User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:12:32 PM EDT
[#1]
What a damn disaster of a headline. Even aside from bias, journalism has really gone to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:17:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1911SFOREVER: 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. If you want to contend the information contained within the indictment is faked, I certainly can't refute that. As to the other, I have no idea what you are talking about. The only lawyer I've seen substantially participate in these threads is Ad Lucem, and we pretty much have been on the same page with most things. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:20:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: 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". 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" 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". You’re the one hung up on the word “personal” He can declassify and keep those unclassified documents, regardless of the subject. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:21:45 PM EDT
[#4]
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. I’m not sure I agree with this. Information about the POTUS schedule is classified. If a meeting with a military member of another country is on that schedule the meeting is of a military nature. But, after the meeting, when the POTUS wants the schedule for his “Memoirs” to be included in his library, etc, POTUS would have the ability to declassify the schedule at a whim. Not necessarily the content of the meeting but his attendance IS personal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:24:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You’re the one hung up on the word “personal” He can declassify and keep those unclassified documents, regardless of the subject. Section 18 of the USC, under which he has been charged, disagrees. The "personal document" aspect is only relevant because that is what Trump's attorney's are invoking as his defense. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:26:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cycletool: I’m not sure I agree with this. Information about the POTUS schedule is classified. If a meeting with a military member of another country is on that schedule the meeting is of a military nature. But, after the meeting, when the POTUS wants the schedule for his “Memoirs” to be included in his library, etc, POTUS would have the ability to declassify the schedule at a whim. Not necessarily the content of the meeting but his attendance IS personal. Declassifed =/= personal property. He wasn't charged with keeping classified information. He was charged with "Willful Retention of National Defense Information". |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:38:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. Maybe. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:40:30 PM EDT
[#8]
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. Hold on there high-speed. The president is not like the vice president or any cabinet official. The president is the executive and the purpose of military and intelligence information is for the executive to make decisions. You assume too much here. Or perhaps you failed to make the distinction. Seems like we’ve been over this before. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:41:45 PM EDT
[#9]
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. I’m not gonna get into the difference difference between a presidential or federal record versus a copy. I have no desire to educate anyone on the PRA or the FRA at this time. If the president has decided to declassify the document, he can keep it. He is/was the executive. Only other presidents can make that claim. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:42:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol you’ve never had a security clearance, have you? Lol, you’ve never had to advise flag or general officers, or cabinet level officials on these issues, let alone work with White House Counsel on them, have you? |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:43:32 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Go back and read what I posted slowly. Then read it again. If you are still confused, I'll clarify it for you. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:43:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By El_Abogado: Hold on there high-speed. The president is not like the vice president or any cabinet official. The president is the executive and the purpose of military and intelligence information is for the executive to make decisions. You assume too much here. Or perhaps you failed to make the distinction. Seems like we’ve been over this before. Sure. And when you stop being the president, the information ceases to be yours, either for your retention or your action. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:45:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Section 18 of the USC, under which he has been charged, disagrees. The "personal document" aspect is only relevant because that is what Trump's attorney's are invoking as his defense. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You’re the one hung up on the word “personal” He can declassify and keep those unclassified documents, regardless of the subject. Section 18 of the USC, under which he has been charged, disagrees. The "personal document" aspect is only relevant because that is what Trump's attorney's are invoking as his defense. Title 18 does not “disagree.” There is no law against retaining unclassified documents. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:45:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I'm sure he will try to make that argument, as absurd as it is. If something is classified, the president can declassify it. You don’t doubt that do you? There are plenty of times when presence spur of the moment without some intricate review process have made fax that were classified publicly available. Think about BHO and the hit on bin Laden. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 4:54:08 PM EDT
[#15]
If Biden just got a free pass as did every other president or vice president in the past, only a biased court would ONLY prosecute Trump.
Of course Biden got a pass because even the court agreed he was basically a drooling retard who couldn't defend himself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:04:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Title 18 does not “disagree.” There is no law against retaining unclassified documents. How do you interpret the 18 USC 793 statute under which he has been charged? It doesn't mention classified information. It mentions national defense information. Which is the precise verbiage for counts 1-31 of the indictment. Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:07:40 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How do you interpret the 18 USC 793 statute under which he has been charged? It doesn't mention classified information. It mentions national defense information. Which is the precise verbiage for counts 1-31 of the indictment. Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Title 18 does not “disagree.” There is no law against retaining unclassified documents. How do you interpret the 18 USC 793 statute under which he has been charged? It doesn't mention classified information. It mentions national defense information. Which is the precise verbiage for counts 1-31 of the indictment. Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it According to the PRA, Trump is the one that decides if an officer or employee is entitled to receive a document. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:25:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Section 18 of the USC, under which he has been charged, disagrees. The "personal document" aspect is only relevant because that is what Trump's attorney's are invoking as his defense. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You’re the one hung up on the word “personal” He can declassify and keep those unclassified documents, regardless of the subject. Section 18 of the USC, under which he has been charged, disagrees. The "personal document" aspect is only relevant because that is what Trump's attorney's are invoking as his defense. It matters particularly in that the original discovery of classified documents was pursuant to a subpoena from an agency that doesn’t have the authority to subpoena the records. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:26:26 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Sure. And when you stop being the president, the information ceases to be yours, either for your retention or your action. Only the President decides which records are personal or not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:34:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: It matters particularly in that the original discovery of classified documents was pursuant to a subpoena from an agency that doesn’t have the authority to subpoena the records. A federal grand jury can't subpoena the target of an FBI investigation? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:38:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Only the President decides which records are personal or not. Then why the need for "personal records" and "presidential records" to be defined and codified in the United States Code, if the president can simply do what he wants? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:41:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: A federal grand jury can't subpoena the target of an FBI investigation? NARA. Also, Trump has specific authority at the time to have classified information as is the norm with ex Presidents. The whole thing started as a fight over copies of records, at least some of which were duplicates and therefore of no legitimate interest to NARA. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:42:22 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Then why the need for "personal records" and "presidential records" to be defined and codified in the United States Code, if the president can simply do what he wants? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Only the President decides which records are personal or not. Then why the need for "personal records" and "presidential records" to be defined and codified in the United States Code, if the president can simply do what he wants? The President is the one that decides if a record is personal or presidential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:45:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Then why the need for "personal records" and "presidential records" to be defined and codified in the United States Code, if the president can simply do what he wants? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Only the President decides which records are personal or not. Then why the need for "personal records" and "presidential records" to be defined and codified in the United States Code, if the president can simply do what he wants? Because the expectation is that the chief executive will be a mature individual acting in good faith and the problems inherent in the balance between branches. A case could be made that Congress has no authority to demand the President’s records at all. And the Court may decide it’s an unjusticiable question. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:51:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: NARA. Also, Trump has specific authority at the time to have classified information as is the norm with ex Presidents. The whole thing started as a fight over copies of records, at least some of which were duplicates and therefore of no legitimate interest to NARA. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the subpoena was from a federal grand jury stemming from an FBI investigation, not from the archivist over a PRA dispute. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:52:48 PM EDT
[#26]
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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By jon101st: Then every President, Vp, and secretary of state and so on get charged and prosecuted or none at all. 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. Love all the talk here about prosecuting ex-presidents and ex-candidates. But as soon as Trump is involved, it's all "the President must be immune from prosecution." Trump above the law. No Courts can touch em.. GOOD! Everybody else.... BAD! And a recipe for dictatorship |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:53:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Correct me if I’m wrong, but the subpoena was from a federal grand jury stemming from an FBI investigation, not from the archivist over a PRA dispute. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: NARA. Also, Trump has specific authority at the time to have classified information as is the norm with ex Presidents. The whole thing started as a fight over copies of records, at least some of which were duplicates and therefore of no legitimate interest to NARA. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the subpoena was from a federal grand jury stemming from an FBI investigation, not from the archivist over a PRA dispute. You are wrong. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/doj-investigation-trump-documents-timeline/index.html |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:53:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Love all the talk here about prosecuting ex-presidents and ex-candidates. But as soon as Trump is involved, it's all "the President must be immune from prosecution." Trump above the law. No Courts can touch em.. GOOD! Everybody else.... BAD! And a recipe for dictatorship Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By jon101st: Then every President, Vp, and secretary of state and so on get charged and prosecuted or none at all. 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. Love all the talk here about prosecuting ex-presidents and ex-candidates. But as soon as Trump is involved, it's all "the President must be immune from prosecution." Trump above the law. No Courts can touch em.. GOOD! Everybody else.... BAD! And a recipe for dictatorship Either prosecute everyone, or prosecute nobody. It isn't that hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 5:58:26 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: How do you interpret the 18 USC 793 statute under which he has been charged? It doesn't mention classified information. It mentions national defense information. Which is the precise verbiage for counts 1-31 of the indictment. Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Title 18 does not “disagree.” There is no law against retaining unclassified documents. How do you interpret the 18 USC 793 statute under which he has been charged? It doesn't mention classified information. It mentions national defense information. Which is the precise verbiage for counts 1-31 of the indictment. Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it “…could be used to the injury of the United States…” That’s the definition of classified. Could your military ID be used by a foreign adversary to do damage to the United States? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:00:05 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: You are wrong. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/doj-investigation-trump-documents-timeline/index.html Um, that article confirmed the justice department subpoenaed Trump, not the NARA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:04:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Correct me if I’m wrong, but the subpoena was from a federal grand jury stemming from an FBI investigation, not from the archivist over a PRA dispute. I may be wrong, when that was all Originally being reported there was confusion. Doesn’t matter either way. No agency can subpoena a record that the President has claimed is personal, and the search warrant to search for “Presidential Records” is problematic on those grounds as well. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:05:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Um, that article confirmed the justice department subpoenaed Trump, not the NARA. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Imzadi: You are wrong. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/doj-investigation-trump-documents-timeline/index.html Um, that article confirmed the justice department subpoenaed Trump, not the NARA. Um, the article confirmed that NARA started all of this. There wouldn't have been an investigation if not for NARA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:06:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: “…could be used to the injury of the United States…” That’s the definition of classified. Could your military ID be used by a foreign adversary to do damage to the United States? If something is TS/SCI, it could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed. If a president waives his hand to declassify it, does the information automatically become meaningless? No, of course not. If the president declassified humint sources in foreign nations, is that all of a sudden information inconsequential to national security? Because that’s pretty much the argument you are making. And precisely why I’d imagine the USC uses the specific verbiage it does. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:06:45 PM EDT
[#34]
It is sickening seeing enemies of our Republic so brazen.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:07:36 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You're the one hung up on the word "personal" He can declassify and keep those unclassified documents, regardless of the subject. He didn't declassify them. The words came out of his mouth. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:08:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If something is TS/SCI, it could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed. If a president waives his hand to declassify it, does the information automatically become meaningless? No, of course not. If the president declassified humint sources in foreign nations, is that all of a sudden information inconsequential to national security? Because that’s pretty much the argument you are making. And precisely why I’d imagine the USC uses the specific verbiage it does. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: “…could be used to the injury of the United States…” That’s the definition of classified. Could your military ID be used by a foreign adversary to do damage to the United States? If something is TS/SCI, it could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed. If a president waives his hand to declassify it, does the information automatically become meaningless? No, of course not. If the president declassified humint sources in foreign nations, is that all of a sudden information inconsequential to national security? Because that’s pretty much the argument you are making. And precisely why I’d imagine the USC uses the specific verbiage it does. So President declassifies satellite imagery and then the FBI can prosecute anyone that has that declassified imagery? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:08:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: I may be wrong, when that was all Originally being reported there was confusion. Doesn’t matter either way. No agency can subpoena a record that the President has claimed is personal, and the search warrant to search for “Presidential Records” is problematic on those grounds as well. Ok, so we have reduced the conversation to saying “the president can declare nuclear secrets, foreign military capabilities, and military operational plans as personal records, and do with them as he pleases”? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:09:37 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:09:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Ok, so we have reduced the conversation to saying “the president can declare nuclear secrets, foreign military capabilities, and military operational plans as personal records, and do with them as he pleases”? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: I may be wrong, when that was all Originally being reported there was confusion. Doesn’t matter either way. No agency can subpoena a record that the President has claimed is personal, and the search warrant to search for “Presidential Records” is problematic on those grounds as well. Ok, so we have reduced the conversation to saying “the president can declare nuclear secrets, foreign military capabilities, and military operational plans as personal records, and do with them as he pleases”? Also known as the truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:10:48 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: lol arguing that military and intelligence related documents are “personal” is clownshoes retarded. Arguing that a POTUS doesn’t have the ability to declassify them is even bigger clown shoes. Also that a POTUS doesn’t have immunity over decisions made while in office, which is the crux of the Marxist position, is a fool’s errand. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:11:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Um, the article confirmed that NARA started all of this. There wouldn't have been an investigation if not for NARA. Wasn’t the question. The question was over subpoena powers. And yes, the DOJ does have subpoena power, which is who issued it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:11:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If something is TS/SCI, it could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed. If a president waives his hand to declassify it, does the information automatically become meaningless? No, of course not. If the president declassified humint sources in foreign nations, is that all of a sudden information inconsequential to national security? Because that’s pretty much the argument you are making. And precisely why I’d imagine the USC uses the specific verbiage it does. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: “…could be used to the injury of the United States…” That’s the definition of classified. Could your military ID be used by a foreign adversary to do damage to the United States? If something is TS/SCI, it could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed. If a president waives his hand to declassify it, does the information automatically become meaningless? No, of course not. If the president declassified humint sources in foreign nations, is that all of a sudden information inconsequential to national security? Because that’s pretty much the argument you are making. And precisely why I’d imagine the USC uses the specific verbiage it does. The law here is deficient. If you take the Espionage Act literally and don’t consider the later laws pertaining to the modern system of classification, there is no method for declassification and a FOIA request would come with a free raid at the end. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:12:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Ok, so we have reduced the conversation to saying “the president can declare nuclear secrets, foreign military capabilities, and military operational plans as personal records, and do with them as he pleases”? With the exception of Restricted Data, yes. Just wait until you find out how a Land Patent works. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:12:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If something is TS/SCI, it could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed. If a president waives his hand to declassify it, does the information automatically become meaningless? No, of course not. If the president declassified humint sources in foreign nations, is that all of a sudden information inconsequential to national security? Because that’s pretty much the argument you are making. And precisely why I’d imagine the USC uses the specific verbiage it does. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: “…could be used to the injury of the United States…” That’s the definition of classified. Could your military ID be used by a foreign adversary to do damage to the United States? If something is TS/SCI, it could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if disclosed. If a president waives his hand to declassify it, does the information automatically become meaningless? No, of course not. If the president declassified humint sources in foreign nations, is that all of a sudden information inconsequential to national security? Because that’s pretty much the argument you are making. And precisely why I’d imagine the USC uses the specific verbiage it does. So that Law actually states that Presidents do NOT have the power to declassify? Yes, that’s what you just said. Declassify means declassify. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:12:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If you want to contend the information contained within the indictment is faked, I certainly can't refute that. As to the other, I have no idea what you are talking about. The only lawyer I've seen substantially participate in these threads is Ad Lucem, and we pretty much have been on the same page with most things. Perhaps not faked, but certainly presented in the most damning light possible. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:12:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Also known as the truth. Well, a federal grand jury seemingly disagreed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:14:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: He didn't declassify them. The words came out of his mouth. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You're the one hung up on the word "personal" He can declassify and keep those unclassified documents, regardless of the subject. He didn't declassify them. The words came out of his mouth. Nonsense. He stated that he declassified everything he took. Period Shit talking to a journalist doesn’t change it. If so, then send Biden to jail. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:14:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Wasn’t the question. The question was over subpoena powers. And yes, the DOJ does have subpoena power, which is who issued it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Imzadi: Um, the article confirmed that NARA started all of this. There wouldn't have been an investigation if not for NARA. Wasn’t the question. The question was over subpoena powers. And yes, the DOJ does have subpoena power, which is who issued it. Wrong again. Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By Low_Country: A federal grand jury can't subpoena the target of an FBI investigation? NARA. Also, Trump has specific authority at the time to have classified information as is the norm with ex Presidents. The whole thing started as a fight over copies of records, at least some of which were duplicates and therefore of no legitimate interest to NARA. "The whole thing started as a fight over copies of records, at least some of which were duplicates and therefore of no legitimate interest to NARA." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:15:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Declassifed =/= personal property. He wasn't charged with keeping classified information. He was charged with "Willful Retention of National Defense Information". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By cycletool: I’m not sure I agree with this. Information about the POTUS schedule is classified. If a meeting with a military member of another country is on that schedule the meeting is of a military nature. But, after the meeting, when the POTUS wants the schedule for his “Memoirs” to be included in his library, etc, POTUS would have the ability to declassify the schedule at a whim. Not necessarily the content of the meeting but his attendance IS personal. Declassifed =/= personal property. He wasn't charged with keeping classified information. He was charged with "Willful Retention of National Defense Information". Agreed. The problem I see with this process is that the info will never be made known to any of us what it actually is. So us saying it can or can’t be declassified is us arguing about something we don’t know the nature of. My comment was specifically geared toward wether or not classified material of a “military” nature could be personal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2024 6:15:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/84024/1000004367_jpg-3175836.JPG Yes, but it doesn’t pertain to copies. |
|
|
|
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.
Attached File
