User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:42:44 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Just blather... and btw word is trump's legal team acknowledges their immunity argument has little chance of success, but claim victory is the resulting procedural delay in the prosecution of the criminal case. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By CMiller: Why am I suddenly hearing talk about an NDA for the first time from multiple people? Did some MAGA talking point go out recently about it? Just blather... and btw word is trump's legal team acknowledges their immunity argument has little chance of success, but claim victory is the resulting procedural delay in the prosecution of the criminal case. Quite plausible -- have you seen who's on Trump's team? Todd Blanche is a former federal prosecutor who worked in the Manhattan office. He has people from that office working with him Trump also has a former Florida solicitor general and a former Missouri solicitor general working on various cases. They know very well how to bog things down. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/12/trump-lawyers-indictments-trials/ |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:47:08 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: We had a two week long thread on this exact topic not long ago. Cincinnatus is a smart guy. But in this case I think he is wrong. Former presidents traditionally have been granted access to classified information generated during their presidency, after a request to the current executive branch. Thats generally it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By ThornBooger: Why are you ignoring cincinatus? (That's rhetorical, everyone knows why) We had a two week long thread on this exact topic not long ago. Cincinnatus is a smart guy. But in this case I think he is wrong. Former presidents traditionally have been granted access to classified information generated during their presidency, after a request to the current executive branch. Thats generally it. It's a dick move, but Biden did revoke then Trump did lose access. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:50:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: That is true, but my understanding is that Biden revoked Trump's access. All previous presidents retained their access so that the current guy could call on them for advice. It's a dick move, but Biden did revoke then Trump did lose access. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By ThornBooger: Why are you ignoring cincinatus? (That's rhetorical, everyone knows why) We had a two week long thread on this exact topic not long ago. Cincinnatus is a smart guy. But in this case I think he is wrong. Former presidents traditionally have been granted access to classified information generated during their presidency, after a request to the current executive branch. Thats generally it. It's a dick move, but Biden did revoke then Trump did lose access. I'm not sure that there was ever anything to revoke in the first place. When I tried to search this question all I could find is Biden saying that he did not plan to share any classified information with Trump because he is a security risk. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:52:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Irrelevant. Trump says everything he took, he declassified Moreover my understanding is there are certain types of documents that a President lacks the power to declassify. Specifically nuclear secrets are protected by as act that doesn't give that power to the President. I don't claim to know whether Trump had those kinds of documents in his possession. I saw some news reports that he did but I don't have any idea whether those reports are credible. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:57:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: PolarBear416]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm not sure that there was ever anything to revoke in the first place. When I tried to search this question all I could find is Biden saying that he did not plan to share any classified information with Trump because he is a security risk. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By PolarBear416: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By ThornBooger: Why are you ignoring cincinatus? (That's rhetorical, everyone knows why) We had a two week long thread on this exact topic not long ago. Cincinnatus is a smart guy. But in this case I think he is wrong. Former presidents traditionally have been granted access to classified information generated during their presidency, after a request to the current executive branch. Thats generally it. It's a dick move, but Biden did revoke then Trump did lose access. I'm not sure that there was ever anything to revoke in the first place. When I tried to search this question all I could find is Biden saying that he did not plan to share any classified information with Trump because he is a security risk. Yeah that's all I can find as well. I thought I read once that his access had been revoked but I'm either misremembering or it's been memory holed. Guess it would be entered as evidence at the trial one way or the other |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:58:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Irrelevant. Trump says everything he took, he declassified No. It would be an agreement with himself. No need, in this case. Quote HistoryOriginally 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:  
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:09:09 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The clearance comes with the office. And you lose it when you leave office. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Who “granted “ the President his Q clearance? Hint: not DoE And you lose it when you leave office. There's no doubt that, according to that memo, the Q clearance automatically expired upon leaving office. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/430926/IMG_0985-3197004.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:04:31 AM EDT
[#8]
Does anyone have a link to the part in the 1954 law where it states that this act supersedes the powers granted by the Constitution? I’m curious how they worded that.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 5:07:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: R0N]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: @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. Another case of you not knowing what you don’t know. If you have a clearance with any caveats, like SCI, CNWD etc. you have signed an NDA. For some caveats you have to sign an NDA annually but for all clearances with caveats when the clearance ends there is the “ the read-out” and you sign an NDA. Q clearance is equivalent of CNWD for a DoD clearance and part of the required read-out is to sign an NDA. If an NDA was not signed or in cases where someone refuses to sign, multiple people witness it being read to them, they are not official read out. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:24:33 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: If the presidency automatically grants a Q clearance, then why wasn't it granted until February 9, 2017? Shouldn't it have been granted on January 20, 2017? There's no doubt that, according to that memo, the Q clearance automatically expired upon leaving office. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/430926/IMG_0985-3197004.png 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). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:40:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: pale_pony]
[#11]
The sheer number of 0biden sucking useful Idiots that have invaded this forum since 2020 is astounding
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:51:54 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:54:01 AM EDT
[#13]
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. 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? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:08:17 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:10:05 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wvfarrier: Of course, anyone who makes a stink about it will become the next lawfare victim  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:10:32 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Take it up with the DOE's Office of General Counsel. Wow a political appointee of the current administration, they probably know less about the subject than you do. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:32:45 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Ahhh... one of your cherished platitudes, "confirmation bias." I am gratified to see that I had no need to be worried about your fully recovering from the sport injury you mentioned last week. It appears it has had no effect on your posting. To good health and productive gardening. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: There’s that confirmation bias again!  Ahhh... one of your cherished platitudes, "confirmation bias." I am gratified to see that I had no need to be worried about your fully recovering from the sport injury you mentioned last week. It appears it has had no effect on your posting. To good health and productive gardening. 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:33:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Enigma102083: DoE is the only classification authority established by legislation and this the president does not supercede it, that's why the DoE issues a Q clearance, that's why DoE has to grant one to the president. It's the ONE access program the president isn't the originating classifying authority. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Enigma102083: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Prezboi44: I find this document strange. Presidents don't hold clearances by virtue of their election to office. As elected officials, how would you have an unelected bureaucrat deciding access over the top elected official, least of all the CICAF. Many in the WH hold an SSB with a Yankee White clearance. NSC also. Where am I going wrong? I get you probably don't want a president to have the NOC list, but with the PDB, an "Agency" is going to withhold information of national security based on a clearance, because that's the exact situation they could be put in. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2016/07/25/kind-security-clearance-president-get/ I don’t think you are wrong, though I’ve never had a Q clearance, so I don’t know if there is anything especially unique. I read the document as confirming that Presidents have the clearance while in office, and they cease to keep it when they leave office. The document was offered as a rebuttal to the claim that he still had the clearance, years after he left office. Who “granted “ the President his Q clearance? Hint: not DoE DoE is the only classification authority established by legislation and this the president does not supercede it, that's why the DoE issues a Q clearance, that's why DoE has to grant one to the president. It's the ONE access program the president isn't the originating classifying authority. Except that he is. Congress does not dictate how the President exercises those authorities. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:35:36 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Take it up with the DOE's Office of General Counsel. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: 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? Which falls under the authority of the President. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:39:58 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Except that he is. 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:40:03 AM EDT
[#21]
All these technicalities don’t mean shit if Trump doesn’t use the declassified stuff to do anything.
He might have had Hillary’s dirt or all the stuff of the Russian pee gate thing. But I am not sure what he was planning to do with it having it stacked in boxes in his shitter. You don’t sleep on information like that. Especially knowing the full weight of the us government is stomping on your neck. Trump is a moron. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:41:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: nu3gawhat]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: All these technicalities don’t mean shit if Trump doesn’t use the declassified stuff to do anything. He might have had Hillary’s dirt or all the stuff of the Russian pee gate thing. But I am not sure what he was planning to do with it having it stacked in boxes in his shitter. You don’t sleep on information like that. Especially knowing the full weight of the us government is stomping on your neck. Trump is a moron. Well he did file some court cases, but the corrupt system threw them out. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:44:19 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: All these technicalities don’t mean shit if Trump doesn’t use the declassified stuff to do anything. He might have had Hillary’s dirt or all the stuff of the Russian pee gate thing. But I am not sure what he was planning to do with it having it stacked in boxes in his shitter. You don’t sleep on information like that. Especially knowing the full weight of the us government is stomping on your neck. Trump is a moron. What is wrong with putting them on display at the presidential library? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:46:14 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: What is wrong with putting them on display at the presidential library? That would be cool I guess. Not sure it would get any traction there. Looks like he may not even get one, they are going to burn him down. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:55:04 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: That would be cool I guess. Not sure it would get any traction there. Looks like he may not even get one, they are going to burn him down. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: What is wrong with putting them on display at the presidential library? That would be cool I guess. Not sure it would get any traction there. Looks like he may not even get one, they are going to burn him down. That is the perogative of the cover up police and deep state bureaucracy within .gov. They want to muzzle and silence everyone who is effective at exposing them. That doesn't mean Trump is a moron, however. He suffers like everyone else who tries to bring corruption to light. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:55:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ExFed1811]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Take it up with the DOE's Office of General Counsel. Everyone at the DOE is an agent of the President, who is the principal executive officer as dictated by the Constitution. An agent's power and authority is derived and delegated from the principal. Therefore an agent cannot have more power and authority than their principal. Congress cannot delegate someone else through legislation to have more executivec authority and executive power than the President (any more than the President can usurp Congress' authority to make and laws (other than his prescribed limited veto power). Now that's not saying we don't have a whole lot of unconstitutional actions taking place in our government on a constant basis. As we have all learned by now, a Constitution is only as good as the people placed in charge of keeping it. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:00:28 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: That is the perogative of the cover up police and deep state bureaucracy within .gov. They want to muzzle and silence everyone who is effective at exposing them. That doesn't mean Trump is a moron, however. He suffers like everyone else who tries to bring corruption to light. It's actually kind of amazing Trump is still alive when you look at how establishment authorities have taken care of troublesome outliers like Trump throughout history. I guess lawfare is us evolving. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:02:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pale_pony: The sheer number of 0biden sucking useful Idiots that have invaded this forum since 2020 is astounding with long shelf lives and posts counts. but none of us have ever seen them before. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:11:22 AM EDT
[#29]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:16:14 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: All these technicalities don't mean shit if Trump doesn't use the declassified stuff to do anything. He might have had Hillary's dirt or all the stuff of the Russian pee gate thing. But I am not sure what he was planning to do with it having it stacked in boxes in his shitter. You don't sleep on information like that. Especially knowing the full weight of the us government is stomping on your neck. Trump is a moron. Why don't you run for President and show us just how smart that you are. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:21:33 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: I try and read everything... I hardly suggested this was some deep insight and, as you say, merely commenting on the fact that the defense team was considering the delay a victory was a pretty standard observation. question: Do you believe the scotus will hold that the precedent that the chief executive enjoys absolute civil immunity for all official acts committed within the “outer perimeter” of his office, extends to criminal acts? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Don't plan on reading it thanks. But here's some real talk. In almost every case, delay favors the defense. So, who cares I guess? Any dumbass can pass the bar, I'm living proof of that. But to pretend the Rolling Stone is offering some deep insight onto the Trump team is silly. Delay favoring the defense is a standard observation. Journalism!!!!! I try and read everything... I hardly suggested this was some deep insight and, as you say, merely commenting on the fact that the defense team was considering the delay a victory was a pretty standard observation. question: Do you believe the scotus will hold that the precedent that the chief executive enjoys absolute civil immunity for all official acts committed within the “outer perimeter” of his office, extends to criminal acts? Is it a victory or is it a tactic that favors the defense? The use of the language matters concerning the effect on the broader public. No clue what the supremes will do. But I suspect they will carve out some sort of limited immunity in a 6-3 or 5-4 decision. Presidents order murders. Straight up pre-meditated killings. I do not suspect the supremes will decide all of those ultra vires, yet presidential, acts will be prosecutable. I am also mindful that media, and arfcom pundits have predicted that Trump/Russia was totally real, that the FISA warrant system had safeguards and could not be used improperly, and that Colorado really got the decision to kick Trump off the ballot exactly correct and that the decision was a masterpiece of legal research and writing, just to name three of the most egregious examples. So, do i trust my own observations and judgements, or do I look to the Rolling Stone? |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:36:04 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: @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 Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:37:14 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Which falls under the authority of the President. It's simply amazing that some people can't grasp the concept that the entire classification system exists for the President, and only the President. A President's use and disposition of classified material is his decision alone, and cannot be subject to review by the Judiciary or Congress. It's really quite simple. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:44:40 AM EDT
[#34]
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:45:51 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: I can only come to the conclusion that this is a malicious prosecution for political purposes. There is no other conclusion. Ya think? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:49:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ExFed1811: It's actually kind of amazing Trump is still alive when you look at how establishment authorities have taken care of troublesome outliers like Trump throughout history. I guess lawfare is us evolving. . I think they use him. Everything that is bad they blame him for. He pretty much has single-handedly destroyed the GOP by splitting it in three separate factions. If they were to kill him. It would end their little charade. Trump has proven to just be a blow hard, he all bark, no bite. The guy had the power and he pissed it away crying on Twitter. What a shame. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:49:27 AM EDT
[#37]
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/25/trump-security-clearance-revoke-clapper-brennan-rice-hayden-219038/
Let’s start back with a prior question: why do former officials have security clearances anyway? I’m a former official myself, and when I left the National Security Council staff on January 20, 2009, my security clearance was not canceled. If memory serves, most or all of us from the Bush administration National Security Council kept our clearances for at least a year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:56:38 AM EDT
[#38]
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. Those two words again , Anarcho - Tyranny . No charges for Biden just shows it's a real thing . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:59:45 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Except that he is. 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? The Constitution |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:03:05 AM EDT
[#40]
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. It’s funny because I wouldn’t advocate criminalizing any of this. And I wouldn’t “go after “ anyone for this stuff. Absent bona fide criminal intent (bribery comes to mind), I’d say that process crimes shouldn’t be prosecuted in a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:09:03 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Trump says that, but I'm not sure whether he's been able to prove that. Moreover my understanding is there are certain types of documents that a President lacks the power to declassify. Specifically nuclear secrets are protected by as act that doesn't give that power to the President. I don't claim to know whether Trump had those kinds of documents in his possession. I saw some news reports that he did but I don't have any idea whether those reports are credible. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PolarBear416: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Irrelevant. Trump says everything he took, he declassified Moreover my understanding is there are certain types of documents that a President lacks the power to declassify. Specifically nuclear secrets are protected by as act that doesn't give that power to the President. I don't claim to know whether Trump had those kinds of documents in his possession. I saw some news reports that he did but I don't have any idea whether those reports are credible. It's been awhile and maybe it was BS, but supposedly the classified nuclear stuff included letters from Obama and Kim Jong Un. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:10:08 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bhart89: Does anyone have a link to the part in the 1954 law where it states that this act supersedes the powers granted by the Constitution? I’m curious how they worded that. now that's just crazy talk.  I love that every one of these charades either sets precedent for lots of fun down the road or it exposes the two tier system. either way they just make Orange Man more popular. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:15:48 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Quite plausible -- have you seen who's on Trump's team? Todd Blanche is a former federal prosecutor who worked in the Manhattan office. He has people from that office working with him Trump also has a former Florida solicitor general and a former Missouri solicitor general working on various cases. They know very well how to bog things down. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/12/trump-lawyers-indictments-trials/ Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By CMiller: Why am I suddenly hearing talk about an NDA for the first time from multiple people? Did some MAGA talking point go out recently about it? Just blather... and btw word is trump's legal team acknowledges their immunity argument has little chance of success, but claim victory is the resulting procedural delay in the prosecution of the criminal case. Quite plausible -- have you seen who's on Trump's team? Todd Blanche is a former federal prosecutor who worked in the Manhattan office. He has people from that office working with him Trump also has a former Florida solicitor general and a former Missouri solicitor general working on various cases. They know very well how to bog things down. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/12/trump-lawyers-indictments-trials/ Yes, it appears he may be learning. This time he didn’t bring a knife to a gunfight and hired competent and seasoned attorneys. And, at least in my view, this is a challenging and difficult case for the prosecution. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:17:01 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4-AK: Lifted Redactions prove the Redactions were a coverup. Anyone else know what is going on. These docs were just released, Goveia is reading the redactions and comparing. This makes Watergate look like nothing. So many redactions, so many lies. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:22:07 AM EDT
[#45]
More blather i.e. Court Documents:
Unsealed: New details about prosecutor Jay Bratt's threats against Walt Nauta's lawyer Stanley Woodward were revealed in a now unsealed motion by Trump's defense team.  UNSEALED: Jack's Prosecutor THREATENED Defense to Cooperate against TRUMP |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:22:48 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By deputyrpa: It's simply amazing that some people can't grasp the concept that the entire classification system exists for the President, and only the President. A President's use and disposition of classified material is his decision alone, and cannot be subject to review by the Judiciary or Congress. It's really quite simple. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By deputyrpa: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Which falls under the authority of the President. It's simply amazing that some people can't grasp the concept that the entire classification system exists for the President, and only the President. A President's use and disposition of classified material is his decision alone, and cannot be subject to review by the Judiciary or Congress. It's really quite simple. That's not how the Karen collective works. Ad hoc committee says its only what they decide it is. In the moment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:23:30 AM EDT
[#47]
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. Karens are never wrong. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:31:26 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: It’s funny because I wouldn’t advocate criminalizing any of this. And I wouldn’t “go after “ anyone for this stuff. Absent bona fide criminal intent (bribery comes to mind), I’d say that process crimes shouldn’t be prosecuted in a vacuum. The FBI raided Trump's house because they wanted something specific, not the crap they already knew he had. Remains to be seen what it is. FBI does pro cleanup work, not a single item leaked from Epstine's various homes or island, Hunters laptops and trail of drugs and whores, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:33:09 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Another case of you not knowing what you don’t know. If you have a clearance with any caveats, like SCI, CNWD etc. you have signed an NDA. For some caveats you have to sign an NDA annually but for all clearances with caveats when the clearance ends there is the “ the read-out” and you sign an NDA. Q clearance is equivalent of CNWD for a DoD clearance and part of the required read-out is to sign an NDA. If an NDA was not signed or in cases where someone refuses to sign, multiple people witness it being read to them, they are not official read out. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Originally Posted By CMiller: @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. Another case of you not knowing what you don’t know. If you have a clearance with any caveats, like SCI, CNWD etc. you have signed an NDA. For some caveats you have to sign an NDA annually but for all clearances with caveats when the clearance ends there is the “ the read-out” and you sign an NDA. Q clearance is equivalent of CNWD for a DoD clearance and part of the required read-out is to sign an NDA. If an NDA was not signed or in cases where someone refuses to sign, multiple people witness it being read to them, they are not official read out. We were specifically talking about Trump. Does the President sign anything related to his "security clearance"? |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:37:36 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: I think they use him. Everything that is bad they blame him for. He pretty much has single-handedly destroyed the GOP by splitting it in three separate factions. If they were to kill him. It would end their little charade. Trump has proven to just be a blow hard, he all bark, no bite. The guy had the power and he pissed it away crying on Twitter. What a shame. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By ExFed1811: It's actually kind of amazing Trump is still alive when you look at how establishment authorities have taken care of troublesome outliers like Trump throughout history. I guess lawfare is us evolving. . I think they use him. Everything that is bad they blame him for. He pretty much has single-handedly destroyed the GOP by splitting it in three separate factions. If they were to kill him. It would end their little charade. Trump has proven to just be a blow hard, he all bark, no bite. The guy had the power and he pissed it away crying on Twitter. What a shame. 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. |
|
|
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.
