Politically hot parts of US Constitution briefly deleted thanks to 'coding error' Several sections of the online annotated US Constitution maintained by the Library of Congress vanished recently due to what the Library maintains was a coding error. However, the content of the now-restored sections has raised suspicions that the move was political. The internet has been abuzz in recent days over the …
Ironically, ISTR there are some Trump aligned personalities that claim that US schools removing handwriting from the curriculum is a plot by Obama/Soros/the Clintons/etc to raise a generation that cannot read the original Constitution, thus making it easier to take our rights away.
Must be about time for the archive of Epstein evidence to be damaged by concurrent fires, computer failures, spontaneous paper decay etc etc and when Trump's happy that what is left it smears only his opponents then it can all be released.
From the right side of the Atlantic, I'm simply amazed that the American people are still watching and doing nothing as one man steals their entire country from under their noses, with nary a word said against him. Maybe the 52% who voted for him actually wanted to have their precious constitution used as toilet paper in a sweaty orange arse crack?
Official FOIA response:
Thank you for your enquiry. We have checked the Library of Congress records and systems, and can confirm that the administrative error that caused the temporary disappearance of minor and inconsequential parts of the constitution was down to the actions of Hilary Clinton, Hunter Biden, and immigrants. Yrs boastfully, etc etc
At least this helps bring attention to some Supreme Court's activities of the past year that related to those Sections, for some reason. In some cases the SCOTUS decided in accordance with a sane appreciation of common reality, and in others it acted like a stacked deck of activist judges engaged in a demented witch hunt on sanity, imho.
For example, it got it right in Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States (Intro.9.2.18): Does an Idaho Law Limiting Abortions Conflict with a Federal Law Requiring Emergency Medical Care? Answer: yes (Per curiam)
But it was rather wrong in Trump v. Anderson (Intro.9.2.6): Did the Colorado Supreme Court Err in Excluding Former President Trump from the Presidential Ballot? Where it chose Per Curiam where in fact Colorado was right to do this. I mean, felons (including insurrectionists) lose their right to vote in most States, so why should they be allowed to run for President?
And it clearly acted as a ketamine polydrug addict on a bad trip in Trump v. United States (Intro.9.2.12): Does Former President Trump Enjoy Presidential Immunity from Criminal Prosecution for Conduct Alleged to Involve Official Acts During his Tenure in Office? Here, the off-kilter partisan loyalists essentially argued it was just fine that Trump "attempted to leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors"!!! And yes, this insanity is now appropriately documented ...
Not sure which case is about Habeas Corpus though, maybe that of Yonas Fikre (v. FBI) that started quite some time ago?
Looking back the problem wasn't with the courts. Biden should have ACTUALLY done what Trump falsely accused him of doing and put his finger on the scale and appointed a DOJ head with the specific goal of prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 as his first task. Had he done so that case would have gone to trial in early 2022 well in advance of the primaries and he'd probably have run out of appeals and be behind bars well before the 2024 election.
A much easier case to make is President Trump's theft of government property, in the form of official documents that ought to have been delivered to the archivist, when he departed the White House on January 20, 2021. A great deal was made of the apparent fact that quite a number of them were classified at varying sensitivity levels as high as top secret or higher. The classification issue certainly was important, especially since the documents were in the possession of someone who took no evident care to keep them secure and arguably powerful temptation to use them for his personal benefit. It diverted attention, however, from the underlying act, which was simple theft, for which he reasonably could be prosecuted pretty quickly and in probably effectively, yet still was, in all likelihood, a felony. That does not even at an extreme stretch fall within the extended bounds of the presidential duties that could be argued to give him exemption from prosecution,. It also would have avoided the delays given him by Judge Aileen "loose" Cannon that ultimately were fatal to the case.
Prosecution for inciting the Capitol invasion would, at best, rely on a jury to decide fairly subtle free speech issues and give the former president ample opportunity to obfuscate, delay, and appeal, which he certainly did.
Yes but the DOJ couldn't have started to prosecute that case on day one because no one knew about it on day one. But the national archives could have brought in the FBI sooner, and the FBI could have avoided giving him chance after chance to comply that would never have been afforded to any other government employee who stole national defense documents.
This post has been deleted by its author
@MrBanana
"As a non-US citizen I find it incredible that presidents, past and present incumbents, can simply take secret government documents and dump them in their bathroom. Are they short of toilet paper?"
They did send secret service to ensure security was good enough. Unfortunately such a step is missing when an ex-senator runs off with classified documents and leaves them lying around in his garage and sharing them with his ghost writer and others. Based on regularly updating information the FBI was interested in particular files in their raid. Ones related to current revelations of serious misbehaviour.
@Andrew Scott
"Sometimes classification changes. it is possible to have a document that isn't classified when viewed or taken that is subsequently made top secret."
or was and subsequently wasnt. Part of the argument between a senator having documents he legally couldnt have vs a President of the Executive Office.
Regarding immunity for stuff during the term of holding office - I'd like to see that argument made in the Nuremberg trials (though... likely it was, wasn't it?)
On the other hand, that regime seems to be at least some inspiration for them, just, you know, looking from the outside, I'm not calling the Nazis, that would be insensitive etc.
Given the staggering number of incidents with this administration, it's entirely possible this was any of incompetence, incontinence, or outright malice and a calculated statement.
By this point in time, I see a huge negative benefit to giving this administration any benefit of the doubt on any point at all.
Trump has turned Hanlon's Razor on its head, hasn't he? Under the rule of Epstein's Orange Pal, we should never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.
If nobody else has put their hand up with that, I'll claim is as Badger's Razor, but surely plenty of people already have, and I'm too indifferent to do a search on the matter.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
