Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: Justice Department responds to Trump team motion, says they've already finished 'filter team' work – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

US President Donald Trump makes a video call to the troops stationed worldwide at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach Florida, on December 24, 2019. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)

#Justice #Department #responds #Trump #team #motion #they039ve #finished #039filter #team039 #work

Campaign Action

The Trump legal team’s filings asked for a special master to review whether the government should return documents based on Trump’s “executive privilege,” but that’s simply … not a thing. At all. Trump is no longer president and has no such privileges in the first place, and an assertion that “executive” documents are the property of a former president in the face of the post-Nixon laws that clearly define them as government property is a theory so comical that only grifters attached to Donald Trump could even land on such a thing.

Would it mean appointing a special master to review above-top-secret classified documents and decide whether that there might be any Donald Trump should be allowed to keep? To review White House documents from the Trump administration that, by law, are to be kept by the National Archives and not be given away as party favors to Mar-a-Lago guests? The judge indicated a willingness to move forward on a special master-based plan before even waiting for a Department of Justice response to the Trump “legal” team’s motion, and relying on a Trump legal team to not fundamentally misrepresent the facts of a legal case is a level of gullibility that judges should at this point have left behind.

The Trump filing was prolific in misrepresenting the facts at hand, and that’s even without Trump legal vulture Evan Corcoran failing to disclose his own status as a key player in Trump’s attempt to hide the classified-and-not documents. Now the Justice Department gets to respond, and the odds are good the judge is going to be peeved when she learns for the first time, for example, that the warrant was based in part on suspected violations of the Espionage Act.

The Department of Justice has now offered a brief preliminary response to the judge, and it’s full of new news. As reported by The Washington Post, today’s filing indicates that the FBI has already finished its own “filter team” review weeding out seized documents that may fall under attorney-client privilege. A “limited set” of documents that “potentially” contain such information were found. Those documents won’t necessarily just be handed back; a court will have to decide that on a document-by-document basis.

That the “filter team” has already completed its work, however, makes the notion of a special master even less plausible. The documents were filtered as the government said they would be, they will not be turned over to the government teams conducting investigations of the potential criminal acts outlined in the initial Mar-a-Lago affidavit and warrant, and it’s done. Unless the Trump team really does intend to pursue the theory that Trump’s nonexistent “executive” powers trump the powers of the actual Executive Branch, there’s nothing more to do here.

The other tidbit of news is that the classified documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago appear to already be in the hands of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Along with the Department of Justice, they are “currently facilitating a classification review” of those documents. That makes it even more unlikely that any judge is going to take the already absurdly implausible step of demanding intelligence officials give those documents back.

More importantly, it means that the damage assessment from Trump’s mishandling of the documents has already begun. Any documents that left government control may have been seen by unknown third parties; we’ve already been told that among the documents Trump took to Mar-a-Lago were highly classified documents that could potentially identify U.S. espionage assets abroad.

So now the process of potentially pulling back at-risk spies, warning foreign collaborators, and taking other precautions based on the potential “burning” of all those sources has begun, and we’ll likely know the results only long, long after it has been completed. If at all.

Advertisement

Donald Trump and his associates have, once again, potentially done long-term damage to U.S. national security. The Republican Party continues to back him even now that we are in a worst-case scenario, because of course they do—the party does not give a flying damn about national security, if harming it promotes their own interests.

x

What Trump’s actually done here is one of two things. He either brought above-top-secret documents potentially outing U.S. espionage assets to Mar-a-Lago because he and his entire staff are made up of blundering incompetents. Or, and this becomes the far more likely scenario after we’ve learned that Trump’s team lied to government officials in asserting to them that all the classified documents had been handed over, pre-warrant, Trump took those most sensitive of documents on purpose.

There’s only one reason a money-obsessed grifter with a known history of corrupt acts would so such a thing, and we all know what it is.


Politics

Exclusive: DNC Makes South Carolina the State with First Democratic Primary – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Jaime Harrison Lindsey Graham healthcare

#DNC #South #Carolina #State #Democratic #Primary

The DNC made a tremendously important and long-needed change to its primary calendar by removing the almost exclusively white state (the one that sets expectations and can drive half of the candidates out of the race) back in the calendar and moving up a state with a large black population. Finally, the all-important first primary “looks like the Democratic party.”

According to the Associated Press:

Democrats voted Friday to remove Iowa as the leadoff state on the presidential nominating calendar and replace it with South Carolina starting in 2024, a dramatic shakeup championed by President Joe Biden to better reflect the party’s deeply diverse electorate.

Joe Biden would not be president if it were not for the strong black turnout in South Carolina. Donald Trump would likely be president. The close election showed that it is more likely than not that Joe Biden was the only Democrat who could beat Donald Trump.

The Democratic National Committee’s rule-making arm made the move to strip Iowa from the position it has held for more than four decades after technical meltdowns sparked chaos and marred results of the state’s 2020 caucus.

The change also comes after a long push by some of the party’s top leaders to start choosing a president in states that are less white, especially given the importance of Black voters as Democrats’ most loyal electoral base.

Without the loyalty of black voters, the Democrats would win very few elections. Again, given the fact that when fields have 12 candidates, perhaps half of them will drop out of the race after the first caucus or primary. Thus, in a state whose interest is primarily in agriculture and that damned ethanol question that was so important for so long, half the candidates are out over narrow Democratic issues

Advertisement

It was time to start in a state that shared a wide number of issues important to Democrats, women’s rights, civil rights generally, taxes on the middle class or poor, student loan reform, legalization of marijuana… If we are going to dump up to half the candidates based on their performance in the first contest, then it should be a contest about issues that pertain to all Democrats, especially our core base, our most loyal base, Black Americans.

This is a move to be celebrated.

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Democrats go to war with Iowa and New Hampshire over 2024 – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Democrats go to war with Iowa and New Hampshire over 2024

#Democrats #war #Iowa #Hampshire

For a half-century, the presidential nominating calendar has been regular and predictable. But, on Friday, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC decided to blow up the 2024 primary process.

The committee approved a new primary schedule that ended Iowa’s status as an early state and calls into question New Hampshire’s place on the calendar.

The calendar was proposed by President Joe Biden earlier this week and greatly diminishes, if not ends, the longstanding places of Iowa and New Hampshire in Democratic nominating contests. Both were states where Biden did poorly in 2020. In a letter proposing the change in the calendar, though, Biden emphasized the need to ensure voters of color had a bigger role in the nominating process.

The new schedule puts South Carolina first on Saturday, February 3, 2024, a move that came as a surprise to top Democrats in the Palmetto State. The draft calendar then has New Hampshire and Nevada three days later on February 6, followed by Georgia on February 13 and Michigan on February 27. The full Democratic National Committee will almost certainly ratify this calendar early next year.

This means that the Democratic nominating contest will begin with South Carolina, the only state where Tom Steyer in 2020 and Al Sharpton in 2004 have finished in the top three in a presidential primary. However, it’s likely to set off a chaotic scramble over which state goes first.

National political parties don’t determine when states hold their nominating contests. That’s the subject of state law. However, national parties are fully within their rights to sanction states that don’t follow their rules for how to hold nominating contests, or throw out the results altogether.

In advance of rolling out this new schedule, the Democratic Party already added more teeth to its ability to crack down on states that buck the DNC to hold nominating contests earlier in the primary. Recent rules changes give the party more latitude to crack down on candidates who campaign in states that hold unsanctioned contests.

In setting the calendar, the resolution passed Friday also requires state elected officials to pledge to abide by DNC rules, otherwise they lose their position as an early state. In Georgia, it requires Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state, to certify that he will hold the state’s presidential primary on February 13. This would either require Georgia to hold two entirely separate presidential primaries or for the Peach State to jump the line in the Republican nominating process. A spokesperson for Raffensperger did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

But Georgia is a sideshow in this. The real targets are Iowa and New Hampshire, which have been the first two states in Democratic presidential primaries for generations and have perennially been the target of resentment as a result. Removing Iowa from the calendar accomplishes that cleanly. The state has been an obvious target since its fiasco in reporting results during the 2020 caucuses, which were in part the result of rules changes imposed on the Hawkeye State by the national Democratic Party. Scott Brennan, a DNC member from Iowa, told Vox, “We’re disappointed and believe the calendar passed ignores a vast swath of the US. There is no pre-window state in the Central or Mountain time zones. “

Advertisement

In the Republican presidential primary, Iowa is maintaining its traditional role as the first nominating contest and there is no reason that state Democrats couldn’t ignore the DNC and go at the same time. The entire national media will already be camped out in the state and any contest will receive significant coverage even if the caucuses would amount to no more than a glorified beauty contest.

The new rules also implicitly target New Hampshire and set up a conflict where the state legally cannot abide by the DNC’s rules. Under state law, New Hampshire’s primary must go first in the nation, seven days before any other state. (Iowa does not conflict with this because a caucus is deemed sufficiently different from a primary.)

The DNC resolution going into effect would require New Hampshire Republican Gov. Chris Sununu and Jason Osborne, the state’s GOP House majority leader, not only to agree to repeal the state’s first-in-the-nation primary law but also to change state election law to allow more widespread early voting. In a statement, Sununu said, “This was Joe Biden’s decision, and once again, he blew it. … The good news is that our primary will still be first and the nation will not be held to a substandard process dictated by Joe Biden and the Democrat Party.” Osborne simply sarcastically told Vox, “Yes, I have a letter for the DNC. Looking forward to sending it.”

Joe Sweeney, the former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party and a state representative there, told Vox, “I would say it’s likelier President Biden comes back to New Hampshire to campaign again after all this than any New Hampshire Republican caving to DNC bullying regarding our FITN law … New Hampshire won’t be bullied by DC and certainly not by the DNC Rules Committee or the president.”

Ray Buckley, the longtime chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, succinctly told reporters, “We’ll have first in the nation, and whatever sanctions they have, so be it.”

This sets up a spiraling conflict over the calendar and opens up the possibility for other states to go rogue and move up. There is precedent for this. In advance of the 2008 presidential primary, the final calendar wasn’t set until December 2007, and even then there was conflict over Michigan and Florida going rogue and holding primaries in defiance of the DNC, which was not resolved until May 31, 2008, at the very end of the primary process.

But this is a year in which conflict over the calendar has comparatively few consequences. If, as expected, Biden runs for reelection, he is unlikely to face a serious challenge for the nomination. This means that any conflict over the calendar will happen during an election that is likely to be a fait accompli.

But what it does mean is that there is a precedent set in advance of 2028, which will be a wide-open field, to minimize the role of Iowa and New Hampshire. It will open the door for new fights, over exactly what states come first, that will happen with potential candidates posturing for the calendar to help them.

For all the criticisms of Iowa and New Hampshire as too white or too rural or too unrepresentative of the Democratic Party, their place on the calendar at least provided certainty and an electorate that, for better or worse, was accustomed to vetting presidential candidates. That’s not the case moving forward. The next competitive Democratic presidential primary will happen without any preset calendar or clear rules of the road.

In the meantime, the Republican presidential calendar is set and a host of candidates will show up in Iowa and New Hampshire as usual in advance of 2024, while the national Democratic Party might go to war with the state parties in both states.

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: The Midterms Were a Hollow Victory for Democrats – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

The Midterms Were a Hollow Victory for Democrats

#Midterms #Hollow #Victory #Democrats


But amidst all the liberal revelry lies an uncomfortable, little-reported fact: Democrats lost the House popular vote by three points.

Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.