The FBI raids Mar-A-Lago.

[I_M4_AU 7,908]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There must be thousands of these parents..........

The First Lady is a college professor with a PhD, therefore it is very appropriate for someone to refer to her as Dr.  Her conversations with the DOJ are nothing more than assumptions and Fox fairy tales.

Thank God we are out of that hell hole of death that is Afghanistan.  I only wish we had gotten out years ago and without adding trillions to the national debt.

How many parents does it take to be deemed a domestic terrorist to raise your concern level?  It’s not the number, the intimidation that is the real threat.  We have got to quell any disgruntled parents that don’t like gender theory or CRT being taught in our schools. This is America and both sides can peacefully protest without being intimidated wouldn’t you agree?

I am glad we are out also, but we didn’t lose on American life for the last 18 months we were there.  We lost 13 in the last week we were there due to incompetence and then there is this:

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Not what I said.  I said Trump “overtly placed” his children into advisor roles.  Meaning he didn’t hide that he did it - it was public knowledge.   This is not saying I think it was a good idea, just that it was overt.  

I apologize.  Do you believe Biden had anything to do with his son's role on a foreign BOD?  Do you believe that issue has never been investigated?

[Didba 5,256]

45 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Actually the topic started with regards to the corruption and financial gain, THEN the analogy was made to Trump and his kids.  For the record, I don’t particularly agree with Trumps kids, but overtly placing your kids in advisor roles is significantly different that politicians selling their souls to foreign entities and profiting from potentially steering foreign policy.   

I was answering the question about how Russia “benefited” from Trump being elected.  They made much bigger gains in both the Biden and Obama administrations.  
 

I don’t feel Obama did anything to “allow” Crimea to be invaded.   I do feel the blunders by the Biden administration absolutely empowered Putin.  At a bare minimum, he had no regard for us when plotting his courses of action.  

Completely disagree.  The closest comparison we have was the Clinton email scandal - clandestine use of servers, “scrubbing” hard drives to impede investigation, etc and still no search warrant issued?  
 

I will throw a large “*” on this though.  Depending on what, if anything, those documents show I could change my entire stance on the use of a warrant.  Just the alleged level of classification alone doesn’t necessarily convey the risk the documents presented.  

[GoAU 1,600]

10 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I apologize.  Do you believe Biden had anything to do with his son's role on a foreign BOD?  Do you believe that issue has never been investigated?

I do, for the following reasons:

1) Biden himself bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor removed from a case investigating the company in question when he was the VP.  He did this on TV - the real “quid pro quo” story that was just glossed over.

2) The fact that the Bobulinski claims were never even investigated by a partisan Congress

3) The laptop that the Dems keep wanting to go away, yet it never fully comes to light

4) The mysterious “art sales” as a way to continue channeling money to Hunter

5) The fact that he is in that role at all - the guy should be living under a bridge if it wasn’t for his daddy.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

I do, for the following reasons:

1) Biden himself bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor removed from a case investigating the company in question when he was the VP.  He did this on TV - the real “quid pro quo” story that was just glossed over.

2) The fact that the Bobulinski claims were never even investigated by a partisan Congress

3) The laptop that the Dems keep wanting to go away, yet it never fully comes to light

4) The mysterious “art sales” as a way to continue channeling money to Hunter

5) The fact that he is in that role at all - the guy should be living under a bridge if it wasn’t for his daddy.  

1. Is an outright lie debunked thousands of times.  That "prosecutor" was a corrupt pro-Russian politician.

2. You do not need congress.  If he had any information, it would be everywhere,,, even if it was suspect.

3. Wanting it to go away?  It is real.  It is physical.  Neither Biden or, democrats have controlled its possession.

4. LOL

5. Well, throw in Biden's shady brother too.

 

Your case is less than weak.  I would suggest you get some evidence if you are serious.

[jj3jordan 2,057]

53 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

1. Is an outright lie debunked thousands of times.  That "prosecutor" was a corrupt pro-Russian politician.

2. You do not need congress.  If he had any information, it would be everywhere,,, even if it was suspect.

3. Wanting it to go away?  It is real.  It is physical.  Neither Biden or, democrats have controlled its possession.

4. LOL

5. Well, throw in Biden's shady brother too.

 

Your case is less than weak.  I would suggest you get some evidence if you are serious.

It is not an outright lie. It happened. Perhaps Joe could not control this corrupt pro russian politician enough to ensure that Hunter was not caught up in whatever the prosecutor was doing. $$$  So he got him fired. That is a fact. By threat of withholding aid to Ukraine.  SO no ICHY, NOT debunked thousands of times.

[Didba 5,256]

37 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

It is not an outright lie. It happened. Perhaps Joe could not control this corrupt pro russian politician enough to ensure that Hunter was not caught up in whatever the prosecutor was doing. $$$  So he got him fired. That is a fact. By threat of withholding aid to Ukraine.  SO no ICHY, NOT debunked thousands of times.

Didn't trump threaten Zelensky that the US would withold defense funds if Zelensky didn't get the prosecutor to investigate Hunter Biden?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

1. Is an outright lie debunked thousands of times.  That "prosecutor" was a corrupt pro-Russian politician.

2. You do not need congress.  If he had any information, it would be everywhere,,, even if it was suspect.

3. Wanting it to go away?  It is real.  It is physical.  Neither Biden or, democrats have controlled its possession.

4. LOL

5. Well, throw in Biden's shady brother too.

 

Your case is less than weak.  I would suggest you get some evidence if you are serious.

4. Even Obama's Ethics Czar thinks the selling of his paintings at ridiculous prices is somewhat suspect. 

[homersapien 11,409]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

1) Biden himself bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor removed from a case investigating the company in question when he was the VP.  He did this on TV - the real “quid pro quo” story that was just glossed over.

 

Are you serious?

This is totally bogus.    You sound like just another cultists who parrots the party propaganda.

[AU9377 5,011]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

I do, for the following reasons:

1) Biden himself bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor removed from a case investigating the company in question when he was the VP.  He did this on TV - the real “quid pro quo” story that was just glossed over.

2) The fact that the Bobulinski claims were never even investigated by a partisan Congress

3) The laptop that the Dems keep wanting to go away, yet it never fully comes to light

4) The mysterious “art sales” as a way to continue channeling money to Hunter

5) The fact that he is in that role at all - the guy should be living under a bridge if it wasn’t for his daddy.  

#1 did not happen for the reason you are implying.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-joe-biden-leveraged-ukraine-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/

Most wealthy guys I have known would have been fighting for space under that bridge but for their parents.

[AU9377 5,011]

50 minutes ago, Didba said:

Didn't trump threaten Zelensky that the US would withold defense funds if Zelensky didn't get the prosecutor to investigate Hunter Biden?

Every witness from U.S. Ambassadors to senior NSA officials testified to that very fact, but some choose to ignore that fact.

[jj3jordan 2,057]

50 minutes ago, Didba said:

Didn't trump threaten Zelensky that the US would withold defense funds if Zelensky didn't get the prosecutor to investigate Hunter Biden?

No.  There was no money withheld.  Zelensky felt no pressure according to him. Trump Asked him to investigate Hunter since he had an unqualified job worth millions and his father was the VP in charge of Ukraine foreign policy. At that time no sane person expected Biden to be the nominee. Calling me a cultist is laughable when you can’t see the problem with the Hunter Joe connection regarding Burisma. The money and aid flowed and it was more than blankets.

 

[jj3jordan 2,057]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Every witness from U.S. Ambassadors to senior NSA officials testified to that very fact, but some choose to ignore that fact.

Not true. There is a transcript of the call. Not there. The testimony was not factual. In fact LT Col Vindman made his up. 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

"But first, you need to do us a favor".

The meaning is clear.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

50 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

4. Even Obama's Ethics Czar thinks the selling of his paintings at ridiculous prices is somewhat suspect. 

Never said it wasn't suspect.  It is not evidence that his father is corrupt though.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

It is not an outright lie.

No, it's just an,,,, outright lie.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Never said it wasn't suspect.  It is not evidence that his father is corrupt though.

He is part of the establishment, and by that I mean he is a lifelong politician that honestly has passed his expiration date. I am pretty sure he is corrupt, just like his friends Pelosi, McConnell, Clinton's, Graham, Schumer et al. 

Trump got elected because he was not the same ole corrupt. 

Some are just better at hiding it than others. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

7 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

He is part of the establishment, and by that I mean he is a lifelong politician that honestly has passed his expiration date. I am pretty sure he is corrupt, just like his friends Pelosi, McConnell, Clinton's, Graham, Schumer et al. 

Trump got elected because he was not the same ole corrupt. 

Some are just better at hiding it than others. 

I think you are going to need a little more than that.  Do you have ANY evidence? 

It is funny watching the same people who screamed, "lock her up", now disparaging the legal process.

There seems to be no bottom in terms of hypocrisy and disingenuousness.

I suppose another attack on the capitol is in order.

[AU9377 5,011]

23 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Not true. There is a transcript of the call. Not there. The testimony was not factual. In fact LT Col Vindman made his up. 

 

Made it up?  Really?  Did Gordon Sondland make it up also? Did John Bolton lie in his book?  Everyone lied?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

8 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I think you are going to need a little more than that.  Do you have ANY evidence? 

It is funny watching the same people who screamed, "lock her up", now disparaging the legal process.

There seems to be no bottom in terms of hypocrisy and disingenuousness.

I suppose another attack on the capitol is in order.

I guess you are right, those that I named are pure as the driven snow. SMDH.

You say our government is bought by corporate America, but also say they aren't corrupt. LOL

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Garland, Wray Must Be Impeached for Unconscionable Trump Raid | Opinion

Mike Davis
On 8/15/22 at 6:30 AM EDT

 

For over a year, we've heard Democrats wailing about existential threats to "democracy!" Curiously, this has happened while these same Democrats in Congress have worked hand-in-glove with their fellow Democrats in the Justice Department to disregard all norms to hunt down and attempt to destroy President Joe Biden's chief political rival, former President Donald Trump, as well as Trump's top aides and even his political supporters.

Last Monday, the Biden Justice Department crossed a red line by ordering an unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful FBI raid of Trump's home and offices in Mar-a-Lago. The purported purpose of the highly controversial home raid with a brigade of 30 FBI agents—a raid Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted he personally ordered after his aides initially denied it—is related to 15 to 25 boxes of presidential records, some of which bureaucrats at the National Archives claim are classified and which Trump took to Mar-a-Lago when he left the White House over 18 months ago.

All presidents take mementos and other records when they leave office. They don't pack their own boxes. The National Archives takes the position that almost everything is a "presidential record." And the federal government, in general, over-classifies almost everything.

Even if Trump took classified records, that isn't a crime. The president has the inherent constitutional power to declassify any record he wants, in any manner he wants, regardless of any otherwise-pertinent statute or regulation that applies to everyone else. The president does not need to obtain Congress' or a bureaucrat's permission—or jump through their regulatory or statutory hoops—to declassify anything. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in the 1988 case, Department of the Navy v. Egan : "The President, after all, is the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.' U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security...flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Thus, if Trump left the White House with classified records, then those records are necessarily declassified by his very actions. He doesn't need to label that decision for, or report that decision to, any bureaucrat who works for him. It is pretextual legal nonsense for the Biden Justice Department to pretend Trump broke any criminal statute. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Attorney General Garland apparently did not seek an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—the de facto general counsel for the executive branch—before ordering this home raid of his boss's chief political enemy. Perhaps Garland knew OLC wouldn't give him the answer he wanted.

In 2012, former President Barack Obama secretly told the Russian president he'd have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Russia after the 2012 presidential election. To convey that message is to clearly transmit highly classified information. So why not an Espionage Act violation? Well, because Obama was the president—period.

All former presidents also get a federally funded office, called the Office of the Former President. They get lawyers and other staff, security clearances, Secret Service protection, and secure facilities (SCIFs) for the maintenance of classified records. Even if Trump had classified records, then, they were protected and secure.

At best, then, this amounts to a dispute over the Presidential Records Act. If the boxes sought by DOJ contain presidential records, then the National Archives "owns" them—but they'll almost certainly stay with Trump in his eventual presidential library.

That's the bureaucratic dispute. That's it. This is not any crime (the Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statute), let alone one requiring a 30-person FBI brigade and unprecedented raid of a former president's home and office.

It is routine for any Office of the Former President to negotiate with the National Archives. The Archives could have also alerted Congress. The Biden Justice Department could have filed a civil lawsuit. Or the Biden Justice Department could have sought more subpoenas. Instead, DOJ went nuclear, with its unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid—even knowing Trump had already been holding these records at Mar-a-Lago for 18 months. So why now?

To put this in perspective, former President Bill Clinton stole more than $190,000 in china, flatware, rugs, sofas, and other personal gifts from the White House. The Clintons eventually caved to public pressure and paid $86,000 for the items. There was no FBI raid.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set up an illegal home server containing some of our nation's most classified records. She openly admitted to stealing and destroying records herself, putting our national security at risk. There was no FBI raid. In fact, the FBI never even questioned her.

To add insult to injury, the Biden Justice Department obtained this unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid warrant from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart of West Palm Beach. Reinhart had just recently recused himself on June 22, 2022, in Trump's civil lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. What's more, in 2017, Reinhart blasted Trump's integrity on Facebook: "Donald Trump doesn't have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis's feet." So, what changed over the last two months to make Reinhart's clear judicial bias (somehow) go away?

FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified that the FBI was too busy to stop dangerous and illegal intimidation campaigns outside Supreme Court justices' homes. This was after an attempted assassin was thankfully arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home. The FBI apparently didn't have the time to investigate actual threats to the lives of constitutional officers, but it had plenty of time to raid the home of a former president over an 18-month-old records dispute—with which Trump publicly stated he was fully cooperating.

Attorney General Garland attempted to defend the indefensible in his political press conference last Thursday. Garland left more questions than answers. As a former federal judge and prosecutor, he should be ashamed of himself for so recklessly politicizing the Justice Department. And the politicized, highly inappropriate, inaccurate leaks out of the Justice Department about the underlying grand jury investigation further demonstrate the Biden regime is out of control in its pursuit of punishing a past and likely-future political rival of President Biden.

House Republicans must impeach Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray for their unprecedented and destructive politicization of the Justice Department, when they reclaim power in January. And over the long term, House and Senate Republicans must dismantle and rebuild the FBI, so political raids like this never happen again. We cannot allow our law enforcement agencies to become third-world political hit squads.

https://www.newsweek.com/garland-wray-must-impeached-unconscionable-trump-raid-opinion-1733523

They call Trump and Trump supporters fascists but cheer using law enforcement agencies to carry out political hit jobs on their political opponents.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Auburnfan91

[Didba 5,256]

51 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

No.  There was no money withheld.  Zelensky felt no pressure according to him. Trump Asked him to investigate Hunter since he had an unqualified job worth millions and his father was the VP in charge of Ukraine foreign policy. At that time no sane person expected Biden to be the nominee. Calling me a cultist is laughable when you can’t see the problem with the Hunter Joe connection regarding Burisma. The money and aid flowed and it was more than blankets.

 

I definitely remember zelensky saying stuff that contradicts you. 
 

also I never called you a cultist so you may be thinking of someone else. 
 

I don’t namecall on here. 

[Didba 5,256]

8 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Garland, Wray Must Be Impeached for Unconscionable Trump Raid | Opinion

Mike Davis
On 8/15/22 at 6:30 AM EDT

 

For over a year, we've heard Democrats wailing about existential threats to "democracy!" Curiously, this has happened while these same Democrats in Congress have worked hand-in-glove with their fellow Democrats in the Justice Department to disregard all norms to hunt down and attempt to destroy President Joe Biden's chief political rival, former President Donald Trump, as well as Trump's top aides and even his political supporters.

Last Monday, the Biden Justice Department crossed a red line by ordering an unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful FBI raid of Trump's home and offices in Mar-a-Lago. The purported purpose of the highly controversial home raid with a brigade of 30 FBI agents—a raid Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted he personally ordered after his aides initially denied it—is related to 15 to 25 boxes of presidential records, some of which bureaucrats at the National Archives claim are classified and which Trump took to Mar-a-Lago when he left the White House over 18 months ago.

All presidents take mementos and other records when they leave office. They don't pack their own boxes. The National Archives takes the position that almost everything is a "presidential record." And the federal government, in general, over-classifies almost everything.

Even if Trump took classified records, that isn't a crime. The president has the inherent constitutional power to declassify any record he wants, in any manner he wants, regardless of any otherwise-pertinent statute or regulation that applies to everyone else. The president does not need to obtain Congress' or a bureaucrat's permission—or jump through their regulatory or statutory hoops—to declassify anything. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in the 1988 case, Department of the Navy v. Egan : "The President, after all, is the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.' U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security...flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Thus, if Trump left the White House with classified records, then those records are necessarily declassified by his very actions. He doesn't need to label that decision for, or report that decision to, any bureaucrat who works for him. It is pretextual legal nonsense for the Biden Justice Department to pretend Trump broke any criminal statute. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Attorney General Garland apparently did not seek an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—the de facto general counsel for the executive branch—before ordering this home raid of his boss's chief political enemy. Perhaps Garland knew OLC wouldn't give him the answer he wanted.

In 2012, former President Barack Obama secretly told the Russian president he'd have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Russia after the 2012 presidential election. To convey that message is to clearly transmit highly classified information. So why not an Espionage Act violation? Well, because Obama was the president—period.

All former presidents also get a federally funded office, called the Office of the Former President. They get lawyers and other staff, security clearances, Secret Service protection, and secure facilities (SCIFs) for the maintenance of classified records. Even if Trump had classified records, then, they were protected and secure.

At best, then, this amounts to a dispute over the Presidential Records Act. If the boxes sought by DOJ contain presidential records, then the National Archives "owns" them—but they'll almost certainly stay with Trump in his eventual presidential library.

That's the bureaucratic dispute. That's it. This is not any crime (the Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statute), let alone one requiring a 30-person FBI brigade and unprecedented raid of a former president's home and office.

It is routine for any Office of the Former President to negotiate with the National Archives. The Archives could have also alerted Congress. The Biden Justice Department could have filed a civil lawsuit. Or the Biden Justice Department could have sought more subpoenas. Instead, DOJ went nuclear, with its unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid—even knowing Trump had already been holding these records at Mar-a-Lago for 18 months. So why now?

To put this in perspective, former President Bill Clinton stole more than $190,000 in china, flatware, rugs, sofas, and other personal gifts from the White House. The Clintons eventually caved to public pressure and paid $86,000 for the items. There was no FBI raid.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set up an illegal home server containing some of our nation's most classified records. She openly admitted to stealing and destroying records herself, putting our national security at risk. There was no FBI raid. In fact, the FBI never even questioned her.

To add insult to injury, the Biden Justice Department obtained this unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid warrant from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart of West Palm Beach. Reinhart had just recently recused himself on June 22, 2022, in Trump's civil lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. What's more, in 2017, Reinhart blasted Trump's integrity on Facebook: "Donald Trump doesn't have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis's feet." So, what changed over the last two months to make Reinhart's clear judicial bias (somehow) go away?

FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified that the FBI was too busy to stop dangerous and illegal intimidation campaigns outside Supreme Court justices' homes. This was after an attempted assassin was thankfully arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home. The FBI apparently didn't have the time to investigate actual threats to the lives of constitutional officers, but it had plenty of time to raid the home of a former president over an 18-month-old records dispute—with which Trump publicly stated he was fully cooperating.

Attorney General Garland attempted to defend the indefensible in his political press conference last Thursday. Garland left more questions than answers. As a former federal judge and prosecutor, he should be ashamed of himself for so recklessly politicizing the Justice Department. And the politicized, highly inappropriate, inaccurate leaks out of the Justice Department about the underlying grand jury investigation further demonstrate the Biden regime is out of control in its pursuit of punishing a past and likely-future political rival of President Biden.

House Republicans must impeach Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray for their unprecedented and destructive politicization of the Justice Department, when they reclaim power in January. And over the long term, House and Senate Republicans must dismantle and rebuild the FBI, so political raids like this never happen again. We cannot allow our law enforcement agencies to become third-world political hit squads.

https://www.newsweek.com/garland-wray-must-impeached-unconscionable-trump-raid-opinion-1733523

Doubtful. 

[Leftfield 2,625]

8 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Garland, Wray Must Be Impeached for Unconscionable Trump Raid | Opinion

Mike Davis
On 8/15/22 at 6:30 AM EDT

 

For over a year, we've heard Democrats wailing about existential threats to "democracy!" Curiously, this has happened while these same Democrats in Congress have worked hand-in-glove with their fellow Democrats in the Justice Department to disregard all norms to hunt down and attempt to destroy President Joe Biden's chief political rival, former President Donald Trump, as well as Trump's top aides and even his political supporters.

Last Monday, the Biden Justice Department crossed a red line by ordering an unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful FBI raid of Trump's home and offices in Mar-a-Lago. The purported purpose of the highly controversial home raid with a brigade of 30 FBI agents—a raid Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted he personally ordered after his aides initially denied it—is related to 15 to 25 boxes of presidential records, some of which bureaucrats at the National Archives claim are classified and which Trump took to Mar-a-Lago when he left the White House over 18 months ago.

All presidents take mementos and other records when they leave office. They don't pack their own boxes. The National Archives takes the position that almost everything is a "presidential record." And the federal government, in general, over-classifies almost everything.

Even if Trump took classified records, that isn't a crime. The president has the inherent constitutional power to declassify any record he wants, in any manner he wants, regardless of any otherwise-pertinent statute or regulation that applies to everyone else. The president does not need to obtain Congress' or a bureaucrat's permission—or jump through their regulatory or statutory hoops—to declassify anything. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in the 1988 case, Department of the Navy v. Egan : "The President, after all, is the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.' U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security...flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Thus, if Trump left the White House with classified records, then those records are necessarily declassified by his very actions. He doesn't need to label that decision for, or report that decision to, any bureaucrat who works for him. It is pretextual legal nonsense for the Biden Justice Department to pretend Trump broke any criminal statute. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Attorney General Garland apparently did not seek an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—the de facto general counsel for the executive branch—before ordering this home raid of his boss's chief political enemy. Perhaps Garland knew OLC wouldn't give him the answer he wanted.

In 2012, former President Barack Obama secretly told the Russian president he'd have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Russia after the 2012 presidential election. To convey that message is to clearly transmit highly classified information. So why not an Espionage Act violation? Well, because Obama was the president—period.

All former presidents also get a federally funded office, called the Office of the Former President. They get lawyers and other staff, security clearances, Secret Service protection, and secure facilities (SCIFs) for the maintenance of classified records. Even if Trump had classified records, then, they were protected and secure.

At best, then, this amounts to a dispute over the Presidential Records Act. If the boxes sought by DOJ contain presidential records, then the National Archives "owns" them—but they'll almost certainly stay with Trump in his eventual presidential library.

That's the bureaucratic dispute. That's it. This is not any crime (the Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statute), let alone one requiring a 30-person FBI brigade and unprecedented raid of a former president's home and office.

It is routine for any Office of the Former President to negotiate with the National Archives. The Archives could have also alerted Congress. The Biden Justice Department could have filed a civil lawsuit. Or the Biden Justice Department could have sought more subpoenas. Instead, DOJ went nuclear, with its unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid—even knowing Trump had already been holding these records at Mar-a-Lago for 18 months. So why now?

To put this in perspective, former President Bill Clinton stole more than $190,000 in china, flatware, rugs, sofas, and other personal gifts from the White House. The Clintons eventually caved to public pressure and paid $86,000 for the items. There was no FBI raid.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set up an illegal home server containing some of our nation's most classified records. She openly admitted to stealing and destroying records herself, putting our national security at risk. There was no FBI raid. In fact, the FBI never even questioned her.

To add insult to injury, the Biden Justice Department obtained this unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid warrant from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart of West Palm Beach. Reinhart had just recently recused himself on June 22, 2022, in Trump's civil lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. What's more, in 2017, Reinhart blasted Trump's integrity on Facebook: "Donald Trump doesn't have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis's feet." So, what changed over the last two months to make Reinhart's clear judicial bias (somehow) go away?

FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified that the FBI was too busy to stop dangerous and illegal intimidation campaigns outside Supreme Court justices' homes. This was after an attempted assassin was thankfully arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home. The FBI apparently didn't have the time to investigate actual threats to the lives of constitutional officers, but it had plenty of time to raid the home of a former president over an 18-month-old records dispute—with which Trump publicly stated he was fully cooperating.

Attorney General Garland attempted to defend the indefensible in his political press conference last Thursday. Garland left more questions than answers. As a former federal judge and prosecutor, he should be ashamed of himself for so recklessly politicizing the Justice Department. And the politicized, highly inappropriate, inaccurate leaks out of the Justice Department about the underlying grand jury investigation further demonstrate the Biden regime is out of control in its pursuit of punishing a past and likely-future political rival of President Biden.

House Republicans must impeach Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray for their unprecedented and destructive politicization of the Justice Department, when they reclaim power in January. And over the long term, House and Senate Republicans must dismantle and rebuild the FBI, so political raids like this never happen again. We cannot allow our law enforcement agencies to become third-world political hit squads.

https://www.newsweek.com/garland-wray-must-impeached-unconscionable-trump-raid-opinion-1733523

Holy crap. That is a staggering amount of coocoo.

For some reason my mind keeps repeating "Unprecedented, Unnecessary, and Unlawful" to the tune of "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered."

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

The president’s classification and declassification powers are broad

Experts agreed that the president, as commander in chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When people lower in the chain of command handle classification and declassification duties — which is usually how it’s done — it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan — which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance — addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."

In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not "obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed," Aftergood said. "And he can change those."

Indeed, the controlling executive order has been rewritten by multiple presidents. The current version of the order was issued by President Barack Obama in 2009.

The national-security experts at the blog Lawfare wrote in the wake of the Post’s revelation that the "infamous comment" by President Richard Nixon — that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" — "is actually true about some things. Classified information is one of them. The nature of the system is that the president gets to disclose what he wants."

Two caveats

So Risch’s comment holds water when it comes to the extent of the president’s powers. But some experts said that Risch’s formulation leaves out some notable aspects of the particular case involving Trump.

The first caveat: While Trump has the power to declassify information, he doesn’t appear to have done that in this case, at least at the time the story broke.

"There’s no question that the president has broad authority to declassify almost anything at any time without any process, but that’s not what happened here," said Stephen I. Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "He did not, in fact, declassify the information he shared with the Russians, which is why The Washington Post did not publish that information."

Instead, Vladeck said, Trump "took it upon himself to authorize officials from a foreign government to receive classified national security information that was itself derived from a different foreign government’s intelligence gathering. That’s just not the same thing as what Sen. Risch described, and the law on this topic is far murkier."

Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty & National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center, agreed that Risch’s point speaks to general presidential authority but not what happened in this particular case.

"Trump surely would not concede that the information in question is now ‘unclassified’ and available to anyone who files a (Freedom of Information Act) request," she said. "The relevant question, therefore, is not whether the president can spontaneously declassify information, but whether the president is permitted to disclose sensitive national security information to anyone he wishes."

Turner noted, however, that this isn’t necessarily a big distinction, since the president is ultimately the decider of what is classified and not. If his appointees disagree with his actions, "he can overrule their decisions," Turner said. "Within the Executive Branch the president is the boss."

The second caveat: Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it’s a smart idea.

"The important caveat is that ‘legal’ and ‘sensible’ may be different things," said John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org. "It may be legal, but it may fail to avoid the appearance of impropriety."

Setting aside ethics, doing what Trump is alleged to have done could have negative practical consequences for the United States. "It could wreck the underlying intelligence-sharing agreement and place the U.S. at a disadvantage," Aftergood said.

That said, the line between wise and unwise is a judgment call.

On the one hand, Turner agreed that alienating an ally by not following their orders "could have very serious consequences."

On the other hand, he said, it’s not outlandish to argue that sharing closely held information with Russia could advance, rather than hurt, national interests.

Turner said it may be "in America’s interest to cooperate with Russia in the struggle against ISIS, including sharing intelligence information that may help save Russian lives and seeking information that may save American lives and those of other potential victims of ISIS attacks. Obviously, in the process we will want to safeguard sources and methods that might weaken our ability to keep track of what President Putin is up to--as he is potentially a greater threat to our security than is ISIS.  But the struggle against ISIS is an area where the United States and Russia have a shared interest."

In a statement to PolitiFact, Risch’s office said that criticism of the wisdom of Trump's action would be a personal opinion, but such sentiments would not speak to "the letter of the law."

"Sen. Risch can tell you that all former presidents of the United States spoke regularly with heads of states and discussed classified matter, if they determined it to be in the best interest of the American people," the statement said.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

 

 

Presidents have the authority to declassify anything.