User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:42:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Originally Posted By JimBobJersey: snip Personal, not personal, it’s irrelevant to the case at hand. It's in the article the OP linked. Trump's lawyers are arguing as his defense that what he kept in his private possession were "personal documents" as authorized by the PRA. I agree, its a preposterous claim, given the military and intelligence related nature of the documents. But it's certainly not irrelevant, as it is what Trump's attorneys have invoked. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:45:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4K: You should stop 🛑. Don’t confirm what people think. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DaveM4K: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Ranxerox911:  Believe it or not, the Presidential Records Act actually defines what is considered a personal record, so thankfully we aren't reliant on the GD brain trust to make that determination. (3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes-- (A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business; (B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and (C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html You should stop 🛑. Don’t confirm what people think. We're WELL past that! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:47:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well if something is classified, or previously classified, that’s a good clue it’s not a personal document. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Yes, and who determined those documents were military and intelligence documents that didn't belong to President Trump? Well if something is classified, or previously classified, that’s a good clue it’s not a personal document. Imagine if it was possible to receive a "personal award" where the citation was classified. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:48:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. My favorite legal podcast discussed her recently. Now things are much more clear. She actually has almost no trial experience as a prosecutor or judge, most of her experience is in the appellate division of the DOJ. That means that she spends a lot more time musing about interesting and unique legal theories than she ought to as a trial judge. She has lived in the world of the theoretical with no time restraints, and has little experience making the many quick decisions needed from a trial judge. For practical purposes, it means that stories like these should not be taken at face value. This might also be relevant: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/clerking-for-judge-aileen-cannon-why-clerks-quit Here's the podcast episode if you're interested: https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/judge-cannons-clerkship-problem/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:50:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Whether they were declassified by Trump or not, is irrelevant. At some point, the documents were classified. And the definition of classified material makes them mutually exclusive from them being Trump's personal material. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Scott-S6: He's never had a security clearance that permitted him to classify and declassify documents at his whim and neither have you. That rather changes things when you're potus, mishandling of classified documents becomes impossible to prove. Prosecute all the rest though. Whether they were declassified by Trump or not, is irrelevant. At some point, the documents were classified. And the definition of classified material makes them mutually exclusive from them being Trump's personal material. That's simply false. It's not supported by any definition found in the law. Once he used his Presidential powers to "declassify," they simply became words on paper. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:51:29 PM EDT
[#6]
“You have a court who is more favorable to the views of one party versus the other, and you’re seeing orders and decisions that are reflective of that”
|
|
|
|
ISR
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:53:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Like clockwork…
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:54:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MacManus: this whole charade is clownshoes retarded. But I think you know that, although you'd never admit it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MacManus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. this whole charade is clownshoes retarded. But I think you know that, although you'd never admit it. Hey man he went to the Air Force academy. Even has a ring to show for it lol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:54:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Imagine if it was possible to receive a "personal award" where the citation was classified. Is your contention that is what Trump is charged with retaining? Award citations? The recorded conversation where he explicitly mentions "plan of attack" when showing the reporter the documents, right before he mentions that he could have, but didn't, declassify it, was actually an award citation? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:54:44 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm:  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Originally Posted By Ranxerox911: Dude, just stop digging - you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Why don't you put pen to paper, and display your brilliance in an amicus brief to the court? I'm sure the prosecutors have been waiting for someone with your intellectual heft to weigh in on the matter. Imagine the accolades you'll receive for being the one to finally bring down Trump.What is most amazing is that no one can point to a law that was passed by Congress and signed by a President that stripped The Executive of the vested power and ceded it to an unelected bureaucrat. Once presented then we can discuss equal application, whether is is Sandy Berger's socks or Bill Clinton's sock drawer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 1:55:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: That's simply false. It's not supported by any definition found in the law. Once he used his Presidential powers to "declassify," they simply became words on paper. The PRA pretty clearly defines what are personal records. I even linked it already. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:05:14 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The PRA pretty clearly defines what are personal records. I even linked it already. Just like the War Powers Act. The president is commander in chief. He doesn't need congressional approval to go to war or to defend the US. The president does not need authority to declassify any document. Regardless of the PRA. |
|
|
|
MOZ
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:18:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: 100%. The answer is complete accountability, not an abdication of it. . Like being an elderly man with a poor memory accountability? Banana Republic… |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:20:43 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. Your TDS is showing |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:22:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Max429: Link to case where FJB is being prosecuted for having classified documents in his home?? I won't hold my breath waiting for that. How about that cunt hillary, who ordered her underlings to send classified shit via unsecured means, destroyed evidence when shit was catching up to her, and ran a private server at home filled with classified shit for foreign actors to pay for access to? That bitch was sos, not president. The president can declassify whatever he wants, that's literally one of the powers available to him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:22:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Shung: Your TDS is showing If you can make an argument that military and intelligence information related to national security is somehow "personal" as defined by the PRA, I'm all ears. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:48:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Is your contention that is what Trump is charged with retaining? Award citations? The recorded conversation where he explicitly mentions "plan of attack" when showing the reporter the documents, right before he mentions that he could have, but didn't, declassify it, was actually an award citation? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Imagine if it was possible to receive a "personal award" where the citation was classified. Is your contention that is what Trump is charged with retaining? Award citations? The recorded conversation where he explicitly mentions "plan of attack" when showing the reporter the documents, right before he mentions that he could have, but didn't, declassify it, was actually an award citation? No. I'm just demonstrating that your cartoon view of the situation ignores the POTUS power to declassify and ignores the fact that personal documents CAN be classified. Q: Do you know what you call a "classified document" that the POTUS declassifies? A: an "unclassified document" The Presidential Records Acts exists to preserve the "record" and history of a Presidency. It's not about determining what records a President can or cannot have after he leaves office -UNLESS they are the only copies. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form. (2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term— (A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President's staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but (B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) 1 of title 5, United States Code); (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified. The Act was written in the age of Typewriters. ALL of the President's records were printed from digital files. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:48:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: My favorite legal podcast discussed her recently. Now things are much more clear. She actually has almost no trial experience as a prosecutor or judge, most of her experience is in the appellate division of the DOJ. That means that she spends a lot more time musing about interesting and unique legal theories than she ought to as a trial judge. She has lived in the world of the theoretical with no time restraints, and has little experience making the many quick decisions needed from a trial judge. For practical purposes, it means that stories like these should not be taken at face value. This might also be relevant: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/clerking-for-judge-aileen-cannon-why-clerks-quit Here's the podcast episode if you're interested: https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/judge-cannons-clerkship-problem/ Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. My favorite legal podcast discussed her recently. Now things are much more clear. She actually has almost no trial experience as a prosecutor or judge, most of her experience is in the appellate division of the DOJ. That means that she spends a lot more time musing about interesting and unique legal theories than she ought to as a trial judge. She has lived in the world of the theoretical with no time restraints, and has little experience making the many quick decisions needed from a trial judge. For practical purposes, it means that stories like these should not be taken at face value. This might also be relevant: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/clerking-for-judge-aileen-cannon-why-clerks-quit Here's the podcast episode if you're interested: https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/judge-cannons-clerkship-problem/ She is and will remain to be the judge over this case, right? Her opinions matter, unfortunately for you and the weaponizing DOJ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:52:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: 100%. The answer is complete accountability, not an abdication of it. When Trump told Hillary Clinton “because you’d be in jail”, I became an unabashed supporter. of Hillary... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:58:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jon101st: Then every President, Vp, and secretary of state and so on get charged and prosecuted or none at all. Hold on there, lets not go off half cocked. This is about getting Trump, stay on track. This is about rule of law, the Republic, and the Constitution. Forget it that it's been standard Op Procedure for past elected officials more times than we could count. Get Trump! Get Trump! Get Trump! Come on hypocrites and NTers, Get Trump! Get Trump! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 2:58:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well if something is classified, or previously classified, that’s a good clue it’s not a personal document. History would say otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:00:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: No. I'm just demonstrating that your cartoon view of the situation ignores the POTUS power to declassify and ignores the fact that personal documents CAN be classified. Q: Do you know what you call a "classified document" that the POTUS declassifies? A: an "unclassified document" Cool. I work in a SAPF everyday. I'm well aware of what can be classified, which is still not even the point. Counts 1-31 aren't for retaining classified information. He is charged with 31 counts of "Willful retention of national defense information", information that just so happened to have been classified. But even if he did declassify it, it still doesn't all of a sudden make the information "personal", subject to trump's own irresponsible whims. Because conveniently, the 31 counts relating to the illegal retention of national defense documents spell out the precise type of documents he withheld, none of which can even remotely considered "personal". |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:01:05 PM EDT
[#23]
Why do you bother , he is piece of s**t, he comes on here, Mr I served my country cover, I had this and that
He has nothing , he is nothing Benedict Arnold , served his country, Lee Harvey Oswald served his country, McVeigh served his country, etc What a joke, |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:03:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jon101st: Then every President, Vp, and secretary of state and so on get charged and prosecuted or none at all. Clinton had official audio tapes of sensitive meetings in his sock drawer, and they were ruled as exempt under Executive Privilege. This is no different |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:04:12 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Imagine if it was possible to receive a "personal award" where the citation was classified. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Yes, and who determined those documents were military and intelligence documents that didn't belong to President Trump? Well if something is classified, or previously classified, that’s a good clue it’s not a personal document. Imagine if it was possible to receive a "personal award" where the citation was classified. Or even the name of the person who received it, or the date of the action, or anything at all beyond that one was awarded within some previous period of time being quietly revealed during an annual event for agency employees. Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:05:42 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: No. I'm just demonstrating that your cartoon view of the situation ignores the POTUS power to declassify and ignores the fact that personal documents CAN be classified. Q: Do you know what you call a "classified document" that the POTUS declassifies? A: an "unclassified document" The Presidential Records Acts exists to preserve the "record" and history of a Presidency. It's not about determining what records a President can or cannot have after he leaves office -UNLESS they are the only copies. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form. (2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term— (A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President's staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but (B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) 1 of title 5, United States Code); (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified. The Act was written in the age of Typewriters. ALL of the President's records were printed from digital files. Well, Trump wasn't charged under violating the PRA. He is simply using it as part of his defense. He is charged under chapter 18 of the USC, which does make his retention of national security information, and his failure to return it when asked, a crime. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:09:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. The entire prosecution is clown shoes retarded. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:12:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. Well that didn't take long. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:15:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well if something is classified, or previously classified, that’s a good clue it’s not a personal document. Maybe a clue but not totally accurate. What about a personal memorandum that was written by the President which mentions or discusses classified subjects or information? That would make it a classified personal document no? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:18:58 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, Trump wasn't charged under violating the PRA. He is simply using it as part of his defense. He is charged under chapter 18 of the USC, which does make his retention of national security information, and his failure to return it when asked, a crime. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: No. I'm just demonstrating that your cartoon view of the situation ignores the POTUS power to declassify and ignores the fact that personal documents CAN be classified. Q: Do you know what you call a "classified document" that the POTUS declassifies? A: an "unclassified document" The Presidential Records Acts exists to preserve the "record" and history of a Presidency. It's not about determining what records a President can or cannot have after he leaves office -UNLESS they are the only copies. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form. (2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term— (A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President's staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but (B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) 1 of title 5, United States Code); (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified. The Act was written in the age of Typewriters. ALL of the President's records were printed from digital files. Well, Trump wasn't charged under violating the PRA. He is simply using it as part of his defense. He is charged under chapter 18 of the USC, which does make his retention of national security information, and his failure to return it when asked, a crime. Is it like taking the red stapler with you when you lose your job? |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:20:20 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The PRA pretty clearly defines what are personal records. I even linked it already. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: That's simply false. It's not supported by any definition found in the law. Once he used his Presidential powers to "declassify," they simply became words on paper. The PRA pretty clearly defines what are personal records. I even linked it already. And clearly defines who decides if a document is personal or presidential. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:21:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Trump MIGHT have violated the law, but it's definitely a complicated question because of his status. Hillary DEFINITELY violated the law. We know this because the head of the FBI publicly described the multiple felonies that she knowingly committed. Biden DEFINITELY violated the law, both in keeping classified documents at his house AND in the irresponsible way he stored them. The fact that Trump is being prosecuted while they are not is grotesque, and every citizen - regardless of political affiliation or like/dislike for any of them - should be not only outraged, but should also be very concerned for the general state of the Rule of Law in the United States. That's my opinion. Worth what you paid for it.  It's beyond the "concerned" threshold, IMO. BananAmerica is upon us. Plan accordingly. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:22:08 PM EDT
[#33]
A president has the sole authority to set or remove classification of any document.
President Trump retained documents in secure storage as inspected by the FBI and guarded by the secret service. Vs Biden that had decades of classified documents and never had the ability to set or remove classification let alone walk off with them and zero charge/s. 
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:23:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are "personal" is clownshoes retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:23:56 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SGT_Tentpeg: Maybe a clue but not totally accurate. What about a personal memorandum that was written by the President which mentions or discusses classified subjects or information? That would make it a classified personal document no? Anthing related to constitutional, statutory, or official actions, are not "personal". They are official. This is codified. When you are dealing with classified daily intelligence briefings, foreign military capabilies, nuclear secrets, etc. these are not personal documents. You can read all 31 counts in the indictment here, pages 28-33. Tell me if any of those documents qualify. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:26:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Whether they were declassified by Trump or not, is irrelevant. At some point, the documents were classified. And the definition of classified material makes them mutually exclusive from them being Trump's personal material. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Scott-S6: He's never had a security clearance that permitted him to classify and declassify documents at his whim and neither have you. That rather changes things when you're potus, mishandling of classified documents becomes impossible to prove. Prosecute all the rest though. Whether they were declassified by Trump or not, is irrelevant. At some point, the documents were classified. And the definition of classified material makes them mutually exclusive from them being Trump's personal material. You left out a word that would not support your point of view. It was/is President Trump. That is why this case is not a slam dunk. If it has been anyone but a POTUS, case closed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:27:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DK-Prof: Trump MIGHT have violated the law, but it's definitely a complicated question because of his status. Hillary DEFINITELY violated the law. We know this because the head of the FBI publicly described the multiple felonies that she knowingly committed. Biden DEFINITELY violated the law, both in keeping classified documents at his house AND in the irresponsible way he stored them. The fact that Trump is being prosecuted while they are not is grotesque, and every citizen - regardless of political affiliation or like/dislike for any of them - should be not only outraged, but should also be very concerned for the general state of the Rule of Law in the United States. That's my opinion. Worth what you paid for it. Well said, for the money. 
|
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:28:25 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: Is it like taking the red stapler with you when you lose your job? Milton is a LOT smarter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:29:54 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The only defense to what Trump did is that others were not charged for similar offenses. Which they should have been. Of course, complying and cooperating with an investigation is predictably going to have a different outcome than engaging in obstruction when subpoenaed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: Way, way too late for that. ETA: The term 'political commissar' comes to mind. The only defense to what Trump did is that others were not charged for similar offenses. Which they should have been. Of course, complying and cooperating with an investigation is predictably going to have a different outcome than engaging in obstruction when subpoenaed. Cooperating? When did Trump 'wipe' his personal ser...., uh, records? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:33:57 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Whether they were declassified by Trump or not, is irrelevant. At some point, the documents were classified. And the definition of classified material makes them mutually exclusive from them being Trump's personal material. The President has sole and incontestable authority to determine what records are personal. Thats the law. I don’t think it’s well written but I’m not a Congressman so that’s none of my business. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:37:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JimBobJersey: "Allow a jury to consider". I'm sorry, a jury will consider what the defense puts forth. If the persecution doesn't like it, they can state their case. What is this "allow"? There is no "allow". Personal, not personal, it's irrelevant to the case at hand. He isn't charged with misclassifying documents as personal, because there is no such thing. He's charged with taking classified material, which is prima facie absurd as the documents were declassified. Additionally, the president is not subject the the espionage act, but the presidential records act which is not a criminal statute. If it were determined the docs are not personal, I suppose the national archives could request them be returned. However, as we know from the bill Clinton case, the president doesn't have to and Trump gets to keep in documents just the same, just because. Basically, everyone in the government can GO AND FUCK THEMSELVES. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:39:54 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The President has sole and incontestable authority to determine what records are personal. Thats the law. I don’t think it’s well written but I’m not a Congressman so that’s none of my business. Which law gives the president sole and incontestable authority to determine what records are personal? Because 44 USC 22.2201.3 here seems to provide a very precise definition of "personal records" with almost not discretion allowed at all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:41:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Which law gives the president sole and incontestable authority to determine what records are personal? Because 44 USC 22.2201.3 here seems to provide a very precise definition of "personal records" with almost not discretion allowed at all. Not a law. A court case. Nor can NARA initiate any action to compel a former president to return documents. So let’s say if classified documents were found during a search related to their subpoena that could be a problem. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:42:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: buck19delta]
[#44]
Judge shows neutrality and non political attitude towards a defendant and allows reasonable requests for their defense = threat to democracy !
Fuck all these tyrannical, nazi wanna be liberals and democrats. They scream and point at trump and conservatives, claiming they are threats to society, when the truth is those people resemble nazi germany in the 1930s. Physically Attacking people they don’t like / are their political enemies, attacking free speech they don’t like, attempting to undermine the rule of law / stripping political enemies of rights, due process. trying to create pure kangaroo courts to rubber stamp GUILTY at the end, no matter what evidence that exists showing them not guilty, they WILL find you guilty, even if they have to create fake evidence, destroy or refuse to accept evidence of innocence, find / coach / offer financial rewards to random people to make fake claims / allegations, prosecute you 100 times for the same crime in multiple courts / jurisdictions / different angles until they eventually get the right combination of corrupt judge, corrupt prosecutors and corrupt / politically driven liberal stacked jury to find you guilty of all charges, life in prison for jaywalking ! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:45:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. Without knowing the documents and the info, how do you know it's retarded? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:50:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cash50: Without knowing the documents and the info, how do you know it's retarded? Because the description of each of the documents he has been charged regarding is in the indictment? |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 3:55:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Considering the issue bigger picture, there were multiple "leaks" by Comey, Vindman, et al that were intended to hurt the sitting US president. Those were certainly worse than whatever infraction Trump had. Put Comey, Vindman etc in prison for a couple decades then we can discuss Trump.
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:04:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Considering the issue bigger picture, there were multiple "leaks" by Comey, Vindman, et al that were intended to hurt the sitting US president. Those were certainly worse than whatever infraction Trump had. Put Comey, Vindman etc in prison for a couple decades then we can discuss Trump. No, No This only became a problem because of Trump so Trump has to go first. He made them do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:07:46 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Because the description of each of the documents he has been charged regarding is in the indictment? Ah, yes. A description from the same people that gave us Russiagate, as well as about a dozen other manufactured scandals. A description from the same prosecutor that used a novel application of the law to indict a Virginia governor because it looked like me might be a threat with presidential ambitions. (Conviction overturned 8-0 by the Supremes.) From his Wiki, "In July 2011, he married Katy Chevigny,[33] a documentary filmmaker[34] known for Becoming, a 2020 documentary about Michelle Obama. " In other words, a Democrat Lawfare hitman. You bailed from the last thread where a lawyer that is highly experienced in Federal law showed up. As I recall he used the term "Barracks Lawyer" in describing you. He also gave some perspective on the narratives that prosecutors will spin in order to try their case in the media. Like those pictures of documents all over the floor at Mara Lago, indicating haphazard storage. But of course we know that wasn't the case. Why, the EFFFBEYE themselves inspected those facilities just before they raided the place. That team only required an additional lock. Trump's greatest qualification in my eyes are the enemies he has made. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:10:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Considering the issue bigger picture, there were multiple "leaks" by Comey, Vindman, et al that were intended to hurt the sitting US president. Those were certainly worse than whatever infraction Trump had. Put Comey, Vindman etc in prison for a couple decades then we can discuss Trump. It is interesting to see how the people that were so easily bamboozled by the whole thing now have such strong emotions about Trump being guilty of everything they accuse him of this cycle. P.T. Barnum would make a fortune off todays liberals. |
|
|
|
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.
