Trump wants a meeting with the AG what a joke?

[White 6]

That letter looks like it was written by Trump, and not his lawyers. Yikes.

You have to be pretty desperate to take him on as a client.

No. Not if good at contracts law and securing payment regardless of outcome.

 

[candycorn]

Really? You want TRUMP! telling everything he knows under oath on a permanent record?

Yes. Even though I doubt being under oath would be enough to cure him of his congenital inability to be truthful.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump will certainly tell you what he thinks is the truth.

He now believes his own lies.

 

[BackAgain]

Special prosecutors are not outside actors. They are a part of the DOJ. They have oversight officially hanging over their heads from the moment they get the appointment.

See: DocumentCloud

Note: “(e) Sections 600.4 to 600.10 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.”

Turning to Section 600.7:

600.7 Conduct and accountability.​

§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).

(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

28 CFR § 600.7 Conduct and accountability - eCFR

CFR Title 28 Section 600.7 Conduct and accountability of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

ecfr.io

(all emphases are mine)

Maybe now we get some insight into what the Trump defense is doing.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Trump defense is failing.

 

[BackAgain]

The Trump defense is failing.

Zzzzz.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Zzzzz.

It's gone to sleep.

 

[BackAgain]

It's gone to sleep.

Yep. That boring. But you already knew you were dull.

 

[Chillicothe]

Without question, Attorney General Garland and his special prosecutor will be able to see through this pathetic charade.

However, more importantly, the milk-goats in the Trump flock will not.
The letter was primarily a fund-raiser. A solicitation whirl&twirl dance-step.
It should wring some more bucks from the fan-base cult.

So, you write a letter to the top prosecutor overseeing your case and you bring up the son of a guy who bested you and who has no linkage
whatsoever to you stealing and keeping restricted government documents.......and then you immediately release this 'private' letter to the public?

Yup, sure sounds like a sincere effort for a serious adult conversation about serious adult matters.

Ummmm......???
Maybe not.
At all.

 

[Chillicothe]

OK, on second thought:

I'd reply to the Trump team with a stipulation that a meeting may be granted if they will lay out in detail in a letter format
exactly what their concerns are with specific matters of the prosecution. What legal theories do they think apply?
Which elements of evidence to they dispute? Which they accept?
Their objection to anticipated witnesses?
And specificity matters. Bigly.

In short, if they want a meeting to be considered....then lay out their argument so as not to waste everybody's time.

Anyway, I'd suggest that to the DOJ decision-makers.
No harm in asking. And if the Trump group won't meet your ask.....then no meeting.

 

[hadit]

Yes. Even though I doubt being under oath would be enough to cure him of his congenital inability to be truthful.

Then they'll have to prove he's lying. Orange Man Bad isn't enough.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Then they'll have to prove he's lying. Orange Man Bad isn't enough."

I'm not at all sure that 'Orange Man Bad' is one of the contemplated charges in this purloined document gig by the disgraced former president.
By what we can read in the media it appears there are other considerations, and perhaps "lying" may be one of 'em. But I dunno for sure.

We did see in this morning's newsfeeds this bit about Mar-A-Lago:


"Two of Donald Trump’s employees moved boxes of papers the day before an early June visit by FBI agents and a prosecutor to the
former president’s Florida home to retrieve classified documents in response to a subpoena — timing that investigators have come
to view as suspicious and an indication of possible obstruction, according to people familiar with the matter.

Trump and his aides also allegedly carried out a “dress rehearsal” for moving sensitive papers even before his office received the
May 2022 subpoena, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a
sensitive ongoing investigation.
Prosecutors in addition have gathered evidence indicating that Trump at times kept classified documents in his office in a place where they
were visible and sometimes showed them to others, these people said.


Taken together, the new details of the classified-documents investigation suggest a greater breadth and specificity to the instances
of possible obstruction found by the FBI and Justice Department than have been previously reported."

 

[struth]

I'm not at all sure that 'Orange Man Bad' is one of the contemplated charges in this purloined document gig by the disgraced former president.
By what we can read in the media it appears there are other considerations, and perhaps "lying" may be one of 'em. But I dunno for sure.

We did see in this morning's newsfeeds this bit about Mar-A-Lago:


"Two of Donald Trump’s employees moved boxes of papers the day before an early June visit by FBI agents and a prosecutor to the
former president’s Florida home to retrieve classified documents in response to a subpoena — timing that investigators have come
to view as suspicious and an indication of possible obstruction, according to people familiar with the matter.

Trump and his aides also allegedly carried out a “dress rehearsal” for moving sensitive papers even before his office received the
May 2022 subpoena, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a
sensitive ongoing investigation.
Prosecutors in addition have gathered evidence indicating that Trump at times kept classified documents in his office in a place where they
were visible and sometimes showed them to others, these people said.


Taken together, the new details of the classified-documents investigation suggest a greater breadth and specificity to the instances
of possible obstruction found by the FBI and Justice Department than have been previously reported."

haha what’s a “dress rehearsal” for moving a box? haha

the propagandist certainly know their dembot base…so lazy they never moved a box before

 

[bodecea]

Thanks again for all the free campaigning you brain-absent sheeple do for him.

Of course. MAGAts vote for scummy criminals..
The scummier, the better.

 

[percysunshine]

So, reading Andy McCarthy at NRO, this is about obstruction by lying to the Grand Jury. It is not about classified information. Seems pretty straight forward. Either Trump lied to the Grand Jury, or he did not. Also, Trump does have a point that Hillary was treated differently for her acts of obstruction. Anyone remember the bleach bit episode? That still wont save Trump if he lied.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So, reading Andy McCarthy at NRO, this is about obstruction by lying to the Grand Jury. It is not about classified information. Seems pretty straight forward. Either Trump lied to the Grand Jury, or he did not. Also, Trump does have a point that Hillary was treated differently for her acts of obstruction. Anyone remember the bleach bit episode? That still wont save Trump if he lied.

All investigations are unique to themselves. It is not cookie cutter MAGA condemnation nonsense.

 

[struth]

All investigations are unique to themselves. It is not cookie cutter MAGA condemnation nonsense.

this is true…i particular when it’s demafasict investigating themselves or political rivals

they don’t believe in equal before the law…which is a pillar of leftist radial tyrants

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Come on Mrs Jones....sitting in a basement breathing your own CO2 through a facediaper....what do you know?

It is in fact a lie to claim that Trump is being treated 'unfairly.'

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

this is true…i particular when it’s demafasict investigating themselves or political rivals

they don’t believe in equal before the law…which is a pillar of leftist radial tyrants

An opinionated goofy statement without facts.

 

[struth]

An opinionated goofy statement without facts.

sure we can see (the facts)…it’s in plain sight