User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:38:39 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcantu: Lots of people keep their clearances after they leave govt. Pretty much all high level intelligence community people do, and use it for their various "consulting" jobs after they leave govt. Remember how Trump cancelled Clapper's clearance that he had maintained long after he was out of the CIA? @mcantu they keep their clearance because they acquired it through a standalone process that was not dependent on which job they had in government. Trump did not go through any process to get his other than being elected president, therefore it expired when he was no longer president. The presidency and other elected offices are not the same as any other government job when talking about security clearances. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:41:28 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryIt’s because most of us go through an actual adjudication process and background check. That doesn’t simply go away when you leave the position that required it. What does go away is your “need to know”. Just because you have a TS clearance does not mean you access to every piece of TS information everywhere. And on the flip side, you may have a clearance, but access to absolutely nothing. Elected officials however, are granted access to information based off the position they hold. Congress members, or the president, don’t go through a background check. Holding office is deemed sufficient. So when they no longer hold the office, the access to information goes away. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:44:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#3]
Originally Posted By R0N: Do you understand POTUS is the granter of all access as the senior OCA and his access is not granted but stems from his constitutional office, as affirmed by SCOTUS in Navy V Egan? Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Except that he is. Congress does not dictate how the President exercises those authorities. Originally Posted By R0N: To take that positioned that would require a person believe the Secretary of Energy who is appointed by POTUS is the senior official But one of those two is a Constitutional office and the other established by legislation. Which is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution or legislation? If the president derives his "security clearance" via the Constitution (I agree with that), where does the Constitution indicate that it follows him when he leaves office? How can anybody argue that the power the Constitution gives a person while he is president follow him when he is out of office? Saying that his "security clearance" follows him out of office is the same thing as saying his pardon power follows him out of office.  @R0N @ExFed1811 @deputyrpa |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:47:23 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Ha ha ha, so the current potato, who had himself had classified docs illegally stored in the trunk of his car, worked with DOJ to prosecute his predecessor (and apparent 2024 opponent), when he could have waived his need to know or otherwise allowed this, as would appear to be the tradition with prior administrations? What “crime” in the traditional sense did a former president commit by retaining some documents which he had previously legally possessed? Why would someone put a former president in legal jeopardy over a process crime, where there are several previous examples of former potus retaining documents and clearance after their term? I can only come to the conclusion that this is a malicious prosecution for political purposes. There is no other conclusion. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By FreefallRet: I will be the neutral guy as I would like to know a few things So how long can a former President retain former classified or classified documents after they leave office? Does a former President sign a NDA? Can a former President declassify documents after leaving office? My guess is no No need, in this case. @FreefallRet just ignore everything this guy says about this issue (and others?). He's very confident and persistent in his wrongness but he won't ever back anything up. The NDA is some silly thing that nobody was talking about until he brought it up. A federal appeals court has already said that Trump has no valid claim to the classified documents in question. They also said that since he could not prove his claims that he declassified them ("in my mind" was how he phrased it), they are irrelevant. As long as he was president he had the power to declassify anything, but he was required by law to document it. He never did that. After he left office he had no authority to declassify anything. We went round and round on this issue and others with Cincinnatus for more than 20 pages in a recent thread, no matter how much you provide sources and evidence to back up your position he just ignores it and continues to mindlessly repeat his nonsense. Here are some excerpts from the appeals court ruling when they were arguing about a special master: https://i.postimg.cc/xd8NKWrL/Screenshot-20240413-112416-Drive.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/Gt55p01z/Screenshot-20240413-112313-Drive.jpg Ha ha ha, so the current potato, who had himself had classified docs illegally stored in the trunk of his car, worked with DOJ to prosecute his predecessor (and apparent 2024 opponent), when he could have waived his need to know or otherwise allowed this, as would appear to be the tradition with prior administrations? What “crime” in the traditional sense did a former president commit by retaining some documents which he had previously legally possessed? Why would someone put a former president in legal jeopardy over a process crime, where there are several previous examples of former potus retaining documents and clearance after their term? I can only come to the conclusion that this is a malicious prosecution for political purposes. There is no other conclusion. Maybe you should just read the indictment, then you wouldn't have to ask what crime Trump committed. What is it exactly that Joe Biden supposedly did here, and how do we know it happened? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:50:04 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: The potato had docs that spanned decades, none of which he was legally entitled to or change classification one way or the other. No charge/s The other guy had full legal access to documents and could change classification. Lots of charges. Most people are smart enough to see the difference but TDS is potent. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Ha ha ha, so the current potato, who had himself had classified docs illegally stored in the trunk of his car, worked with DOJ to prosecute his predecessor (and apparent 2024 opponent), when he could have waived his need to know or otherwise allowed this, as would appear to be the tradition with prior administrations? What “crime” in the traditional sense did a former president commit by retaining some documents which he had previously legally possessed? Why would someone put a former president in legal jeopardy over a process crime, where there are several previous examples of former potus retaining documents and clearance after their term? I can only come to the conclusion that this is a malicious prosecution for political purposes. There is no other conclusion. The potato had docs that spanned decades, none of which he was legally entitled to or change classification one way or the other. No charge/s The other guy had full legal access to documents and could change classification. Lots of charges. Most people are smart enough to see the difference but TDS is potent. I know it sounds crazy, but there's actually a really good way to understand the differences between the two situations. There is a long special counsel report that goes through all the details of the Biden situation. Then there's an actual indictment that goes through all the details of the Trump situation. If you don't want to sound dumb, you could go read them for yourself! Or you can just keep believing the narratives fed to you by MAGA Media, the choice is yours. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:02:42 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: If the president derives his "security clearance" via the Constitution (I agree with that), where does the Constitution indicate that it follows him when he leaves office? How can anybody argue that the power the Constitution gives a person while he is president follow him when he is out of office? Saying that his "security clearance" follows him out of office is the same thing as saying his pardon power follows him out of office. @R0N @ExFed1811 @deputyrpa I have never said it did. I said they had to prove that the documents were delivered to him after he left office. If not the presumption is his standing order to declassify applied. Since this is still the United States and you are innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor has a very high burden to proved that Trump did not say anything taken there is declassified. Because that’s all it takes for the president to declassify something. You really do need to look at Jack Smith‘s past, he was the prosecutor for the Stevens case in which the senator was removed from office to allow Obamacare to pass the Senate. That conviction was later thrown out because it was shown Smith had exculpatory evidence that Stevens didn’t commit a crime but he chose to withhold it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:15:46 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: It’s because most of us go through an actual adjudication process and background check. That doesn’t simply go away when you leave the position that required it. What does go away is your “need to know”. Just because you have a TS clearance does not mean you access to every piece of TS information everywhere. And on the flip side, you may have a clearance, but access to absolutely nothing. Elected officials however, are granted access to information based off the position they hold. Congress members, or the president, don’t go through a background check. Holding office is deemed sufficient. So when they no longer hold the office, the access to information goes away. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: It’s because most of us go through an actual adjudication process and background check. That doesn’t simply go away when you leave the position that required it. What does go away is your “need to know”. Just because you have a TS clearance does not mean you access to every piece of TS information everywhere. And on the flip side, you may have a clearance, but access to absolutely nothing. Elected officials however, are granted access to information based off the position they hold. Congress members, or the president, don’t go through a background check. Holding office is deemed sufficient. So when they no longer hold the office, the access to information goes away.  Attached FileWhy aren't you dealing with the DC Grand Jury disclosures and the  piles of evidence presented to the DC Grand Jury?
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:28:06 AM EDT
[#8]
 UNSEALED: Jack's Prosecutor THREATENED Defense to Cooperate against TRUMP 22 Minutes |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:34:26 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: I have never said it did. I said they had to prove that the documents were delivered to him after he left office. If not the presumption is his standing order to declassify applied. Since this is still the United States and you are innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor has a very high burden to proved that Trump did not say anything taken there is declassified. Because that’s all it takes for the president to declassify something. You really do need to look at Jack Smith‘s past, he was the prosecutor for the Stevens case in which the senator was removed from office to allow Obamacare to pass the Senate. That conviction was later thrown out because it was shown Smith had exculpatory evidence that Stevens didn’t commit a crime but he chose to withhold it. But that isn’t he was charged with. Nowhere is “mishandling classified information” found on the charge sheet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:37:55 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/2OcFu56-590.gif Why aren't you dealing with the DC Grand Jury disclosures and the piles of evidence presented to the DC Grand Jury?You were already shown to be entirely out of your element once. You doubling down now? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:40:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: LordsOfDiscipline]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You were already shown to be entirely out of your element once. You doubling down now? Why aren't you dealing with the DC Grand Jury disclosures and the "piles of evidence" presented to the DC Grand Jury? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:51:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: But that isn’t he was charged with. Nowhere is “mishandling classified information” found on the charge sheet. Great, we can drop all discussion of classified materials since we all now agree that what he had was not classified. Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 10:53:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I know it sounds crazy, but there's actually a really good way to understand the differences between the two situations. There is a long special counsel report that goes through all the details of the Biden situation. Then there's an actual indictment that goes through all the details of the Trump situation. If you don't want to sound dumb, you could go read them for yourself! Or you can just keep believing the narratives fed to you by MAGA Media, the choice is yours. Sounds crazy and you claim to understand it. Explains everything. You are #1 in the "sounds dumb" department but you have close competition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:01:21 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Great, we can drop all discussion of classified materials since we all now agree that what he had was not classified. Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Originally Posted By Low_Country: But that isn’t he was charged with. Nowhere is “mishandling classified information” found on the charge sheet. Great, we can drop all discussion of classified materials since we all now agree that what he had was not classified. Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. NARA you say
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:04:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Great, we can drop all discussion of classified materials since we all now agree that what he had was not classified. Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. I don’t agree it was declassified. There is not an ounce of corroborating evidence to back up his claim, and Trump’s relationship with the truth is well known. I’m just saying I’m not sure it matters either way, as none of the charges were for that. Trump also wasn’t charged for violating the PRA, as it is not a criminal statute. It is just something his attorneys have invoked as a potential defense. I still think it’s laughable anybody would agree that nuclear information or military capabilities are somehow “personal” information. But I do agree all this will most certainly end up being argued in front of the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:08:49 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I don't agree it was declassified. There is not an ounce of corroborating evidence to back up his claim, and Trump's relationship with the truth is well known. I'm just saying I'm not sure it matters either way, as none of the charges were for that. Trump also wasn't charged for violating the PRA, as it is not a criminal statute. It is just something his attorneys have invoked as a potential defense. I still think it's laughable anybody would agree that nuclear information or military capabilities are somehow "personal" information. But I do agree all this will most certainly end up being argued in front of the Supreme Court. The mere fact that President Trump took documents out of a secure area was enough for him to have declassified them. You know that, quit being a troll. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:10:40 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I don’t agree it was declassified. There is not an ounce of corroborating evidence to back up his claim, and Trump’s relationship with the truth is well known. I’m just saying I’m not sure it matters either way, as none of the charges were for that. Trump also wasn’t charged for violating the PRA, as it is not a criminal statute. It is just something his attorneys have invoked as a potential defense. I still think it’s laughable anybody would agree that nuclear information or military capabilities are somehow “personal” information. But I do agree all this will most certainly end up being argued in front of the Supreme Court. But the problem with your overlying assumption is the only requirement for POTUS to declassify something is to say it’s declassified. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:11:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I don’t agree it was declassified. There is not an ounce of corroborating evidence to back up his claim, and Trump’s relationship with the truth is well known. I’m just saying I’m not sure it matters either way, as none of the charges were for that. Trump also wasn’t charged for violating the PRA, as it is not a criminal statute. It is just something his attorneys have invoked as a potential defense. I still think it’s laughable anybody would agree that nuclear information or military capabilities are somehow “personal” information. But I do agree all this will most certainly end up being argued in front of the Supreme Court. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: Great, we can drop all discussion of classified materials since we all now agree that what he had was not classified. Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. I don’t agree it was declassified. There is not an ounce of corroborating evidence to back up his claim, and Trump’s relationship with the truth is well known. I’m just saying I’m not sure it matters either way, as none of the charges were for that. Trump also wasn’t charged for violating the PRA, as it is not a criminal statute. It is just something his attorneys have invoked as a potential defense. I still think it’s laughable anybody would agree that nuclear information or military capabilities are somehow “personal” information. But I do agree all this will most certainly end up being argued in front of the Supreme Court. Quit sliding the thread. Why aren't you dealing with the DC Grand Jury disclosures and the "piles of evidence" presented to the DC Grand Jury? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:11:56 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: OK Enough bullshit The mere fact that President Trump took documents out of a secure area was enough for him to have declassified them. You know that, quit being a troll. And yet, he’s quite literally recorded saying “I could have declassified this, but didn’t.” So was he lying then, or lying now? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:14:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: And yet, he’s quite literally recorded saying “I could have declassified this, but didn’t.” So was he lying then, or lying now? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: OK Enough bullshit The mere fact that President Trump took documents out of a secure area was enough for him to have declassified them. You know that, quit being a troll. And yet, he’s quite literally recorded saying “I could have declassified this, but didn’t.” So was he lying then, or lying now? Great I’m good with a prosecution for secret material brought to him after he left office. But if it was in his possession as he left, then it was declassified. Or are you in agreement that Trump sometimes talks out his ass to make himself seem more than he is? So who brought it to him? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:18:28 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: And yet, he's quite literally recorded saying "I could have declassified this, but didn't." So was he lying then, or lying now? Just him physically removing any document from a secured area automatically declassifies that document. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:20:20 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: But the problem with your overlying assumption is the only requirement for POTUS to declassify something is to say it’s declassified. I understand that. Yet nobody in his inner circle can corroborate there was ever a standing declassification, nor any record of such a thing. Just a claim after the fact, once he got in trouble. The documents retained classified markings, and the actions of the man post-subpoena aren’t those of someone who knows he is in the right. I mean, he told his aids to search the boxes and then asked them “what did you find, is it bad?” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:23:20 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I understand that. Yet nobody in his inner circle can corroborate there was ever a standing declassification, nor any record of such a thing. Just a claim after the fact, once he got in trouble. The documents retained classified markings, and the actions of the man post-subpoena aren’t those of someone who knows he is in the right. I mean, he told his aids to search the boxes and then asked them “what did you find, is it bad?” In the US which system do you use? That the presumption of innocence is with the defendant and In the prosecution actually has to affirmatively prove something? Or do we use the French system where the accused is guilty and he hast to prove is innocence? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:23:41 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: What he said and for whatever reason he had for saying it is irrelevant. Just him physically removing any document from a secured area automatically declassifies that document. Ok. Even if I were to concede that, it still doesn’t make it his to keep after he left office. Which ultimately is what he was charged with. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:25:26 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: In the US which system do you use? That the presumption of innocence is with the defendant and In the prosecution actually has to affirmatively prove something? Or do we use the French system where the accused is guilty and he hast to prove is innocence? Of course he has a presumption of innocence. The prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean anybody has to give him a presumption of honesty when he makes a claim. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:26:24 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Ok. Even if I were to concede that, it still doesn't make it his to keep after he left office. Which ultimately is what he was charged with. It is up to the President to decide what is his personal record. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:31:30 AM EDT
[#27]
Thank Goodness Judge Cannon has at least a little bit of fairness.
The prosecution and their supporters are some disgusting slimeballs. Of course, everything the prosecution is trying to hide should be unredacted and unsealed for everyone to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:41:01 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I understand that. Yet nobody in his inner circle can corroborate there was ever a standing declassification, nor any record of such a thing. Just a claim after the fact, once he got in trouble. The documents retained classified markings, and the actions of the man post-subpoena aren’t those of someone who knows he is in the right. I mean, he told his aids to search the boxes and then asked them “what did you find, is it bad?” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: But the problem with your overlying assumption is the only requirement for POTUS to declassify something is to say it’s declassified. I understand that. Yet nobody in his inner circle can corroborate there was ever a standing declassification, nor any record of such a thing. Just a claim after the fact, once he got in trouble. The documents retained classified markings, and the actions of the man post-subpoena aren’t those of someone who knows he is in the right. I mean, he told his aids to search the boxes and then asked them “what did you find, is it bad?” The worst system except for all the rest. It ain't perfect. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:44:48 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Ok. Even if I were to concede that, it still doesn’t make it his to keep after he left office. Which ultimately is what he was charged with. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: What he said and for whatever reason he had for saying it is irrelevant. Just him physically removing any document from a secured area automatically declassifies that document. Ok. Even if I were to concede that, it still doesn’t make it his to keep after he left office. Which ultimately is what he was charged with. You have previously acknowledged that the decision to keep them lies with him. You are attempting to have it both ways. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:47:40 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: OK Enough bullshit The mere fact that President Trump took documents out of a secure area was enough for him to have declassified them. You know that, quit being a troll. Next, ask water to stop being wet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:49:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You read a story citing an anonymous source that says something in a liberal rag that has a known bias against Trump and all things conservative. Most people would dismiss that story because of these glaring issues. You, on the other hand, do not. Instead, you cite it as “confirmation” of your beliefs. What do they call that? There you go again... putting words in people's mouths so that you can argue those words against them. I will try and explain it to you but, I cannot understand it for you. All Trump's lawyers have been seeking delays so as to forestall the prosecutions. To accomplish this they have been making as many appeals as they can, hoping one will stick and an appellate/supreme court will agree to hear those appeals, causing the delay of an actual trial. The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome... if the appeal results in a delay that extends beyond the election, they have succeeded in their goal. Pointing out that trumps lawyers were celebrating their victory in gaining that procedural delay based upon their strategy's success, is axiomatic and again, neither "biased" nor political. Furthermore, discussing the unlikely possibility that trump's lawyers will prevail is also neither political nor "biased." Except for untutored laymen (like you), few lawyers or constitutional scholars actually believe this nation bestows absolute criminal immunity upon a president. Lower courts have all rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on the appeals court. Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. Even Thomas pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it saying: “The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity” It may just be that the SC is taking the case to clarify under which limited circumstances presidents can enjoy immunity from prosecution. In any event, I don't understand why it is you are considered clever here... I don't see it myself. But again, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:53:28 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MADMAXXX: Do you even know what was on those documents? It is up to the President to decide what is his personal record. Each document he was charged with unlawfully retaining is annotated in the indictment. "intelligence briefing, foreign military capabilities, nuclear information". Those types of things. Taken at face value, information that no unbiased person would agree to be "personal information" as defined in the PRA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:56:29 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: You have previously acknowledged that the decision to keep them lies with him. You are attempting to have it both ways. I haven't made that argument. The PRA clearly states that all presidential records become the property of the government under the custody of the archivist once the president leaves office. And the espionage act, under which Trump was charged, explains quite clearly that when the government asks for stuff back, it's a crime not to comply. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 11:57:31 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Each document he was charged with unlawfully retaining is annotated in the indictment. "intelligence briefing, foreign military capabilities, nuclear information". Those types of things. Taken at face value, information that no unbiased person would agree to be "personal information" as defined in the PRA. Good thing there is judicial precedent on who gets to decide what is in what is not personal records. Unfortunately for your position that precedent says the ex-POTUS. I am also willing to concede. It will need to go to SCOTUS for final adjudication |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:03:01 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Each document he was charged with unlawfully retaining is annotated in the indictment. "intelligence briefing, foreign military capabilities, nuclear information". Those types of things. Taken at face value, information that no unbiased person would agree to be "personal information" as defined in the PRA. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: Do you even know what was on those documents? It is up to the President to decide what is his personal record. Each document he was charged with unlawfully retaining is annotated in the indictment. "intelligence briefing, foreign military capabilities, nuclear information". Those types of things. Taken at face value, information that no unbiased person would agree to be "personal information" as defined in the PRA. See you don't know actually what is on these documents, only a vague description which also matches what I said might be on them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:04:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: OK Enough bullshit The mere fact that President Trump took documents out of a secure area was enough for him to have declassified them. You know that, quit being a troll. Originally Posted By R0N: Great I'm good with a prosecution for secret material brought to him after he left office. But if it was in his possession as he left, then it was declassified. Or are you in agreement that Trump sometimes talks out his ass to make himself seem more than he is? So who brought it to him? Originally Posted By MADMAXXX: What he said and for whatever reason he had for saying it is irrelevant. Just him physically removing any document from a secured area automatically declassifies that document. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:05:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#37]
Dupe
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:06:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I know it sounds crazy, but there's actually a really good way to understand the differences between the two situations. There is a long special counsel report that goes through all the details of the Biden situation. Then there's an actual indictment that goes through all the details of the Trump situation. If you don't want to sound dumb, you could go read them for yourself! Or you can just keep believing the narratives fed to you by MAGA Media, the choice is yours. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By JKH62: Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Ha ha ha, so the current potato, who had himself had classified docs illegally stored in the trunk of his car, worked with DOJ to prosecute his predecessor (and apparent 2024 opponent), when he could have waived his need to know or otherwise allowed this, as would appear to be the tradition with prior administrations? What “crime” in the traditional sense did a former president commit by retaining some documents which he had previously legally possessed? Why would someone put a former president in legal jeopardy over a process crime, where there are several previous examples of former potus retaining documents and clearance after their term? I can only come to the conclusion that this is a malicious prosecution for political purposes. There is no other conclusion. The potato had docs that spanned decades, none of which he was legally entitled to or change classification one way or the other. No charge/s The other guy had full legal access to documents and could change classification. Lots of charges. Most people are smart enough to see the difference but TDS is potent. I know it sounds crazy, but there's actually a really good way to understand the differences between the two situations. There is a long special counsel report that goes through all the details of the Biden situation. Then there's an actual indictment that goes through all the details of the Trump situation. If you don't want to sound dumb, you could go read them for yourself! Or you can just keep believing the narratives fed to you by MAGA Media, the choice is yours. The special council report that says that Biden is too senile to be prosocuted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:06:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: I have never said it did. I said they had to prove that the documents were delivered to him after he left office. If not the presumption is his standing order to declassify applied. Since this is still the United States and you are innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor has a very high burden to proved that Trump did not say anything taken there is declassified. Because that’s all it takes for the president to declassify something. You really do need to look at Jack Smith‘s past, he was the prosecutor for the Stevens case in which the senator was removed from office to allow Obamacare to pass the Senate. That conviction was later thrown out because it was shown Smith had exculpatory evidence that Stevens didn’t commit a crime but he chose to withhold it. Did you really just say that the prosecution has to prove a negative?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:09:12 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:12:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LordsOfDiscipline: Quit sliding the thread. Why aren't you dealing with the DC Grand Jury disclosures and the "piles of evidence" presented to the DC Grand Jury? Still waiting for you to explain the shocking monumentous revelations we are supposed to react to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:14:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By R0N: Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Citations supporting assertion? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:14:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Each document he was charged with unlawfully retaining is annotated in the indictment. "intelligence briefing, foreign military capabilities, nuclear information". Those types of things. Taken at face value, information that no unbiased person would agree to be "personal information" as defined in the PRA. An indictment that you refuse to talk about. Why aren't you dealing with the DC Grand Jury disclosures and the "piles of evidence" presented to the DC Grand Jury? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:15:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Good thing there is judicial precedent on who gets to decide what is in what is not personal records. Unfortunately for your position that precedent says the ex-POTUS. I am also willing to concede. It will need to go to SCOTUS for final adjudication Yes, but legal precedent can get changed or overruled. And if you are to take the document descriptions at face value, I'm confident the SCOTUS would recognize there absolutely are limits to what a president can deem "personal" as he leaves office. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:18:13 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:21:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Yes, but legal precedent can get changed or overruled. And if you are to take the document descriptions at face value, I'm confident the SCOTUS would recognize there absolutely are limits to what a president can deem "personal" as he leaves office. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: Good thing there is judicial precedent on who gets to decide what is in what is not personal records. Unfortunately for your position that precedent says the ex-POTUS. I am also willing to concede. It will need to go to SCOTUS for final adjudication Yes, but legal precedent can get changed or overruled. And if you are to take the document descriptions at face value, I'm confident the SCOTUS would recognize there absolutely are limits to what a president can deem "personal" as he leaves office. Does that mean SCOTUS gets to decide what is classified or declassifed as well? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:24:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Okay, and there is no penalty in the presidential records act. The burden of proof is on the government that Trump stole classified docs. Trump's defense is he declassified everything - he did it by executive order and by waving his hand and saying "this is declassified". Kash Patel has stated as much. And now we know the DOJ and NARA colluded in order to concoct a case in order to charge Trump. It was rumored in media reports there was some kind of coordination going on behind the scenes that the DOJ wanted the Russian collusion docs back. They used NARA to file a complaint that Trump had classified docs. Then they used that to get the warrant to raid MAL and they took everything. Now we know that was true. I think we are looking at a dismissal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:45:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: "...by the conditions of the original grant..." Unless someone changed the English language on me that means it was written policy when the grant was made. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Originally Posted By AFARR: That memo was signed in 2023. 1 year after they raided Mar A Lago. Was it written policy before that? (I don't follow the case closely, but if not, kind of hard to put out a memo a year after the evidence is gathered in a criminal case saying 'that stuff is illegal for him to have' if it was never clarified long before that). Unless someone changed the English language on me that means it was written policy when the grant was made. Near as I can tell, it’s not. 42 USC Chapter 23 Division A Section 2165 deals with security clearances. Makes no mention of a President leaving office and losing clearance. Does (paragraph c) talk about accepting clearance granted by other gov agencies*. The word President appears 220 times in that section and makes it very clear the Sec Energy reports to him. *now, if Biden pulled his clearance after he left office, you could make that argument that he lost his DOE clearance when it was done, but it’s nowhere in the act that I can find that it’s automatic on leaving office. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:45:18 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Citations supporting assertion? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By R0N: Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Citations supporting assertion? Ugh I spent way too much time on this last time, I'm not going to do it again. Go read this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/US-judge-receptive-to-Trump-documents-claims-in-warning-sign-for-prosecutors/5-2716722/? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:48:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Everything the president does relies on the bureacracy to comply. Granted, he could fire them and even that has limitations with rules and regs but this is Washington DC. Who would fill the jobs that he vacated? The same kind of people is the best you could hope for in DC. The solution is complicated and will take YEARS beyond Trump to accomplish. I don’t believe there is a political solution to our problem. It’s going to take pain and suffering. I am not sure anyone is prepared for pain and suffering. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
