Saturday, June 17, 2023

ELECTION INTERFERENCE!

That third one is the bingo. It’s the point I hadn’t considered, and it ties everything together. But start with the “Clinton socks” case.



That case was brought by Judicial Watch in 2012; and thrown out by the trial court  I don’t know if Tom Fitton was with Judicial Watch in 2012, but Fitton is the link between the case and Trump’s obsession with it. And yes, Trump has it completely wrong, for one reason because the case was thrown out. The court ruled the tapes (interviews with Clinton for a book) were “diaries,” so personal, so not subject to the PRA. 

None of this has anything to do with Trump’s situation, but Fitton keeps pushing it.
The Post is reporting, "Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump’s lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said."
Hollywood movies have taught me the con only works  because the mark wants to be conned. The mark, in other words, wants to believe the con. Otherwise, it can’t work. That’s the Hollywood version, anyway. And it works here. Trump doesn’t want to listen to lawyers who won’t tell him what he wants to hear. So he listens to a non-lawyer who does.

The grifter is being grifted. And it’s going to cost him his liberty.

Kinda like the “election interference” thing. That’s a DOJ regulation meant to keep a new investigation, or the results of an old one, from being an “October surprise.” It doesn’t mean simply announcing for office makes you invisible and bulletproof. But probably Fitton told Trump it would.

It would be fitting, for the con man to be conned out of his liberty and almost any benefit he could have gotten from sound legal counsel.

Very fitting.
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. ntodd1:06 PM

    The part I've seen that MAGA likes to cite is about "the decision to segregate personal materials...is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion." Lots they miss about the PRA itself, the actual facts of the case, etc, but this is why the sock drawer comes us.

    My query to you, the lawyer (understanding you aren't necessarily an SME on this area of law): since this is a footnote in the Memorandum Opinion, does that mean it is dicta, and not binding, regardless?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ntodd1:07 PM

    Footnote 2 in the opinion:

    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)