Top Biden Officials Worked with Jack Smith

 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/05/02/unredactions_reveal_early_white_house_involvement_in_trump_documents_case_1028630.html

Top Biden administration officials worked with the National Archives to develop Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Donald Trump involving the former president’s alleged mishandling of classified material, according to recently unsealed court documents in the case pending in southern Florida.

More than 300 pages of newly unredacted exhibits, containing emails and other correspondence related to the early stages of the hunt for presidential papers, challenge public statements by Joe Biden about what he knew and when he knew it regarding the case against his political rival.

I keep hearing how the prosecutions of Trump are his fault. It seems strange that at high levels of the Biden administration they worked with the special counsel to do anything. Trump’s team had been cooperating. They had even sent back some 15 boxes.

Biden actually broke the law. He had no right to any documents, while Trump as President had sole right of classification. Biden does not get prosecuted but Trump does. This is a clear political attack.

As if we needed more evidence.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 77 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Don’t worry, it’s all just “A Few Bad Apples.”

    Oh, and don’t forget Hillary.  As a Senator, and Secretary of State, she didn’t have such authority over classified documents either.

    • #1
  2. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf 🚫 Banned
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Well, then there’s the whole set-up aspect that just came out due to the unsealing of documents that Jack Smith really, really didn’t want unsealed.

    So the GSA had a pallet of boxes with documents, dumps them at Mar-a-Lago, . . . and then suddenly there’s a tip-off to the FBI that there are boxes of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and the subsequent raid.

    Huh.

    • #2
  3. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Bryan G. Stephens: Biden actually broke the law. He had not right to any documents, while Trump as President had sole right of classification. Biden does not get prosecuted but Trump does. This is a clear political attack. 

    The 2024 election outcome will determine whether America has a working judicial process or not. What recent evidence has shown about Trump criminal charges and prosecutions is that they are false and the result of an election interference conspiracy among lawyers associated with LawFare, President Biden, White House staff and perhaps some other individuals and there should be consequences.

    • #3
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    If there were any classified documents in the boxes of stuff that the Archives shipped to Mar-a-Lago, then someone withe the Archives are guilty of mishandling classified documents.

    The only reason the DoJ would have for redacting this information is that it appears exculpatory for Trump, which if not a crime (I think it is) is prosecutorial misconduct and grounds for dismissal of the charges.

    I don’t think this whole thing has been sorted out yet, but Judge Cannon seems to have lit a fuse under Jack Smith’s “case.”

    • #4
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    If there were any classified documents in the boxes of stuff that the Archives shipped to Mar-a-Lago, then someone withe the Archives are guilty of mishandling classified documents.

    The only reason the DoJ would have for redacting this information is that it appears exculpatory for Trump, which if not a crime (I think it is) is prosecutorial misconduct and grounds for dismissal of the charges.

    I don’t think this whole thing has been sorted out yet, but Judge Cannon seems to have lit a fuse under Jack Smith’s “case.”

    And since he’s only a white guy, he hasn’t screwed up nearly as badly as Letitia James and Fani Willis.

    • #5
  6. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Don’t worry, it’s all just “A Few Bad Apples.”

    Oh, and don’t forget Hillary. As a Senator, and Secretary of State, she didn’t have such authority over classified documents either.

    They are all bad apples. Trump is being lynched.

    • #6
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Look on the bright side: no mean Tweets.

    • #7
  8. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Trump supporters: Trump needed to be involved in the electoral college count because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the country! (Despite the clear Constitution authority presides in Congress.)

    Also Trump supporters: Biden has no business being involved in the DOJ or any of the executive branch agencies! Collusion! Election interference!

     

     

    • #8
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Trump supporters: Trump needed to be involved in the electoral college count because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the country! (Despite the clear Constitution authority presides in Congress.)

    Also Trump supporters: Biden has no business being involved in the DOJ or any of the executive branch agencies! Collusion! Election interference!

    Which Trump supporters would those be?

    Sheesh–even Trump’s speech itself was advising that we cheer on those components of the Congressional proceedings that drew attention to problems with the election.

    • #9
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf 🚫 Banned
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Trump supporters: Trump needed to be involved in the electoral college count because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the country! (Despite the clear Constitution authority presides in Congress.)

    Also Trump supporters: Biden has no business being involved in the DOJ or any of the executive branch agencies! Collusion! Election interference!

    https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/040/566/sirthisisawendysmeme.jpg

    • #10
  11. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Trump supporters: Trump needed to be involved in the electoral college count because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the country! (Despite the clear Constitution authority presides in Congress.)

    Also Trump supporters: Biden has no business being involved in the DOJ or any of the executive branch agencies! Collusion! Election interference!

    Which Trump supporters would those be?

    Sheesh–even Trump’s speech itself was advising that we cheer on those components of the Congressional proceedings that drew attention to problems with the election.

    As a Trump supporter, the above claims do not fit my view.  The POTUS is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for federal law but there are no federal election laws (other than those related to enforcing civil rights). Elections are state matters and Trump did nothing more than exhorting state officials to make sure the state laws were enforced. He had an interest in the process but no authority.

    • #11
  12. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    A Banana Republic is fine just as long as Trump isn’t in the White House. Endless wars are preferable to the peace Trump was working in the Middle East. Unaffordable food and gas is wonderful, just as long as Trump doesn’t sully the White House. What kind of inbred, troglodyte would want to go back to 2017? Why won’t you see how icky Trump is?

    • #12
  13. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Trump supporters: Trump needed to be involved in the electoral college count because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the counry! (Despite the clear Constitution authority presides in Congress.)

    Also Trump supporters: Biden has no business being involved in the DOJ or any of the executive branch agencies! Collusion! Election interference!

     

     

    The President makes sure the laws are faithfully executed. The election of a president is prescribed by the Constitution. The Executive and Judicial Branches interject themselves in elections a lot.

    You are a little dishonest in your second paragraph even though you acknowledge the complaints of collusion and election interference. There is a big difference between supervising your branch and colluding with your branch to abuse your power to eliminate your political opponent. I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally deceptive or you just don’t see the difference.

     

    .

    • #13
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Trump supporters: Trump needed to be involved in the electoral college count because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the counry! (Despite the clear Constitution authority presides in Congress.)

    Also Trump supporters: Biden has no business being involved in the DOJ or any of the executive branch agencies! Collusion! Election interference!

     

     

    The President makes sure the laws are faithfully executed. The election of a president is prescribed by the Constitution. The Executive and Judicial Branches interject themselves in elections a lot.

    You are a little dishonest in your second paragraph even though you acknowledge the complaints of collusion and election interference. There is a big difference between supervising your branch and colluding with your branch to abuse your power to eliminate your political opponent. I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally deceptive or you just don’t see the difference.

     

    .

    Crossfire Hurricane was a clear attempt at election interference.

    • #14
  15. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Red Herring: There is a big difference between supervising your branch and colluding with your branch to abuse your power to eliminate your political opponent. I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally deceptive or you just don’t see the difference.

    Isn’t Trump also claiming presidents have absolute immunity? How can one claim a president is free to start riots in the halls of Congress and yet controlling the executive branch of government is “collusion?”

    How were the schemes the Eastman and Giuliani came up with in the Oval Office then not a conspiracy to “collude” with the Vice President an abuse of power to eliminate his political opponent from the presidency?

    There’s no consistency in the Trump arguments. 

     

    • #15
  16. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    nothing says “Saving Democracy” more than political prosecution.

     

    • #16
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    nothing says “Saving Democracy” more than political prosecution.

     

    I think that is the key issue here. Clearly, we have political prosecution, both in the types of cases brought and in the fact that other, stronger cases have not been brought. 

    • #17
  18. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    How were the schemes the Eastman and Giuliani came up with in the Oval Office then not a conspiracy to “collude” with the Vice President an abuse of power to eliminate his political opponent from the presidency?

     

    Did they do more than attempt to get State and Local authorities with election process oversight responsibility to confirm that election protocols established by law and regulation had been followed?  Same thing that President Trump was encouraging Mike Pence to do in the VP EC opening and counting of the Elector votes. 

    These processes may not have been common in our lifetime but they are not criminal.

    • #18
  19. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: There is a big difference between supervising your branch and colluding with your branch to abuse your power to eliminate your political opponent. I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally deceptive or you just don’t see the difference.

    Isn’t Trump also claiming presidents have absolute immunity? How can one claim a president is free to start riots in the halls of Congress and yet controlling the executive branch of government is “collusion?”

    How were the schemes the Eastman and Giuliani came up with in the Oval Office then not a conspiracy to “collude” with the Vice President an abuse of power to eliminate his political opponent from the presidency?

    There’s no consistency in the Trump arguments.

     

    Few Trump supporters I have observed, including myself, think Trump gets everything right or that he hasn’t made some serious mistakes, misjudgments, and taken wrong positions on some matters. 

    What is dumbfounding, as you @ejhill proceed with your constant Trump vilification, is your absolute failure to mention the people and the crimes they are committing in their attempts to bring Trump down. Those people are the total enemies of the American people, not Trump.

    • #19
  20. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: There is a big difference between supervising your branch and colluding with your branch to abuse your power to eliminate your political opponent. I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally deceptive or you just don’t see the difference.

    Isn’t Trump also claiming presidents have absolute immunity? How can one claim a president is free to start riots in the halls of Congress and yet controlling the executive branch of government is “collusion?”

    How were the schemes the Eastman and Giuliani came up with in the Oval Office then not a conspiracy to “collude” with the Vice President an abuse of power to eliminate his political opponent from the presidency?

    There’s no consistency in the Trump arguments.

     

    Few Trump supporters I have observed, including myself, think Trump gets everything right or that he hasn’t made some serious mistakes, misjudgments, and taken wrong positions on some matters.

    What is dumbfounding, as you @ ejhill proceed with your constant Trump vilification, is your absolute failure to mention the people and the crimes they are committing in their attempts to bring Trump down. Those people are the total enemies of the American people, not Trump.

    or that Biden is every attribute they claim about Trump 

    • #20
  21. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Trump supporters: Trump needed to be involved in the electoral college count because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the counry! (Despite the clear Constitution authority presides in Congress.)

    Also Trump supporters: Biden has no business being involved in the DOJ or any of the executive branch agencies! Collusion! Election interference!

     

     

    The President makes sure the laws are faithfully executed. The election of a president is prescribed by the Constitution. The Executive and Judicial Branches interject themselves in elections a lot.

    You are a little dishonest in your second paragraph even though you acknowledge the complaints of collusion and election interference. There is a big difference between supervising your branch and colluding with your branch to abuse your power to eliminate your political opponent. I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally deceptive or you just don’t see the difference.

     

    .

    Crossfire Hurricane was a clear attempt at election interference.

    A clear criminal attempt at election interference. Fixed it for you.

    • #21
  22. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Bob Thompson; Did they do more than attempt to get State and Local authorities with election process oversight responsibility to confirm that election protocols established by law and regulation had been followed?

    Yes. When a losing candidate tells a state official, “All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated,” he’s basically asking him to either fabricate votes or asking him to fake the results and claim there had been an accounting error.

    Same thing that President Trump was encouraging Mike Pence to do in the VP EC opening and counting of the Elector votes.

    The president has no constitutional role in the counting of the electoral votes. Separation of powers demand the executive allow Congress (and the VP as President of the Senate) to conduct their duties independently. This duty is not just another piece of legislation that a president can offer his opinion on. Remember all the pro-Trump arguments in the Fani Willis threads and how important it is not to give even the appearance of impropriety? 

    What is dumbfounding, as you @ ejhill proceed with your constant Trump vilification, is your absolute failure to mention the people and the crimes they are committing in their attempts to bring Trump down. Those people are the total enemies of the American people, not Trump.

    What is dumbfounding is that you never talk about the dangerous precedents being advanced by Trump. He demands absolutely immunity for everything he did while president. If that argument succeeds then you have replaced the presidency with an elected monarch who can do as he pleases. And that absolves Obama from anything he may have done during the 2016 election cycle and absolves Biden from anything currently going on. And will absolve all future presidents of any political persuasion. I haven’t exactly read any pieces from our most ardent Trump supporters on how the Supreme Court needs to rule against Trump in this immunity claim of his.

    • #22
  23. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Red Herring: There is a big difference between supervising your branch and colluding with your branch to abuse your power to eliminate your political opponent. I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally deceptive or you just don’t see the difference.

    Isn’t Trump also claiming presidents have absolute immunity? [In the performance of their duties. Ensuring the Constitution is faithfully executed, not the banana republic BS we are shocked to see unrolling. Numerous legal scholars and even more than one Supreme Court Justice has seen how this tactic by Democrats to eliminate their political opponent has serious consequences for future presidents.] How can one claim a president is free to start riots in the halls of Congress [oh, for Pete’s sakes. What an asinine comment. Trump didn’t order anyone to riot and even offered NG troops to keep the peace. Inquiring  minds want to know why Dems refused the offer.] and yet controlling the executive branch of government is “collusion?” [???]

    How were the schemes [They weren’t “schemes” but valid legal arguments. If they weren’t valid, then there would have been no reason for the VP to have a role. It exists as a roadblock to corruption. Trump’s team knew there was something wrong and wanted it looked at. There’s been a lot of looking at since and the discoveries have reinforced the image of corrupt, banana republic shenanigans and incompetence in select counties, the same counties that Dems tactically chose to have an increased involvement in. Poo poo it all you want. You are just adding more proof to many that the problem is too deep to fix.] the Eastman and Giuliani came up with in the Oval Office then not a conspiracy to “collude” with the Vice President an abuse of power to eliminate his political opponent from the presidency? [Nope. It was a desoarate and legal attempt to undo problems. Either the Dem corruption needed to be corrected or the Repubs needed to see the election was above board and half the country really wanted to elect a dimwit, mean Marxist.]

    There’s no consistency in the Trump arguments. [If you say so. Ha ha ha.]

     

    Responses embedded in bold above.  Don’t know why I bothered, but I did.

    • #23
  24. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    EJHill (View Comment):
    . . . he’s basically asking him to either fabricate votes or asking him to fake the results and claim there had been an accounting error.

    Read Mark Davis at The Federalist and get back to us.

    • #24
  25. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Trump supporters: Trump needed to be involved in the electoral college count because the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the counry! (Despite the clear Constitution authority presides in Congress.)

    Also Trump supporters: Biden has no business being involved in the DOJ or any of the executive branch agencies! Collusion! Election interference!

     

     

    The President makes sure the laws are faithfully executed. The election of a president is prescribed by the Constitution. The Executive and Judicial Branches interject themselves in elections a lot.

    You are a little dishonest in your second paragraph even though you acknowledge the complaints of collusion and election interference. There is a big difference between supervising your branch and colluding with your branch to abuse your power to eliminate your political opponent. I’m not sure whether you are being intentionally deceptive or you just don’t see the difference.

     

    .

    Crossfire Hurricane was a clear attempt at election interference.

    A clear criminal attempt at election interference. Fixed it for you.

    Thanks, Red.

    • #25
  26. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    How were the schemes the Eastman and Giuliani came up with in the Oval Office then not a conspiracy to “collude” with the Vice President an abuse of power to eliminate his political opponent from the presidency?

     

    Did they do more than attempt to get State and Local authorities with election process oversight responsibility to confirm that election protocols established by law and regulation had been followed? Same thing that President Trump was encouraging Mike Pence to do in the VP EC opening and counting of the Elector votes.

    These processes may not have been common in our lifetime but they are not criminal.

    Democrats made them criminal to get away with their own criminal activity.

    • #26
  27. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):
    . . . he’s basically asking him to either fabricate votes or asking him to fake the results and claim there had been an accounting error.

    Read Mark Davis at The Federalist and get back to us.

    That seems unlikely. Remember EJ,.the Ethical Professional Journalist has dismissed the amazing amount of reporting work you have done. No smoking gun, you see. 

    • #27
  28. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson; Did they do more than attempt to get State and Local authorities with election process oversight responsibility to confirm that election protocols established by law and regulation had been followed?

    Yes. When a losing candidate tells a state official, “All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated,” he’s basically asking him to either fabricate votes or asking him to fake the results and claim there had been an accounting error.

    Same thing that President Trump was encouraging Mike Pence to do in the VP EC opening and counting of the Elector votes.

    The president has no constitutional role in the counting of the electoral votes. Separation of powers demand the executive allow Congress (and the VP as President of the Senate) to conduct their duties independently. This duty is not just another piece of legislation that a president can offer his opinion on. Remember all the pro-Trump arguments in the Fani Willis threads and how important it is not to give even the appearance of impropriety?

    What is dumbfounding, as you @ ejhill proceed with your constant Trump vilification, is your absolute failure to mention the people and the crimes they are committing in their attempts to bring Trump down. Those people are the total enemies of the American people, not Trump.

    What is dumbfounding is that you never talk about the dangerous precedents being advanced by Trump. He demands absolutely immunity for everything he did while president. If that argument succeeds then you have replaced the presidency with an elected monarch who can do as he pleases. And that absolves Obama from anything he may have done during the 2016 election cycle and absolves Biden from anything currently going on. And will absolve all future presidents of any political persuasion. I haven’t exactly read any pieces from our most ardent Trump supporters on how the Supreme Court needs to rule against Trump in this immunity claim of his.

    I can’t even waste my time with this. He lost me in the first point when he accused Trump of asking them to create new votes rather than find missing ones. We already know that false accusation originated in the Secretary of State’s office in Georgia when one of his assistants leaked it then they deleted the recording of the call. The deletion was later recovered and vindicated Trump. “EJ” didn’t even know about that. Even if one believes he has no role as president, he has standing as the victim. Democrats have been questioning elections for years. I’ve already addressed his last point. Y’all can deal with him. I need to pack and hit the road.

    • #28
  29. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Saint Augustine : Read Mark Davis at The Federalist and get back to us.

    When you and Mr. Davis have proof of all of your allegations you get back to me. But you don’t believe in “proof,” do you? You think elections should be overturned on some vague rule of “probability.” We’ve been down this road before.

    Red Herring: Ensuring the Constitution is faithfully executed, not the banana republic BS we are shocked to see unrolling.

    Again, there is no constitutional role for the president in the counting of electoral votes. The process predates the presidency itself. 

    Numerous legal scholars and even more than one Supreme Court Justice has seen how this tactic by Democrats to eliminate their political opponent has serious consequences for future presidents.

    This appeal to authority is meaningless. Numerous progressive “legal scholars” see things differently. 

    oh, for Pete’s sakes. What an asinine comment. Trump didn’t order anyone to riot and even offered NG troops to keep the peace. Inquiring minds want to know why Dems refused the offer.

    You know what’s asinine? Believing that the Commander-in-Chief needs someone else’s “permission” to deploy the National Guard. Exactly who did Dwight Eisenhower get permission to federalize the National Guard in Little Rock in 1957? Who did Ike need permission from to deploy 1,000 paratroopers from the 101st Airborne to Central High School?

    They weren’t “schemes” but valid legal arguments. If they weren’t valid, then there would have been no reason for the VP to have a role. It exists as a roadblock to corruption.

    Legal arguments are presented in court. Schemes are plans to thwart the separation of powers prescribed in the Constitution. Again, there is no constitutional role for the president in the electoral college count. None. 

    • #29
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine : Read Mark Davis at The Federalist and get back to us.

    When you and Mr. Davis have proof of all of your allegations you get back to me. But you don’t believe in “proof,” do you? You think elections should be overturned on some vague rule of “probability.” We’ve been down this road before.

    LOL. Yet again, you put words in someone’s mouth. He has not said that at all. He has never said that. He has never called for it. 

    Red Herring: Ensuring the Constitution is faithfully executed, not the banana republic BS we are shocked to see unrolling.

    Again, there is no constitutional role for the president in the counting of electoral votes. The process predates the presidency itself.

    Numerous legal scholars and even more than one Supreme Court Justice has seen how this tactic by Democrats to eliminate their political opponent has serious consequences for future presidents.

    This appeal to authority is meaningless. Numerous progressive “legal scholars” see things differently.

    It is 100% germane. You support a man being disbarred for proposing the legal theory. 

    It is interesting how you dismiss any appeal to authority, and yet, in the past, have acted as if the fact you are a Professional Journalist gave you expertise and authority. Strange. 

    oh, for Pete’s sakes. What an asinine comment. Trump didn’t order anyone to riot and even offered NG troops to keep the peace. Inquiring minds want to know why Dems refused the offer.

    You know what’s asinine? Believing that the Commander-in-Chief needs someone else’s “permission” to deploy the National Guard. Exactly who did Dwight Eisenhower get permission to federalize the National Guard in Little Rock in 1957? Who did Ike need permission from to deploy 1,000 paratroopers from the 101st Airborne to Central High School?

    I am pretty sure Congress controls DC. Article 1 and all that. 

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

    Now, I am not, as we know, and Ethical Professional Journalist nor a lawyer, but that passage sure seems to say that Congress has control of the District. 

    They weren’t “schemes” but valid legal arguments. If they weren’t valid, then there would have been no reason for the VP to have a role. It exists as a roadblock to corruption.

    Legal arguments are presented in court. Schemes are plans to thwart the separation of powers prescribed in the Constitution. Again, there is no constitutional role for the president in the electoral college count. None.

    So for an argument to be a valid legal one, it has to first be presented in court? It cannot just be a theory? I don’t think that is correct. Indeed, believing that would mean the legal arguments presented in the Declaration of Independence are just “schemes”. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.