Anonymous wrote:I really think many of you are missing the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.
Joking aside, they aren't missing the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.
People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.
Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.
You people have some weird mythology in your heads about "the President can declassify." There's a process for declassifying documents, even for the President. The process is NOT the President waving his hands and gesturing broadly, saying "I declassify this stuff' or simply willing it to be declassified with his mind. And if the process isn't followed, there is no way of knowing what is or isn't declassified and it would be chaos. If the downgrading and declassification process isn't followed or there is no evidence it was followed then it remains classified.
You are incorrect.
Nope. There is a legal process for declassification. Please provide a link that shows a president can think it or will it, and it becomes so.
Per Constitutional lawyers:
A former president has the legal right to access any and all of the documents created during his presidency, classified or otherwise. The second before a President leaves office, by his very actions alone in taking documents he can be said to have declassified them.
“Therefore, the former president cannot be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for this reason and more,” said Levin, who served as chief of state to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration.”
In addition, Trumps’ lawyers had been in active negotiations regarding the documents, starting only a year after Trump left office. Like with Obama, this kind of back-and-forth is the norm and can go on for years. And the National Archives is already in possession of the vast majority of documents created during the Trump administration, and the ones at issue are a very relative few, so yes, he has cooperated. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the president is “the executive branch and he’s the commander in chief.” So Trump is not guilty of violating the Espionage Act, which was invoked in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant. In addition, there are no criminal penalties associated with the Presidential Records Act; that has been cited by the FBI.
Now let’s talk Espionage Act and Clinton: Clinton had classified documents on an unsecured email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York/. Clinton wasn’t president, so she didn’t even have the protections presidents do.
“That violates the Espionage Act,” Levin said of failing to properly secure the documents, some highly classified, from foreign adversaries”.
Mark Levin is the source of this take? You may as well quote Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.
Can you please tell me what disqualifies Levin in your mind? Not educated enough? Not enough experience?
He isn't de facto disqualified, but he is arguing this case through a lens of supporting Trump rather than through a lens of what the law says, and what the case law supports.
He repeatedly referred to Obama voters as "islamo-nazis" and claimed Obama and the Supreme Court were conspiring to bring Stalinism to the United States. He routinely screams at any caller to his show who proves him wrong, states facts contrary to his narrative calling them "pukes" or "morons" or "drones," shouting them down and then hanging up on them rather than hearing and debating facts or different, legitimate viewpoints.
One could go on and on and on with all of the absolutely wrong and completely unhinged things that Mark Levin has said (or more likely screamed) into his spittle-covered radio microphone over the years.
Not credible. Whatever respectable prior career he had is completely diminished by everything he's done on the radio over the last 20+ years.
That's your opinion. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and scholar.
Any you quote.....Salon?
"Constitutional lawyer and scholar" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
NO he isn't. He's a radio host and has been for 20 years. He hasn't published any academic pieces on constitutional law in legal journals or law reviews. He hasn't argued a constitutional case in his life. Yes, he has a law degree, served as an attorney in private sector and as a second-tier bureaucrat in the Reagan administration but has zero qualifications as "constitutional lawyer and scholar" other than whatever self-professed grandiose delusions he may have. But I guess he has you baffled into believing his schtick because he wrote some books and included a few bookmarked quotes from Hobbes or de Tocqueville or whoever.
Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a Constitutional lawyer, president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington D.C., a top-rated nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host and a best selling non-fiction author. Also, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration.
So... complete crap. Thanks for the confirmation.
Levin on Trump: "While he's been president there hasn't even been a hint of scandal. Not a hint!"
So far, every scandal has been debunked. If a scandal means a sharp mouth, I’ll give you that.
Every scandal has been debunked???
I know you still believe the dossier is real, the pee tape is real, and that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election in 2016.
The 2020 Senate Intel report on the 2016 election came to the conclusion that Russia interfered with the election and that Trump's campaign welcomed the help. That report was chaired by Marco Rubio.
Jonathan Turley has long been one of Trump's staunchest defenders. But with this indictment, Trump has lost Turley. Turley said the indictment is serious and incredibly damning. He said there is a lot of incredibly incriminating evidence and that the indictment cannot be dismissed.
Anonymous wrote:Speaking of 'facts matter'... that report found that Russia spent approximately $100k in social media ads. That's it, yet RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!
Read the Senate report. Read the Muller report. It’s all in there.
Anonymous wrote:I really think many of you are missing the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.
Joking aside, they aren't missing the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.
People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.
Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.
You people have some weird mythology in your heads about "the President can declassify." There's a process for declassifying documents, even for the President. The process is NOT the President waving his hands and gesturing broadly, saying "I declassify this stuff' or simply willing it to be declassified with his mind. And if the process isn't followed, there is no way of knowing what is or isn't declassified and it would be chaos. If the downgrading and declassification process isn't followed or there is no evidence it was followed then it remains classified.
You are incorrect.
Nope. There is a legal process for declassification. Please provide a link that shows a president can think it or will it, and it becomes so.
Per Constitutional lawyers:
A former president has the legal right to access any and all of the documents created during his presidency, classified or otherwise. The second before a President leaves office, by his very actions alone in taking documents he can be said to have declassified them.
“Therefore, the former president cannot be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for this reason and more,” said Levin, who served as chief of state to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration.”
In addition, Trumps’ lawyers had been in active negotiations regarding the documents, starting only a year after Trump left office. Like with Obama, this kind of back-and-forth is the norm and can go on for years. And the National Archives is already in possession of the vast majority of documents created during the Trump administration, and the ones at issue are a very relative few, so yes, he has cooperated. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the president is “the executive branch and he’s the commander in chief.” So Trump is not guilty of violating the Espionage Act, which was invoked in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant. In addition, there are no criminal penalties associated with the Presidential Records Act; that has been cited by the FBI.
Now let’s talk Espionage Act and Clinton: Clinton had classified documents on an unsecured email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York/. Clinton wasn’t president, so she didn’t even have the protections presidents do.
“That violates the Espionage Act,” Levin said of failing to properly secure the documents, some highly classified, from foreign adversaries”.
Mark Levin is the source of this take? You may as well quote Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.
Can you please tell me what disqualifies Levin in your mind? Not educated enough? Not enough experience?
He isn't de facto disqualified, but he is arguing this case through a lens of supporting Trump rather than through a lens of what the law says, and what the case law supports.
He repeatedly referred to Obama voters as "islamo-nazis" and claimed Obama and the Supreme Court were conspiring to bring Stalinism to the United States. He routinely screams at any caller to his show who proves him wrong, states facts contrary to his narrative calling them "pukes" or "morons" or "drones," shouting them down and then hanging up on them rather than hearing and debating facts or different, legitimate viewpoints.
One could go on and on and on with all of the absolutely wrong and completely unhinged things that Mark Levin has said (or more likely screamed) into his spittle-covered radio microphone over the years.
Not credible. Whatever respectable prior career he had is completely diminished by everything he's done on the radio over the last 20+ years.
That's your opinion. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and scholar.
Any you quote.....Salon?
"Constitutional lawyer and scholar" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
NO he isn't. He's a radio host and has been for 20 years. He hasn't published any academic pieces on constitutional law in legal journals or law reviews. He hasn't argued a constitutional case in his life. Yes, he has a law degree, served as an attorney in private sector and as a second-tier bureaucrat in the Reagan administration but has zero qualifications as "constitutional lawyer and scholar" other than whatever self-professed grandiose delusions he may have. But I guess he has you baffled into believing his schtick because he wrote some books and included a few bookmarked quotes from Hobbes or de Tocqueville or whoever.
Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a Constitutional lawyer, president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington D.C., a top-rated nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host and a best selling non-fiction author. Also, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration.
So... complete crap. Thanks for the confirmation.
Levin on Trump: "While he's been president there hasn't even been a hint of scandal. Not a hint!"
Mark Levin should play the Penguin in the next Batman movie.
Anonymous wrote:I really think many of you are missing the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.
Joking aside, they aren't missing the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.
People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.
Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.
You people have some weird mythology in your heads about "the President can declassify." There's a process for declassifying documents, even for the President. The process is NOT the President waving his hands and gesturing broadly, saying "I declassify this stuff' or simply willing it to be declassified with his mind. And if the process isn't followed, there is no way of knowing what is or isn't declassified and it would be chaos. If the downgrading and declassification process isn't followed or there is no evidence it was followed then it remains classified.
You are incorrect.
Nope. There is a legal process for declassification. Please provide a link that shows a president can think it or will it, and it becomes so.
Per Constitutional lawyers:
A former president has the legal right to access any and all of the documents created during his presidency, classified or otherwise. The second before a President leaves office, by his very actions alone in taking documents he can be said to have declassified them.
“Therefore, the former president cannot be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for this reason and more,” said Levin, who served as chief of state to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration.”
In addition, Trumps’ lawyers had been in active negotiations regarding the documents, starting only a year after Trump left office. Like with Obama, this kind of back-and-forth is the norm and can go on for years. And the National Archives is already in possession of the vast majority of documents created during the Trump administration, and the ones at issue are a very relative few, so yes, he has cooperated. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the president is “the executive branch and he’s the commander in chief.” So Trump is not guilty of violating the Espionage Act, which was invoked in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant. In addition, there are no criminal penalties associated with the Presidential Records Act; that has been cited by the FBI.
Now let’s talk Espionage Act and Clinton: Clinton had classified documents on an unsecured email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York/. Clinton wasn’t president, so she didn’t even have the protections presidents do.
“That violates the Espionage Act,” Levin said of failing to properly secure the documents, some highly classified, from foreign adversaries”.
Mark Levin is the source of this take? You may as well quote Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.
Can you please tell me what disqualifies Levin in your mind? Not educated enough? Not enough experience?
He isn't de facto disqualified, but he is arguing this case through a lens of supporting Trump rather than through a lens of what the law says, and what the case law supports.
He repeatedly referred to Obama voters as "islamo-nazis" and claimed Obama and the Supreme Court were conspiring to bring Stalinism to the United States. He routinely screams at any caller to his show who proves him wrong, states facts contrary to his narrative calling them "pukes" or "morons" or "drones," shouting them down and then hanging up on them rather than hearing and debating facts or different, legitimate viewpoints.
One could go on and on and on with all of the absolutely wrong and completely unhinged things that Mark Levin has said (or more likely screamed) into his spittle-covered radio microphone over the years.
Not credible. Whatever respectable prior career he had is completely diminished by everything he's done on the radio over the last 20+ years.
That's your opinion. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and scholar.
Any you quote.....Salon?
"Constitutional lawyer and scholar" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
NO he isn't. He's a radio host and has been for 20 years. He hasn't published any academic pieces on constitutional law in legal journals or law reviews. He hasn't argued a constitutional case in his life. Yes, he has a law degree, served as an attorney in private sector and as a second-tier bureaucrat in the Reagan administration but has zero qualifications as "constitutional lawyer and scholar" other than whatever self-professed grandiose delusions he may have. But I guess he has you baffled into believing his schtick because he wrote some books and included a few bookmarked quotes from Hobbes or de Tocqueville or whoever.
Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a Constitutional lawyer, president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington D.C., a top-rated nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host and a best selling non-fiction author. Also, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration.
So... complete crap. Thanks for the confirmation.
Levin on Trump: "While he's been president there hasn't even been a hint of scandal. Not a hint!"
Mark Levin should play the Penguin in the next Batman movie.
Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.
He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.
It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.
for the tenth time, it doesn’t matter. The charges are based on the espionage act which does not refer to the classification system.
That has nothing to do with my response. Did you reply to the wrong poster?
Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.
He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.
It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.
He and his attorneys have filed other papers related to this and in none of them, has he claimed he declassified. In fact, he is on tape admitting he hasn't and hadn't. Why is this hard to understand?
I’m aware. That doesn’t change what I said. He still has yet to present a defense, and it’s not too late. Too stupid? Yes, but not too late.
Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.
He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.
It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.
for the tenth time, it doesn’t matter. The charges are based on the espionage act which does not refer to the classification system.
That has nothing to do with my response. Did you reply to the wrong poster?
Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.
He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.
It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.
He and his attorneys have filed other papers related to this and in none of them, has he claimed he declassified. In fact, he is on tape admitting he hasn't and hadn't. Why is this hard to understand?
I’m aware. That doesn’t change what I said. He still has yet to present a defense, and it’s not too late. Too stupid? Yes, but not too late.
The problem Trump has, is that at this point, it doesn't matter whether the documents were classified, or not. They were/are work product of agencies that constitute national defense and as such, should not have been in his possession under any circumstance. When others had possession and were asked to return it, they did. When Trump was asked, he had the documents moved to hide them from his attorneys and from FBI investigators.
Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.
He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.
It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.
for the tenth time, it doesn’t matter. The charges are based on the espionage act which does not refer to the classification system.
That has nothing to do with my response. Did you reply to the wrong poster?
DP. Re-read the strand.
I am the OP of that strand. He would have to take the stand to use the “but, but I declassified them!” as a defense, but that is very risky. Even if his attorneys did not say it during the seized material filings prior to the indictment, he could still use it as a defense. It would be a terrible idea, but when’s the last time Trump let that keep him from doing it?
Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.
He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.
It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.
He and his attorneys have filed other papers related to this and in none of them, has he claimed he declassified. In fact, he is on tape admitting he hasn't and hadn't. Why is this hard to understand?
I’m aware. That doesn’t change what I said. He still has yet to present a defense, and it’s not too late. Too stupid? Yes, but not too late.
The problem Trump has, is that at this point, it doesn't matter whether the documents were classified, or not. They were/are work product of agencies that constitute national defense and as such, should not have been in his possession under any circumstance. When others had possession and were asked to return it, they did. When Trump was asked, he had the documents moved to hide them from his attorneys and from FBI investigators.
See the difference?
I said that in the quoted thread. It was in response to all the posters here arguing he declassified the materials.
Another thing about Trump showing the Milley document is how ignorant Trump still was about how the military operates even after four years as President. Mark Milley is a by-the-book guy. He wouldn’t write a document arguing that we SHOULD attack Iran because that is not his lane, but he would have a top secret plan that if Iran provoked us this is how we COULD attack Iran. Trump is claiming that the document shows that it was Milley who wanted to attack Iran, not Trump, but only a delusional Trump lackey would buy that.
Anonymous wrote:I really think many of you are missing the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.
Joking aside, they aren't missing the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.
People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.
Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.
You people have some weird mythology in your heads about "the President can declassify." There's a process for declassifying documents, even for the President. The process is NOT the President waving his hands and gesturing broadly, saying "I declassify this stuff' or simply willing it to be declassified with his mind. And if the process isn't followed, there is no way of knowing what is or isn't declassified and it would be chaos. If the downgrading and declassification process isn't followed or there is no evidence it was followed then it remains classified.
You are incorrect.
Nope. There is a legal process for declassification. Please provide a link that shows a president can think it or will it, and it becomes so.
Per Constitutional lawyers:
A former president has the legal right to access any and all of the documents created during his presidency, classified or otherwise. The second before a President leaves office, by his very actions alone in taking documents he can be said to have declassified them.
“Therefore, the former president cannot be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for this reason and more,” said Levin, who served as chief of state to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration.”
In addition, Trumps’ lawyers had been in active negotiations regarding the documents, starting only a year after Trump left office. Like with Obama, this kind of back-and-forth is the norm and can go on for years. And the National Archives is already in possession of the vast majority of documents created during the Trump administration, and the ones at issue are a very relative few, so yes, he has cooperated. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the president is “the executive branch and he’s the commander in chief.” So Trump is not guilty of violating the Espionage Act, which was invoked in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant. In addition, there are no criminal penalties associated with the Presidential Records Act; that has been cited by the FBI.
Now let’s talk Espionage Act and Clinton: Clinton had classified documents on an unsecured email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York/. Clinton wasn’t president, so she didn’t even have the protections presidents do.
“That violates the Espionage Act,” Levin said of failing to properly secure the documents, some highly classified, from foreign adversaries”.
Mark Levin is the source of this take? You may as well quote Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.
Can you please tell me what disqualifies Levin in your mind? Not educated enough? Not enough experience?
He isn't de facto disqualified, but he is arguing this case through a lens of supporting Trump rather than through a lens of what the law says, and what the case law supports.
He repeatedly referred to Obama voters as "islamo-nazis" and claimed Obama and the Supreme Court were conspiring to bring Stalinism to the United States. He routinely screams at any caller to his show who proves him wrong, states facts contrary to his narrative calling them "pukes" or "morons" or "drones," shouting them down and then hanging up on them rather than hearing and debating facts or different, legitimate viewpoints.
One could go on and on and on with all of the absolutely wrong and completely unhinged things that Mark Levin has said (or more likely screamed) into his spittle-covered radio microphone over the years.
Not credible. Whatever respectable prior career he had is completely diminished by everything he's done on the radio over the last 20+ years.
That's your opinion. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and scholar.
Any you quote.....Salon?
"Constitutional lawyer and scholar" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
NO he isn't. He's a radio host and has been for 20 years. He hasn't published any academic pieces on constitutional law in legal journals or law reviews. He hasn't argued a constitutional case in his life. Yes, he has a law degree, served as an attorney in private sector and as a second-tier bureaucrat in the Reagan administration but has zero qualifications as "constitutional lawyer and scholar" other than whatever self-professed grandiose delusions he may have. But I guess he has you baffled into believing his schtick because he wrote some books and included a few bookmarked quotes from Hobbes or de Tocqueville or whoever.
Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a Constitutional lawyer, president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington D.C., a top-rated nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host and a best selling non-fiction author. Also, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration.
So... complete crap. Thanks for the confirmation.
Levin on Trump: "While he's been president there hasn't even been a hint of scandal. Not a hint!"
Well, of the many many Trump associates who were indicted and imprisoned, although it didn’t seem like it at first, it appears that the MAJORITY will be convicted AFTER trump left office.
Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Roger stone, George papadopolous, michael cohen, Mike flynn, Elliott broidy were indicted and nearly all convicted (and pardoned) while trump was in office.
Let’s see. After leaving office, we have Steve bannon, George Nader, Alan weisselburg, Tom barrack, Peter Navarro, Corey Lewandowski (cut a deal to get charged dismissed), Walt nauta. To be announced later this year are multiple indictments from georgia, including probable perjury charges (please let it be mark meadows), and possible indictments from Jan 6.
So, yeah, if levin means that there were FEWER scandals during trump’s presidency than afterwards, I guess he has a point. Trump getting arrested twice in 2 months certainly did NOT happen during his presidency, and possibly getting arrested 4 times within a year does make his actual presidential term seem tame in comparison.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
