrendered, which is a very stupid thing to do from a tactical perspective. Drawing a parallel, if this claim is true it needn't be for tactical benefit, it could be purely emotional and because they believe they are immune from consequences.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Except that, even after spending trillions in Terraforming Mars, you'd end up with land worth less than land than Earth due to extreme cold, proximity to amenities, ability to grow things, etc. No one but crazy rich people would want to live on Mars until Earth becomes largely uninhabitable.
Tiber727
7mo ago
It’s not nefarious no, but it’s also completely absurd that people aren’t allowed to distrust the organs of state that rarely serve their purposes, and quite often serve to stymie peasant attempts to better themselves economically. The organs of the deep state are finely tuned to follow procedures that protect themselves from scrutiny, and provide deniability to anyone that might be blamed if something goes wrong. It is not geared to serving its purpose and regulating without being destructive.
Whether you admit that, people do believe it is nefarious, or at least speak as if they genuinely believe it. And that it is organized.
Agencies are built to be standardized, both due to logistics of coordinating between agencies and at scale, and to try to prevent both actual and perceived bribery or kickbacks.
They’re not necessarily “crazy”.
I would apply that term to a Trump supporter that tries to assassinate Trump. Unless it was some 4D chess move to pretend to try to assassinate Trump to give Trump a polling boost.
I've found myself in a lower managerial position of a large corporation. I've had my share of processes that are meant to add traceability to both the tasks themselves and my workload, and the incremental increase in the number of steps added. I hate it, but I'm not throwing away my job over it.
A better way of asking something you have failed to answer - under your definition, is intent required in order to declassify something? In other words, if it could be proven that Trump's frame of mind when taking the documents home was not to declassify them, but to hoard secret information, would that establish that the documents were not declassified? Or is it literally impossible to him to steal documents for use outside of his Presidential term, even if he tried?
Tiber727
7mo ago
Your argument is that the only "process" that Trump needs to follow to declassify is to decide, entirely in his own head, that something is declassified. In said recording, he admits he never did that. Therefore, even by your own lowest-of-the-low bars, he did not do that. And all of his actions over one and a half years regarding the return of said documents contradict the actions of someone who believes he declassified it. Literally 0 people involved in this case agree that it was done, including the person you argue is the only person that matters. Let's start by stating my argument is simply that the "process" is at least 1 person involved in Trump's government can make a subjective determination that it was done. Let's call that the law of basic logic. If not, the document remains classified.
You continue to completely ignore the question of why Trump went through all of this when by your own argument he could have saved himself a lot of time and energy because you know your "strongest" argument is to insist that something that doesn't exist but isn't required is in fact required.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Keep in mind Taiwan elected a new President and just gave a speech last week about resisting annexation, I believe. The other possibility is this is China trying to publicly remind him and the public of who he's dealing with.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Because he doesn't have to follow a process. He just has to actually do it. There is no such thing as a Presidential power that is exercised only by thinking about it.
Feel free to come back with an explanation for why Trump tried to hide the documents for a year and a half when he apparently had nothing to hide at all.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Yes, the Executive Order applies to the document itself, and to the agencies following that.
The documents were at some point classified. Do we agree at that point? Therefore something has to change to make them not classified. The President has 2 special powers:
-
The power to share classified material without punishment, which does not make it declassified.
-
The power to declassify without following the process.
I think we agree on both of these points. Do we not?
My argument from there is that, there is no process the President must follow to declassify. He can do almost literally anything to declassify it, but there is one thing that does not fall under "literally anything," and that is nothing. Nothing meaning "Not Thing," as in he did not do the thing. Therefore, they retain their existing status of classified. "Thinking about it" is also nothing, because it is still classified as far as the entire rest of the government knows. Even something as simple as letting anyone who could communicate the decision know would probably work.
I will repeat my earlier questions:
If these documents were not classified at all, then why didn't Trump at any point between May 2021 and August 2022 say that he had no intentions of returning the documents because he doesn't have to? And why did he say in fall 2021 that he didn't declassify them?
Tiber727
7mo ago
My point of contention is I don't think we are in "Tiber's rules unfairly" as much as you do. I think you attribute the "unfairly" to a subjective difference of how much you think Democrats should be punished vs reality, but your subjective measure doesn't need to be defined or tied to the actual amount of crime that has occurred. Therefore no matter how much N changes, "Tiber's rules fairly" will always be N + 1.
I think we are in "Barron's rules unfairly." Quite frankly, I still don't even know what your rules fairly even are. Is it:
A. Political figures are never prosecuted because they never commit crimes? That's not reality.
B. Political figures can never be prosecuted? That would by definition be impartial, but pretty awful? But you made a comment saying Menendez should have been prosecuted sooner, which doesn't fit with that?
C. Political figures can only be prosecuted by their own side? You don't seem to count Democrats punishing Democrats as that.
I think that, given that vagueness, "Democrats sometimes punish their own, Republicans protect their own" is Barron's rules unfairly.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Your examples do absolutely nothing to disprove a one-sided lawfare hypothesis so why should I grant you that point?
The only evidence of your hypothesis to begin with is motivated reasoning that people don't like Trump, ergo they don't actually believe Trump committed crimes. I cannot prove what is in people's heads and neither can you, therefore you can insist forever. I can point out all the evidence forever, even things I believe are solid evidence. All I get in return is some other situation that's vaguely similar against a Democrat but didn't result in the outcome you say you don't want to begin with (but act like you do in fact want it), and how by my own rules I should support said hypothetical outcome. I say I'm absolutely fine with that and you effectively call me a liar, which again you can insist forever.
You then challenge me to find a counterexample, and when I do you simply add another condition to it until I can't. Now I have a find a Democrat convicted by Democrats and said conviction must have cost Democrats a seat. Of course you know these conditions are rare to begin with. I can either spend an hour finding some example from the 1800's, which you will say is too old to count, or if I manage to find a recent example I'll get told something like how it didn't count because Democrats still had a majority or some such. I have to present hard evidence and all you have to do is find a way to spin it that of course it was all a ploy by the Democrats. Of course nothing similar will ever be expected from Republicans.
This is an extremely motivated reading of that phone call, especially with more recent revelations on the election in Georgia. Gotta be honest, it’s making me doubt your commitment to even-handed lawfare.
So now you're the one complaining about motivated reasoning? Yes, I'm sure Trump only cares about election security. That's why he specifically hones in on a district that could be make-or-break in making him the winner. And spends an hour rambling with no specific allegations. And is clear that the outcome he wants is not to find fraudulent or miscounted votes, but to continue to do so until enough votes are found to declare him the winner. He insists that that this is possible with no information about how those votes were falsified, he spends pretty much the entire time talking in a "just find a way" tone.
Prosecuting your political opponents? You’re right! The political valence is even the same!
Or trying to simply ignore election results and declare yourself the winner. One of the two.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Your own link doesn't claim it was an argument, but Trump supporting his recounting of events of someone not present to someone else not present... and this in turn goes back to automatic declassification authority powers for when he took documents away.
They weren't arguing with each other, but he showed it to another person in order to back up his claim. Perhaps I should have used better words such as "underscore his argument." It is still him almost word-for-word saying "Don't tell anyone, but I am showing you this document that I could have declassified as President." Which would make no sense to say unless you know you didn't declassify something.
Moreover, and in contradiction to the prosecutions' own thesis, the clip is raised for Trump saying that the document is classified... but the later argument (and your concluding argument) is that Trump is no longer President, and thus does not have classification authority to make- or reverse- a decision already made. However, the decision to take the documents was a decision as a President, as would have been the accompanying declassification authority implications.
Speaking of misusing words there is no contradiction here. The argument is that Trump is showing a classified document because he never took any action to declassify it, and he knows that. He had that power when he was in office, but it's too late for him to use it. President Trump could have ordered a drone strike. Ex-President Trump cannot. Likewise, President Trump could have shared classified information but ex-President Trump cannot.
Your argument is that taking documents home when leaving office is declassifying documents because he doesn't have to tell anybody to declassify something. That argument makes no sense because the government is not a hive mind. Him thinking about it does not psychically transmit that information to anyone else. By that logic if a low-level federal contractor had taken copies of those documents home at the same time and revealed any of them, he would not be guilty because Trump declassified them, even though he had literally no way of knowing that.
In addition, Trump's actions make no sense within this context. Here's a timeline. Trump was told to return documents in May 2021. Prior recording is from fall 2021. Trump hands over 15 boxes Jan 2022. Investigation begins March 2022. In May 2022 Trump is subpoena'd. Trump reportedly tries to suggest telling them he's doesn't have any more classified documents. Nauta is accused of moving boxes around. In June 2022 they collect more documents. On August 2022 they raid and find more documents.
Under your proposed explanation, where in this 1.5 year process does Trump refuse to give anything back and argue he doesn't have to give back documents that aren't classified in the first place?
Prove it. Which procedure, specifically, did Trump need to have changed?
Obama's executive order remained in effect because executive orders are not automatically null when a President leaves, and President Trump did not null them. The argument is this.
-
The information was classified.
-
There are conditions necessary to declassify information, and none of them were fulfilled.
-
Trump did not waive any of those conditions.
In other words, it was a violation because what Trump did is not described in here, and President Trump did not null the order itself or declare this information any exception to it.
The closest is this:
Sec. 1.6. Identification and Markings. (a) At the time of original classification, the following shall be indicated in a manner that is immediately apparent:
(4) declassification instructions, which shall indicate one of the following:
(A) the date or event for declassification, as prescribed in section 1.5(a);
(B) the date that is 10 years from the date of original classification, as prescribed in section 1.5(b);
(C) the date that is up to 25 years from the date of original classification, as prescribed in section 1.5(b); or [...]
(h) Prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification.
President Trump can share information, but that doesn't declassify it. That just makes a single person privy to confidential information without being punished for it (though if they share that information they may be punished for it). President Trump could have ordered the information to be declassified, but him supposedly thinking about it does not do that. He can skip the process, but he has to actually say he's skipping the process. He cannot claim as a former President that he thought about it doing it in 2020 and that is the same as doing so, any more than he can pardon someone today by claiming he was thinking about it before he left office.
Tiber727
7mo ago
I just posted examples of it happening and you pivot to finding a reason to say it doesn't count. Hell, they even pushed out Al Franken, who was at the time fairly popular, over mere accusations of inappropriate behavior.
Yes, there aren't a lot of examples because most politicians are at least smart enough to be corrupt in legal ways (see Pelosi). I don't think prosecuting someone for taking classified documents home, showing them to others, and hiding them from officials when they try to find them is novel. If anyone besides Trump did it, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
Prosecuting someone for trying to replace election officials with loyalists who will call the election for you or calling state officials to pull votes for you out of thin air has never happened in America because no one has tried it, but it's the same sort of thing that regularly happens in third world countries. Hell it's happening in Venezuela right now. For all the people claiming the election is insecure, prosecuting that sort of behavior would also be a slam dunk against anyone but Trump.
And again, under your proposed rules, how could it possibly ever happen?
Tiber727
7mo ago
Bob Menendez will be replaced by another guy with a D next to his name so absolutely nothing was lost by the democrats. The occasional no-stakes sacrifice isn’t fooling anyone, especially when it took two decades for consequences.
Oh come now. You ignore the point and pivot to calling it meaningless. The "lawfare" argument is that Menendez should never face consequences, because if Republicans bring charges it's lawfare and if Democrats do it it's a stunt I guess? Do we need to summon a being of true neutrality and law to bring prosecution or not?
They wanted lawfare. Your rules applied fairly and all that.
They were doing this before Trump was ever even in office. And again, I don't have near as much a problem with it as you seem to. The whole "Oops I deleted it!" was at a bare minimum shady as fuck.
Tiber727
7mo ago
The later. That's what actually happened, after all, and is consistent with years of prior leaks from the FBI and associated probes pursued for political harm, whereas there is no allegation that Donald Trump used those classified documents to try and win arguments.
No allegations?! For the umpteeth time, There is literally a recording of him doing so! It's 2 minutes long, listen for yourself.
Stacks of boxes in odd places is pretty normal. It was a minor- and not prosecuted- reoccurance of both former VP Pence and former VP Biden that they both were found to have boxes of classified documents in their domiciles well after their departures. In Biden's case, they were found being kept in a garage.
Yes, and when the government told Biden to return the documents, he did. Trump is an outlier in that he allegedly attempted to hide documents to prevent them from being returned, That's the difference here.
Further, there was no practical reason to put classified cover sheets over the documents in question for the purpose of an evidentiary photo. The cover sheet has no evidentiary power in and of itself- it could be any document behind it, so you'd need to take photos sans cover sheet anyways, and if you're doing that you'd need to have a camera and photo-storage planned for the relevant classified level anyway.
They aren't going to show the actual confidential documents of course. But as you stated the cover sheet doesn't make them confidential. The contents of the documents will not be revealed to the public, but the case is immediately dead if Trump's lawyers prove the documents are not confidential. So yes, the cover sheet snafu is immaterial.
However, there is no required procedure, the current White House does not assert it has created a required procedure, and neither the National Archives or FBI ever actually identified a required process that Trump failed to follow to lead to the judgement of 'improper' holding.
You think the government doesn't have procedures for declassifying? Trump could have changed the procedures, but he didn't do so. You are correct that Trump doesn't need to explain why he is declassifying something, but incorrect that a document is declassified simply by thinking about it. According to this article, it doesn't even matter. The Espionage Act criminalizes mishandling information "relating to the national defense" not "classified information." Meaning that theoretically you can be guilty of sharing information that was never even classified.
This is why the case functionally broke when the Supreme Court made its ruling on immunity for official acts.
False. An ex-President is not a President, and the actions of a former President are by definition not official acts. The case was dismissed because Cannon bizarrely claimed that Special Counsels have no authority to prosecute, which is currently being appealed.
Tiber727
7mo ago
In other words, I cannot argue in favor of a thing unless I personally have the means to implement it? Sorry, that's not a demand I'm going to comply with.
"No lawfare" is just corruption, because every public figure is partisan. Was Bob Menendez (D-NJ) a victim of lawfare when he was convicted of 16 counts of bribery? He has a D next to his name! George Santos? Michael Flynn? "Lawfare" absent any hard evidence of the motives of the prosecutors is little more than the idea that anyone you like can't be accused of a crime.
I'd also argue the right does know what lawfare is. What do you think all those people chanting "Lock her up!" were calling for?
Tiber727
7mo ago
Corrections never end up on the front page of anything. The government does not control the NYT.
The idea - that the Justice Department spends probably millions of dollars arranging a raid of Mar-a-Lago and building a case that they know they will lose just so that they can add a cover sheet saying "confidential," which will end up on the front page of NYT for a day before being debunked (which they also know won't matter) - is actually extremely conspiratorial. I would argue if they're smart enough to do this and also set Trump up to be recorded showing documents to a civilian and say that those documents are confidential (This part seems to be getting ignored a lot) then they could have planted better evidence than cover sheets.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Sure, but what do you want me to do about it? Change my career path, go into a law, get a job in politics, and rise through the ranks so I can become a star prosecutor who goes after Republicans and Democrats alike?
Tiber727
7mo ago
How many times do I have to say I encourage them to pursue crime against Democrats?
Tiber727
7mo ago
A) the disparate treatment is all feels. Here's a list of government misconduct, and I'm seeing lots of Ds. And I haven't personally witnessed Democrats attempt to protect other Democrats accused to crime.
B) The government is not all Democrats. Republicans had effective control of the federal government from 2016-2020. They also have the power to go after Democrats. You might say, "Well, Republicans are nicer and wouldn't do that!" I don't buy that. Trump literally campaigned on going after Hillary. If he didn't do that that sounds like he squandered a prime opportunity and you should judge him and other Republicans for that accordingly.
C) "The legal system pays disproportionate attention to criminals as opposed to non-criminals" also explains the phenomenon you are seeing, and is literally how the justice system is supposed to work. Doubly true if the criminals leave obvious evidence.
D) The "obvious" part of your "obvious legal mistakes" is evidence against it being a political gesture. If you make an argument that turns out to be false, it hurts your credibility, both legally and publicly. Therefore, it makes sense to at least be clever in telling lies, especially since the legal system is designed to be adversarial and thus sniff out falsehoods.
E) Let's say you are given the task to scan thousands of pages of documents, and put them back exactly as they were. How do you do that? If it were me, I would have some sort of separator to remind me where everything was. Like a cover sheet. And since the contents are believed to be confidential, I would put "confidential" on those separators. Then due to some mistake or miscommunication between multiple people, they either don't get removed at the end or aren't disclosed when meant to be disclosed.
Tiber727
7mo ago
You are assuming the goal was political as opposed to legal.
I don't pretend that Democrats would never do anything underhanded. But I think Republicans are getting to the point of treating everything that happens to a Republican as a conspiracy. Sorry, I don't buy that Trump can do no wrong, and must be immune to any consequences of his actions else the world is out to get him. And often by the same people who claim that Democrats in cities let repeat offenders walk.
A lot of the evidence in this case is public, including Trump literally confessing to showing classified documents to someone who has no clearance. So yes I think he is guilty, and guilty in a way that is easily provable in court, outside of a judge who tosses a case for completely unprecedented reasons. If all of this is made up, we'll soon see.
If they are only prosecuting a guilty person because he's the wrong guilty person, well I say it's a good start. If Republicans want to engage in "lawfare" against Democrats by punishing them for things they are guilty of, great! Either government gets cleaned up, or laws that aren't being enforced get removed. Sounds like a positive to me.
Tiber727
7mo ago
And now that it was found out, which guess what, Trump has lawyers whose entire career is catching things like this, they have egg on their face. If it was a scheme, it was an absolutely dumb one. They're still attempting to go ahead with the case even though there's no way it will be concluded before the election.
Tiber727
7mo ago
Congressmen and Presidents get a massive amount of leeway, which is that them still having classified documents is considered a mistake and they're told to give them back. That in fact happened to Trump, and he claimed he was cooperating. This isn't about any information he received after leaving office, or about him simply having documents. This is about him saying he's returned documents and then they come back to Mar-a-Lago and find more that were obviously moved from the last time they searched, meaning they believe he was actively trying to obstruct them. Also he showed classified documents to civilians and admitted on recording that he knew they were classified documents.
Do unprecedented things, get unprecedented treatment. Especially if you leave a bunch of slam dunk evidence.
I can think of 2 counterarguments about being unable to at least do so secretly:
The U.S. has an oppositional system. Corrupt states generally have one party so entrenched that the opposing party can't really do anything about it. Whereas if Republicans have strong evidence of Democratic cheating, they should likely have the means to either uncover it, or to cheat right back.
An internal defector would also be likely. The election system involves so many people that it would be difficult to not encounter someone with moral objections or simply wants the fame and cash that would likely result in running to Fox News. I know you precluded this with your link, but your link only establishes it as theoretically possible rather than likely. Becoming a poll worker doesn't require the same level of background checks as secret clearance, and seems much harder to ensure a cohesive conspiracy.
More options
Context Copy link