Bullshit, and you started the insults.

Also, I posted a quote from Judicial Watch saying that there was classified information in those tapes?

You are choosing to ignore that?

How does that square with your BS that it was "just personal" information?  Where'd you get that idea?

But wait... Even Trump says the vast majority of the FBI are good people.  I'm so confused.  Is Trump right, wrong or did he not mean what he said? please help...

Trump specifically or the POTUS?

If you read that post I added an apology... I do truly try and keep things civil and engage in insults only after they are directed at me.

That's just an allegation by JW, no? They do not have the authority to designate security classifications. I have not read the entire case and perhaps missed something, but I would be surprised if it was not noted,  Or, that the National Archives would not have asserted dominion over classified documents, which they did not.  The case by JW was trying to get the National Archives to include those documents under their purview and take custody of them.  A pretty long stretch in my view.    As I said earlier and I will again make it clear that I am no clinton voter/defender But I will admit I thought his impeachment was just as wastefull as Trumps

Selective prosecution is a legal defense. And in this case it is absolutely a valid one, because by the standards they are trying to hold Trump too, every single currently living President should be indicted on the same charges.

"The case by JW was trying to get the National Archives to include those documents under their purview and take custody of them.  A pretty long stretch in my view."

Except that is what the Presidential Records Act state is supposed to happen. Yet the court ruled that the President has the sole authority to determine what is and is not considered a "Presidential Record" that should be turned over and what is a personal document that does not have to be turned over.

I can't think of a single thing that Judicial Watch has lied about, and if they make an accusation they probably have a damn good reason to make it. They probably had solid information before they would say it publicly, especially since they are are the leading pain in the ass for liberal hacks, and the dems would love nothing better than to take them down.

John Solomon:

Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.

Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute


When it comes to the National Archives, history has a funny way of repeating itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI search of Melania Trump's closet and Donald Trump's personal office.

The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.

For pop culture, the case is most memorable for the revelation that the 42nd president for a time stored the audio tapes in his sock drawer at the White House. The tapes became the focal point of a 2009 book that Branch wrote.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

You can read the full ruling here:

File
memorandum opinion.pdf
The judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his tenure and his only responsibility was to inform the Archives.

As to whether records a president concluded were personal can be forcibly seized after he leaves office, the court concluded it was unreasonable to force NARA to go get the tapes

"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them," Jackson noted. "Defendant considers this to be an 'extraordinary request' that is unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law. The Court agrees."

That defendant was the same Justice Department that authorized the raid on Trump's estate. You can read their arguments a decade earlier here:

File
Hearing Transcript.pdf


Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.

The search warrant the FBI enforced sought two types of records: classified materials and records created during the Trump presidency. Trump has been adamant the records he took to Mar-a-Lago were both declassified and deemed personal by him.

Some government lawyers reached out privately to Just the News in recent days questioning the use of the FBI to collect presidential records, citing Jackson's ruling and suggesting it was a civil and not criminal matter where deference to Trump is required by law.

On the classification issue, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama signed executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government officials do.

The Jackson ruling and the declassification powers have left some experts worried the FBI raid was heavy-handed under the current laws.

Kevin Brock, former assistant FBI director for intelligence, told Just the News the bureau's search warrant was overly broad and went beyond what the FBI manual for agents recommended. "Specificity is important in order to protect fourth amendment rights from exuberant government overreach designed to find whatever they can," he told Just the News.

Brock added he did not believe DOJ and FBI had authority to criminalize the retention of presidential records.

The warrant "apparently makes a novel legal assertion that any presidential record kept by a former president is against the law," Brock said. "You have to wonder what the other living former presidents think about that. They have the right and, apparently, clear desire to remain silent."

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch who was on the losing end of the Clinton sock drawer case, said he believes Jackson's ruling could have a profound impact on the coming legal battles over the Trump search.

"The government, the lawyer for the Archives, said, 'You know what? If documents are in the former President's hands, where they're presumptively personal, we just, you know, we presume they're personal,'" Fitton said.

"The Justice Department previously had told us in response to a question about Bill Clinton: 'Tough luck, it's his.' But they changed their mind for Donald Trump?" he asked. "… The law and court decision suggests that Trump is right. And frankly, based on this analysis, Trump should get every single document they took from him back. It's all personal records."

No laws were broken. The looney left will stop at nothing to impede his presidential run.

Attached File

I am not sure what your question is.

Not exactly.   Yes, our legal doctrine grants great authority to a sitting president.  A sitting president has “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office and enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “However even a sitting President must notify the NARA before disposing of records ... neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President's disposal decision.”  Please show me where that notification occurred.  In any event, Trump is no longer president and that presidential authority has vanished.  

In the Clinton case, the court agreed with NARA determination that the documents in question were a personal interview and that those interview records were not "created with the intent of their use as government materials"  and thus did not fall under the purview of the NARA.  That's what both NARA held and the judge ruled....  In fact even JW did not challenge Clinton's classification of the audiotapes as personal. The PRA provides the NARA with authority to invoke the act but in this case they did not.  Perhaps the argument for discussion is that NARA should have deemed the Clinton documents as falling under their jurisdiction or that Clinton like Trump made no NARA notification, but, sadly the fact that everyone including JW agreed they were renders that arguement as moot....

Here the NARA has specifically deemed these to be presidential records and no one including Trump has even asserted that he notified the Archivist before disposing of records and as he is no longer president.

"My personal opinion? There is no way Trump should have control over that level of classified documents nor documents on those topics."

Would your opinion change if we substituted "Trump" for another President?

Maybe, but I read too many claims here proposing significant theories about why or why not smoking gun information is not released and they just don't add up...  If nothing else the smoking gun info could be anonymously sent to people who would relish an opportunity to make such damaging information regarding the Clintons public.

Do you mean former president?

Meanwhile, in the Clinton case, NARA made the statement that if the materials were in the hands of the President, NARA just assumed that the materials were personal.

Yeah, well that's asinine.  But comparing the JW case to this is apples and oranges..

When you're in a train of cars doing +20 over the limit, and you are pulled over and given a court appearance for felony speeding.
Could you mount a defense that, "Well this is selective. A slew of other drivers were doing 20 over as well. They were not prosecuted."

Try that and I wish you all the best of luck with that defense.

A legal defense could be that the law is unconstitutional as it violates some a legally protected right.  But there is no affirmative legal defense that the charges must be dismissed because others have never been charged with the same infraction.

None. Zero.

Attached File

Yeah that defense typically fails.  I'd be talking a plea deal before arguing selective prosecution...  under federal law the standard is incredibly high.   If you enjoy learning about the law read this treatise GOODBYE TO THE DEFENSE OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION United States v. Armstrong, 116 S. Ct. 1480 (1996)

""Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added."

Is this smoking gun "classifed" doc that he showed someone, and was talking about, and that the the prosecutor can not even find the original copy? Did he take the original? Is it missing? Or is it a copy that Trump kept for himself to prove that Milley is a big fat treasonous dick sucking piece of shit?

What make his copy that he kept for personal reasons (disputing the lie about wanting to attack Iran) not personal? This is obviously something he intentional kept, and must have made the decision to keep before leaving office.

That's pretty interesting.

Earlier today you claimed that the 96 audio tapes Clinton had were just personal information, with zero way to know this to be true. Someone who didn't have the time or inclination to do a little bit of research would have possibly believed you and repeated you even though you had no basis to say what you said.

Now you want us to discount what JW says, just out of another hunch of yours?

Yes, and according to Barnes, this is the only ruling available for precedence.

Your line of logic here is wildly weak. And you know it.

Even if you believe Trump's version of this he's an incompetent joke.

According to Trump he declassified US nuclear capabilities, the nuclear capabilities of other states, US military vulnerabilities and contingencies and so on.  He says he's not guilty because he was entitled to do this.

All kinds of defense secrets that are legit top secrets. Stuff that should probably never even have been printed on paper much less left the building.

WTF would anyone declassify things like that and then leave them lying around Mar-a-lago and then let people with no security clearance access them?

If you believe Trump his judgement is so poor he doesn't deserve anyone's trust.

Thane Rosenbaum was just on Newsmax, saying much the same.

He said it's significant that the PRA is never addressed or mentioned in the indictment, and that it would tend to protect Trump's handling of the documents.

You know there is a huge amount of that info in common circulation, and that much of it is not generated by gov intelligence or espionage?

You know that, right?

Fake news. Stop repeating words of tyrants and corrupt individuals within the government.

Except the JW case is the only legal case that is even relevant in this context and is an apples to apples comparison due to the fact that both revolve around the authority of the President to designate and take materials with him when he leaves office.

Well we have laws but I don’t see them being applied equally. Interesting.

Despite his failure to notify, if they were merely personal documents I would be inclined to agree that his treatment of records is of little or no consequence and frankly would be pleased.  If those records are deemed classified and related to our highest national security secrets, its another story.  The greatest indication is a sworn criminal indictment which alleges he lied about possession and mishandled very secret information.  If that's true and they can prove it, he's done.  Question:  If they prove their charges in federal court in front of a jury and before one of our party's hand picked and trump sympathetic judges will you still support him?

There is no constitutional requirement for him to notify NARA. Congress doesn't get to neuter the presidents executive power, only play with the purse string.



Question: Where were you on the Russian collusion shit, Steele Dossier etc.?

Did you say they he sure looks guilty and they have him back then? They said some awful damning things about him then, and so many on your side were convinced he was guilty.

Why won't the prosecution even reveal who is on his team? Same people?

essentially the POTUS can make anything his personal document as he leaves office.  Classification is a function of the executive branch, POTUS is the chief executive, therefor anything he deems his personal document is just that.   Doesn't matter what it is or what level of classification it carried.

Is that good for the country? maybe, maybe not, but the law says that's the case.

there is a reason this has never happened before, and it's not because no president has ever done this. Every president has retained previously classified information as he left office.

This is politically motivated.

lol...  No wonder another poster in this thread said you were putting words in their mouth.  

I always believe it more persuasive when I borrow someone's own words and arguments to respond....  It seems you don't have the "time or inclination" to read carefully only to make careless and baseless accusations as your argument.   Let's try again... I simply cited the objective facts of the case and arguments by the respective parties and comments by the judge.  I made no "claims" as you suggest.  No one, including the party that brought the suit (Judicial Watch) contested  Clinton's classification that the documents at issue were personal... I'm sorry you are unhappy with those fact but it is you who in fact "want us to discount what JW says."

 
my comments again:

1st

That's just an allegation by JW, no? They do not have the authority to designate security classifications. I have not read the entire case and perhaps missed something, but I would be surprised if it was not noted,  Or, that the National Archives would not have asserted dominion over classified documents, which they did not.  The case by JW was trying to get the National Archives to include those documents under their purview and take custody of them.  A pretty long stretch in my view.    As I said earlier and I will again make it clear that I am no clinton voter/defender But I will admit I thought his impeachment was just as wastefull as Trumps

2nd

In the Clinton case, the court agreed with NARA determination that the documents in question were a personal interview and that those interview records were not "created with the intent of their use as government materials"  and thus did not fall under the purview of the NARA.  That's what both NARA held and the judge ruled....  In fact even JW did not challenge Clinton's classification of the audiotapes as personal. The PRA provides the NARA with authority to invoke the act but in this case they did not.  Perhaps the argument for discussion is that NARA should have deemed the Clinton documents as falling under their jurisdiction or that Clinton like Trump made no NARA notification, but, sadly the fact that everyone including JW agreed they were renders that arguement as moot....


Read it again and if you understand this time that you were mistaken, man up and apologize.  

Of coarse it is politically motivated, but Trump hung himself on this one.  After all the shit they threw at him, after everything they tried to get him on, Trump was one the one that did Trump in.

There is no reason for this, why did he have boxes of documents in fucking shower stall in Mar-A-Lago?  What fucking purposes did this serve?  Either he had something to gain and he was acting nefarious, or he was completely incompetent.

Too bad, I was really looking forward to that second amendment coalition...

Yes it addresses personal documents so it is easily distinguished... this sir is a case of first impression and if the facts are as alleged the JW case is actually irrelevant.

Well he's got that neat avatar and a bunch of qualifiers listed under it,  obviously his opinion is beyond reproach.

Where are the goalposts being moved to now?

Here's why I said it.

Quoted::

The indictment had nothing to do with the retention or mis-handling of classified material.


then planemaker said:

Quoted:

The sham indictment has *everything* to do with retention of declassified documents. Did you not read any of the first 5 pages.or.so?
View All Quotes


then I quoted one of the "crimes" from wreckshooters post:



Quoted:

Did you read it? Counts start on page 28;

Counts 1 - 31:  Willful retention of National Defense Information

and I replied:

Why do you think that it's status as Classified or Declassified doesn't matter?


to which he replied:


Quoted:

I didn’t say it doesn’t matter, don’t put words in my mouth. I am saying none of the charges are related to the mishandling of classified information.



Based upon his above statements he clearly thinks that the above crime is still a crime whether or not the documents were classified or declassified.

Do you disagree?

It's clear to almost everyone here except him that there is no crime if the "National Defense Information" was no longer classified.  Clearly I am not the only person to think the same thing since others responded in the same way.

If you can explain his point of view that The indictment had nothing to do with the retention or mis-handling of classified material. I would love to hear how you seperate the two.


I respond to the putting words in my mouth thing because I was astounded that he just can't get the point that if the docs that everyone is pissing their pants about were declassified, there is no crime.

The best thing for the country would be for both DJT and JRB to kick it before the first caucus/primary.

That the Clinton tapes contained classified material?  I haven't dug extensively (just an hour or so),  but no one was calling bullshit that I've seen until they decided that the same standards don't apply to orange man.




Based upon recent circumstances, it doesn't seem like they care at all until now.

https://nypost.com/2023/01/12/wh-admits-more-classified-docs-found-in-bidens-delaware-garage/

Did they not know?



JW argued that they were Presidential Records.




If you are saying that you didn't mean to imply that the sock drawer tapes were just personal, and you were just quoting someone else who said it, then I apologize.

It's sad how people who don't support a rino liberal populist are called du trolls because we want a conservative that is to the right of Trump.

They're not even hiding it.  They're shoving our faces in it.  Making an example out of Trump to warn off anyone else. Ffs Hillary is fundraising off this.  It's full on banana republic.

Is that not the attitude all the DOJ and their 3-letter children (in fact nearly all cops) apply to we the citizens and taxpayers  every single day?  There's no way of telling what flavor of Feeb you're talking to, so the wise man will not tell anyone in LE  the sky is generally blue in color if they ask, because they will find a way to fuck you.

This isn't the 60s or 70s anymore.  DOJ writ large has been weaponized against America, and I believe the root cause of it is because they were allowed to play spy.  That shit twists your thinking to a place destructive of the Constitution.  That it seems is trickling down to local LE, and it starts with LE having the toys of the spy... Your "shredders" that powdered documents is and example. (and before you try more lawyer baiting yes, even with my "low level clearance" I had one of those in my private office - it was a pain in the ass.  Burn bags were so much easier.)

Contrary to their belief and actions there are only three branches of government, and neither DOJ nor the IC is one of them.

Unfortunately for us that applies to 90% of all politicians, and 100% of Democrats.  But he was President.

Thanks for proving my point.

This has also been my suspicion.

Nobody seems to care that the DOJ framed the President for treason and not a single person was punished for it (a year of probation certainly isn't punishment). But they're being righteous truth sayers this time!

Yes, it was.  Just one of the many times in this thread he was dancing on the COC 6 line, but I just chuckled and thought "your real estate practice can't afford my hourly rate."