US Politics: Hey wanna come to my office and see some Top Secret Eyes only documents?

[Kalbear]

Here's a good thread on why the decision is so completely not based on any actual legal grounds, including privacy considerations. If the judge had gone that way maybe it would be slightly better, but they didn't do that; instead they leaned heavily on executive privilege despite the executive in power waiving that entirely. 

 

[Jaxom 1974]

Was literally about to post that thread.  Katyal truly can help basic understanding of the law....

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

None of those concerns were brought up when asking for it. A big problem is simply the judge granting the request based on their reasoning, period. 

Well, the Trump legal team's incompetence aside, the judge wasn't simply basing on their reasoning as I just quoted you.  The filter team did find documents - and reported finding documents - that are privacy concerns for any citizen, including Trump.

That's not to say that, of course, this is just a delay tactic and Trump got a judge to throw him a bone with a legal technicality, I just don't think that's that big of a deal.  Particularly since Garland wasn't going to publicize any charges before the midterms anyway (and politically probably shouldn't).

18 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

But yes, another problem is that the special master that will be appointed is going to be appointed by the same apparatus that granted it based on said bullshittery; there is no reason to assume that that person will not be incredibly biased.

There's also no reason to assume Cannon and the special master will engage in a criminal conspiracy to protect Trump - especially when so many people throughout the Biden administration are and will be aware of the documents' contents.

18 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I don't get why any level of optimism here is warranted. As usual you're assuming the best based on some 1960 theory of political discourse and an irrelevant historical basis.

I've literally written papers on why Neustadt's (1960) power of persuasion no longer applies today -- indeed I wrote them before Trump was doing anything more than calling into Fox & Friends complaining about Obama's birth certificate.  As usual you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

18 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Do you think that it's likely he wants something that is completely irrelevant, or he wants it because it helps his case?

I think he wants to delay the investigation and this will delay the investigation.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, the Trump legal team's incompetence aside, the judge wasn't simply basing on their reasoning as I just quoted you.  The filter team did find documents - and reported finding documents - that are privacy concerns for any citizen, including Trump.

If that were an issue worth anything then a special master should be standard doctrine for ANY seizure of documents in any case. It isn't. Privacy isn't reason for special master and never has been. 

And I believe you know this, so you're arguing the point trumps team wants because...? 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

That's not to say that, of course, this is just a delay tactic and Trump got a judge to throw him on a bone that with a legal technicality, I just don't think that's that big of a deal.  Particularly since Garland wasn't going to publicize any charges before the midterms anyway (and politically probably shouldn't).

There's also no reason to assume Cannon and the special master will engage in a criminal conspiracy to protect Trump - especially when so many people throughout the Biden administration are and will be aware of the documents' contents.

Why wouldn't you assume a criminal conspiracy at this point? Trumps lawyers already attested that no more documents existed and have already been caught in a very clear obstruction charge. Do you think that they're going to stop there? Why? 

This is what I don't get about your argument - you're both assuming more actual competence and more actual behaving with the law than has already been demonstrated. I'm simply taking what they've already done - admitting to breaking the law, obstructing justice - and assuming they're going to continue.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I've literally written papers on why Neustadt's (1960) power of persuasion no longer applies today -- indeed I wrote them before Trump was doing anything more than calling into Fox & Friends complaining about Obama's birth certificate.  As usual you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I didn't know you wrote papers on it! Perhaps you should read what you wrote and act accordingly instead of assuming competence and ethics?

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I think he wants to delay the investigation and this will delay the investigation.

Oh, you're so close. Keep going...why does he want to delay the investigation? What does delay get him? Come on, you're just almost there.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

If that were an issue worth anything then a special master should be standard doctrine for ANY seizure of documents in any case. It isn't. Privacy isn't reason for special master and never has been. 

And I believe you know this, so you're arguing the point trumps team wants because...? 

Yikes.  I agree it's a bullshit decision - and I'm particularly concerned with the executive privilege aspect - but that doesn't change the fact there was a technical basis for Cannon to point to in making her nakedly biased decision.  That's what I'm arguing.

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Why wouldn't you assume a criminal conspiracy at this point? Trumps lawyers already attested that no more documents existed and have already been caught in a very clear obstruction charge. Do you think that they're going to stop there? Why? 

Because I don't believe a federal judge and whatever special master she appoints are going to risk their careers and freedom to protect Trump -- again, particularly when they could very easily get caught.  I don't know why anyone that believed in political actors acting in self-interest would assume that.

5 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

This is what I don't get about your argument - you're both assuming more actual competence and more actual behaving with the law than has already been demonstrated.

While I'm sure she's incompetent, Cannon and the special master that still hasn't been appointed yet haven't broken any laws.  At all.

7 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Perhaps you should read what you wrote and act accordingly instead of assuming competence and ethics?

There's no assumption of either, as usual you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Jace, Extat]

Classic liberal brain calculus, regarding 'Garland won't bring charges 'till after midterms... appropriate decision for political purposes' (paraphrased)

Incorrect. Charge him, try him, and then execute him for gross criminality pertaining to the lawful administration of the state before close of business tomorrow. "Gross Criminality Pertaining to the Lawful Administration of the State" isn't a crime? Make it law on Wednesday, after he is executed on Tuesday. The important part is to do it BEFORE YOU LOSE THE LEVERS OF GODDAMN POWER 

Worried that 'overreaching' will hurt you politically? YOU'RE ALREADY DYING POLITICALLY 

ATTACK!

 

 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yikes.  I agree it's a bullshit decision - and I'm particularly concerned with the executive privilege aspect - but that doesn't change the fact there was a technical basis for Cannon to point to in making her nakedly biased decision.  That's what I'm arguing.

Again, there is no basis for special masters for privacy as a rule. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because I don't believe a federal judge and whatever special master she appoints are going to risk their careers and freedom to protect Trump -- again, particularly when they could very easily get caught.  I don't know why anyone that believed in political actors acting in self-interest would assume that.

Okay, follow through - let's say a federal judge gets caught. So? We are already talking about a former potus getting caught, along with all of their lawyers. What does getting caught matter when you never have to fear being punished?

Why do you think this would risk anyones career when people literally have careers because they are willing to do things exactly like this?

This is exactly the magical reasoning I'm taking exception to - you are still operating, without evidence, that people who commit crimes for Trump will be actually punished. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

While I'm sure she's incompetent, Cannon and the special master that still hasn't been appointed yet haven't broken any laws.  At all. 

Sure, it's just been Trump and the legal team. I mean, give it some time man - she's only been on the case for a couple weeks.

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's no assumption of either, as usual you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You're assuming the threat of breaking the law (ethics) or the threat of losing career (ethics) when neither are so far in evidence. Point of fact, the only people who have ever been punished to any degree of success who have committed crimes for Trump are those who cooperated, like Cohen. As usual you appear to be operating on assumptions of legality that are not represented by the use of power. 

[Zorral]

The DOJ doesn't seem that concerned. Med records for the orange gulp and some accounting/tax? stuff?

He's aimed at on so many fronts at this point, there shall surely be overlapping info dox, one may well think too.

[DMC]

Just now, KalVsWade said:

Again, there is no basis for special masters for privacy as a rule. 

Again, there's similarly no rule that prevents a judge from appointing one in such an extraordinary case.

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

Okay, follow through - let's say a federal judge gets caught. So? We are already talking about a former potus getting caught, along with all of their lawyers. What does getting caught matter when you never have to fear being punished?

Because for the next 28 months the Biden administration will control the DOJ, so there's every reason to fear being criminally punished, let alone politically in at least Cannon's case.  Just like many of Trump's henchman have faced legal consequences (albeit certainly not nearly enough); and hell, a decent number faced them before his presidency ended - which subsequently enabled him to pardon, say, Stone, but it's incredibly unlikely Judge Cannon wants to emulate Roger Stone at this point in her career.

6 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

This is exactly the magical reasoning I'm taking exception to - you are still operating, without evidence, that people who commit crimes for Trump will be actually punished. 

.  The evidence of people that have faced consequences - albeit but not nearly as much as they should, but still a ludicrous risk for any federal judge - is manifest.  You should try simply looking up what's happened the last six years.

9 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

You're assuming the threat of breaking the law (ethics) or the threat of losing career (ethics) when neither are so far in evidence.

The threat of losing one's career is not ethics there buddy, it's self-interest.  Which is what I explicitly stated in the last post as their motivation.  Also, btw, Neustadt's theory you were apparently referring to has nothing to do with ethics.  Which further demonstrates you once again have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Classic liberal brain calculus, regarding 'Garland won't bring charges 'till after midterms... appropriate decision for political purposes' (paraphrased)

This isn't the only time I'd disagree with Garland, but if I thought charging Trump before the midterms would help politically I would totally be for it.  I don't.  You might disagree, but that has nothing to do with "liberal brain calculus" and everything to do with the electoral behavior of his supporters (and ultimately the American public) which you clearly don't understand.  If Garland can avoid the appearance of impropriety without losing anything then that's absolutely the right political decision, whether he cares to admit it or not.

37 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Worried that 'overreaching' will hurt you politically? YOU'RE ALREADY DYING POLITICALLY 

Your laughable naivete, ignorance, and caustic attitude may prevent you from realizing this, but the Dems are actually looking much better than they should electorally right now.  Seems patently self-destructive to upset that equilibrium when Trump's doing the work for you. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

The important part is to do it BEFORE YOU LOSE THE LEVERS OF GODDAMN POWER 

No Jace, we're suppose to act in a way that will all but guarantee we lose power, because that's the moral thing to do. 

This ruling has literally nothing to do with the law. It's a clear power play. Avoid that reality at your own loss. 

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, there's similarly no rule that prevents a judge from appointing one in such an extraordinary case. 

Sure, there's no rule. There's also no precedent.

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because for the next 28 months the Biden administration will control the DOJ, so there's every reason to fear being criminally punished, let alone politically in at least Cannon's case.  Just like many of Trump's henchman have faced legal consequences (albeit certainly not nearly enough); and hell, a decent number faced them before his presidency ended - which subsequently enabled him to pardon, say, Stone, but it's incredibly unlikely Judge Cannon wants to emulate Roger Stone at this point in her career. 

Yes, let's base the likelihood of a Biden DOJ punishing people based on what they've done so far. How's that been doing? How's Garland done against prosecuting Trump cronies? 

Remember why we're here - the DOJ emphatically didn't want to do anything, and the only reason we're talking about this is because fucking NARA decided that they wanted their records back and kept pushing harder and harder against it. 

As to whether Judge Cannon wants to emulate Roger Stone - I don't think she has to go that far because the process to remove a federal judge is pretty fucking hard. Even one charged with a crime. Do you happen to know what the process to remove a sitting federal judge is? I'll give you a hint - it's a process Trump has gone through twice now. How likely is it that Republicans are going to vote to remove a federal judge convicted of the crime of helping Trump?

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

.  The evidence of people that have faced consequences - albeit but not nearly as much as they should, but still a ludicrous risk for any federal judge - is manifest.  You should try simply looking up what's happened the last six years. 

I have! Have you? Because the list of people who have actually committed crimes and faced any penalties for it for Trump is vanishingly small. It's even smaller over the last two years where Trump wasn't actually in power. But Stone, Manafort, Bannon - all got away with it, and in Bannon's case actually became more powerful. 

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

The threat of losing one's career is not ethics there buddy, it's self-interest. 

Caring about breaking the law is ethics. The notion that a federal judge will lose their career is simply incorrect given that the only way that happens is via impeachment, and we know that ain't happening. 

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Which is what I explicitly stated in the last post as their motivation.  Also, btw, Neustadt's theory you were apparently referring to has nothing to do with ethics.  Which further demonstrates you once again have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

You're the one that brought up ethical concerns, not me. To restate: the concern about losing one's career at a lifetime appointment which can be ended only by death or by being found guilty via impeachment, which has happened all of 8 times in the US history, is not a serious thought process. Cannon has more to fear from being assassinated than she does being removed from office. Lawyers have slightly more to fear (see Lin Wood and Sidney Powell) have more to fear, but not particularly in this case - and even if they're disbarred they appear to have a great career ahead as fox news spokespeople or writing tell-all books. 

So that's not a threat. If losing career isn't a threat, and ethical concerns aren't an issue, what remains?

[Kalbear]

Another way to put it: you're arguing that the judge who took a case well outside of their jurisdiction and ignored significant precedent will somehow start treating ethics as an issue. That doesn't seem wise.

 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Yes, let's base the likelihood of a Biden DOJ punishing people based on what they've done so far. How's that been doing? How's Garland done against prosecuting Trump cronies? 

Not well, as we've both complained about.  But your argument was that none of his cronies have faced legal consequences (except Cohen) when in actuality a bunch of them faced legal consequences during his administration.  Which is also part and parcel why Garland hasn't gone after many - they already had been and were subsequently pardoned by Trump.

So your assumption here is that Cannon and the yet-to-be-named special master wouldn't worry about such consequences because what?  Trump will eventually get reelected and pardon them?  That's an insanely stupid thing to risk your career for -- and btw whether Cannon was pardoned by a future President Trump or not, her career would still be ruined.  At least as a judge.  And I'm the one employing magical thinking?

9 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Do you happen to know what the process to remove a sitting federal judge is? I'll give you a hint - it's a process Trump has gone through twice now. How likely is it that Republicans are going to vote to remove a federal judge convicted of the crime of helping Trump?

LOL, unlike you I do know the details of impeachment and conviction.  And unlike presidents, federal judges have been convicted in the Senate.  Especially those that have been convicted of crimes.  Anyway, that really wasn't what I was talking about in terms of "ruining her career" (because once again you don't know what the fuck you're talking about).  Cannon is a 41-year-old district court judge.  If she wants to climb up the ranks - like, ya know, 99.9% of judges - then doing what you're proposing what certainly ruin her ability to do so.

15 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I have! Have you? Because the list of people who have actually committed crimes and faced any penalties for it for Trump is vanishingly small. It's even smaller over the last two years where Trump wasn't actually in power. But Stone, Manafort, Bannon - all got away with it, and in Bannon's case actually became more powerful. 

Here's a list of 11 that faced consequences that would be disastrous for a federal judge, or in all likelihood any appointed special master.  But, please, keep on arguing this point, it's so fucking stupid it's better than what's on TV.

18 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Caring about breaking the law is ethics.

....I like how you've now resorted to responding to things I didn't even say because your argument is so pathetic.

19 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

You're the one that brought up ethical concerns, not me.

Uh, what?  No, I really didn't.  Unless you count "two wrongs don't make a right" as "ethical concerns."  And that was in relation to the DOJ not charging Trump around an election, which you haven't brought up at all.

 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Another way to put it: you're arguing that the judge who took a case well outside of their jurisdiction and ignored significant precedent will somehow start treating ethics as an issue. That doesn't seem wise.

I see you've resorted to flat out lying about what I said - as you've done in the past.  Please stop.

[Jaxom 1974]

Sorry.  But the minute it was revealed that there were empty files pertaining to top secret national security issues that should never have been in Trump's possession, any idea of his tight to privacy should have down the window. If it was anyone other than a former President, it would have.  

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not well, as we've both complained about.  But your argument was that none of his cronies have faced legal consequences (except Cohen) when in actuality a bunch of them faced legal consequences during his administration.  Which is also part and parcel why Garland hasn't gone after many - they already had been and were subsequently pardoned by Trump.

No, my argument was that they haven't faced meaningful consequences. Which...they haven't! 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

So your assumption here is that Cannon and the yet-to-be-named special master wouldn't worry about such consequences because what?  Trump will eventually get reelected and pardon them?  That's an insanely stupid thing to risk your career for -- and btw whether Cannon was pardoned by a future President Trump or not, her career would still be ruined.  At least as a judge.  And I'm the one employing magical thinking?

No, my argument is that Cannon doesn't need to fear it because the way to punish a federal judge is via impeachment. Which has happened 8 times in the history of the US. Now the good news is that two of them have happened fairly recently, but both were not political crimes (one was sexual assault, one was bribery). I don't believe that someone would be successfully impeached in today's senate for the crime of helping Trump avoid jailtime. 

I also don't think her career would be ruined for that. People who stand for Trump don't have their careers ruined; they are elevated. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, unlike you I do know the details of impeachment and conviction.  And unlike presidents, federal judges have been convicted in the Senate.  Especially those that have been convicted of crimes. 

Hah, okay. Can you point out where an impeachment happened of a federal judge based on politically motivated crimes?

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Anyway, that really wasn't what I was talking about in terms of "ruining her career" (because once again you don't know what the fuck you're talking about).  Cannon is a 41-year-old district court judge.  If she wants to climb up the ranks - like, ya know, 99.9% of judges - then doing what you're proposing what certainly ruin her ability to do so.

I don't see why; is President DeSantis going to choose to not nominate that person to appelates? Is the Federalist society going to not do that? Not likely!

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Here's a list of 11 that faced consequences that would be disastrous for a federal judge, or in all likelihood any appointed special master.  But, please, keep on arguing this point, it's so fucking stupid it's better than what's on TV. 

Why would these things be disastrous for a federal judge? What, are Republicans going to say that they are somehow criminal? Please. Being loyal to Trump Republicans means getting promoted. That is one of the most important things you can do. 

As to that list - yes, I know a whole bunch of folks have been charged with crimes. Some even convicted? What's happened to them? Is Roger Stone's career ruined? Is Papadopoulis? Is Bannon's? Right now they're acting as high-paid consultants and political figures. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

....I like how you've now resorted to responding to things I didn't even say because your argument is so pathetic.

Sorry, it's hard to keep track of all the wrong things you say, I sometimes lose interest. You said this:

Because I don't believe a federal judge and whatever special master she appoints are going to risk their careers and freedom to protect Trump -- again, particularly when they could very easily get caught.  I don't know why anyone that believed in political actors acting in self-interest would assume that.

My basis is simple: it is in Republican's self-interest to be loyal to Trump, even at the possible cost of committing a bit of light treason. Because there is very little chance of actually having any legal punishment happen there is very little threat that committing crimes for Trump will matter. Because there is a lot of possibility of being promoted or improved in station for helping Trump, it is decidedly in the self-interest to do those crimes. 

You also said (in response to caring about competence and ethics):
There's no assumption of either, as usual you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

If you're not assuming ethical concerns, and political self-interest is not an issue - what is? This is more magical thinking. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, what?  No, I really didn't.  Unless you count "two wrongs don't make a right" as "ethical concerns."  And that was in relation to the DOJ not charging Trump around an election, which you haven't brought up at all.

I don't really care about charging Trump around an election. I don't think that matters much at all here. I misunderstood your argument, honestly; I thought that you were saying Cannon would act ethically and thus not want to commit conspiracy, when your argument was that she would want to preserve herself and thus accidentally act ethically.

Except, well, there's very little evidence that career death occurs when committing crimes in the name of Trump. Especially now, especially when Trump is threatening to pardon everyone on J6, especially when no one from his orbit has been charged with any crimes from J6 (and if Garland has his way, never will). 

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

I see you've resorted to flat out lying about what I said - as you've done in the past.  Please stop.

Who said I was talking to you about this? But sure, if you want you can argue that a judge who is willingly disregarding all precedent, jurisdiction and actual laws in order to make decisions in Trump's favor is also not going to actually break laws (which presumably they'll argue don't apply because of executive privilege). I guess you could believe that a federal judge supporting Trump is going to actually be removed from office by 17 Republican senators too for the crime of helping Trump. I don't think that's realistic. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Sorry.  But the minute it was revealed that there were empty files pertaining to top secret national security issues that should never have been in Trump's possession, any idea of his tight to privacy should have down the window. If it was anyone other than a former President, it would have.  

GTBW

[DMC]

Just now, KalVsWade said:

No, my argument was that they haven't faced meaningful consequences. Which...they haven't! 

And my argument was they've faced consequences that would obviously be meaningful to a federal judge and presumably a special master.  Try to keep up!

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

No, my argument is that Cannon doesn't need to fear it because the way to punish a federal judge is via impeachment. Which has happened 8 times in the history of the US.

It's only 8 times because the judges almost always resign beforehand.  My point was her career as a judge would be ruined.  Obviously she could parlay it to a pundit career like Roger Stone, but as I said three posts ago, I highly doubt this 41 year old federal judge wants to emulate Roger Stone.

4 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I don't see why; is President DeSantis going to choose to not nominate that person to appelates? Is the Federalist society going to not do that? Not likely!

First of all, yes, I don't think DeSantis would nominate her.  Indeed I'm fairly confident of that.  Second of all, doesn't really matter if the president will nominate her or not, it's whether the Senate will confirm her.  And you betcha as long as McConnell is around he's not gonna be down with that.  Third, and most importantly, it's INCREDIBLY STUPID to think Cannon would be relying on all this happening hypothetically in the future as reassurance to risk her career be engaging in a criminal conspiracy to help Trump right now.  Indeed, it's the essence of magical thinking.

7 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

If you're not assuming ethical concerns, and political self-interest is not an issue - what is? This is more magical thinking. 

Wow.  The depths of your stupidity and lying know no bounds.  Are you applying for a job with Trump or something?  I explicitly said political self-interest WAS the issue - twice.  You're the one with the fantastical infantile thinking that it somehow would be in Cannon's political self-interest to engage in a criminal conspiracy.  You're equating her with literally his political henchmen when she's a (very young) federal judge.  It's an absurd comparison.

10 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Except, well, there's very little evidence that career death occurs when committing crimes in the name of Trump.

Please name a federal judge that's been convicted of a federal crime and even still remained in office.  In other words, you have absolutely no evidence for your assumptions.

13 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Who said I was talking to you about this?

You said, immediately after responding to me:

53 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Another way to put it: you're arguing that the judge who took a case well outside of their jurisdiction and ignored significant precedent will somehow start treating ethics as an issue.

The fuck else am I supposed to think?

[Kalbear]

Also, let's go into those 11 people and see how their careers have gone:

• Steve Bannon: convicted of unrelated crimes to Trump. Remains one of the more powerful political figures in Republican circles. Constantly talking with Trump and Trump orbit folks
• Tom Barrack: barely recognized the guy, he was charged with advancing UAE interests because of his connection with Trump. He has been in jail for 2 days and is still worth several hundred million dollars.
• Elliott Broidy: pardoned completely by Trump for his dealings around Stormy Daniels. Currently suing government of Qatar for a few million. Appears to be otherwise fine
• Michael Cohen: only member of the 11 to serve any jail time and suffer at all. 
• Michael Flynn: pardoned after lying to the FBI. Was a huckster for Qanon, now a huckster for major far-right religious organizations and constant speaker on Fox News and other areas. 
• Rick Gates: might have no real career; not a lot on him. He did serve 45 days in jail and paid a lot of fines; notably he was another person who actually cooperated with the law.
• Paul Manafort: ended up serving 2 years in jail for lying, obstruction, and financial crimes. Pardoned and as a result of the pardon got a lot of his stuff back. Appears to be somewhat quiet now, but also not hurting for money any more.
• George Nader: now this guy got hosed, but for totally unrelated things - in particular, he is going to be serving a 10 year sentence for child sex exploitation. Another one who cooperated early.
• George Papadopoulos: was a low-level flunky. Became a best-selling author after writing about how he was targeted by the Deep State, and quoted at length by Graham and Jordan and other MAGA folks about how he was sucked into a conspiracy. Not clear what he is doing now other than occasionally appearing on Fox News
• Roger Stone: pardoned, remains shitty operative in Republican circles. No real sign of career damage. 
• Allen Weisselberg: currently serving light prison time and paying back some of the money he stole. Did not turn on Trump to any major degree. Unclear what, if any, issue with his career he'll have, though given he'll be doing some testifying against Trump chances are good it won't be great.

So of the above 11, only 3 definitely suffered any real career impact and all of them were people who cooperated. The 7 people who stayed loyal to Trump don't appear to have suffered anything major save perhaps Manafort, and Manafort got cut early. It's clearly not a particular problem to commit crimes for Trump provided that you don't act a snitch.