Donald Trump Indicted Again.

[creed 1,666]

Just now, Auburnfan91 said:

You can disagree all you'd like but the President does have the authority to declassify. Whether you think it's good or bad, The authority vested to the President by the Constitution is the source of the authority to declassify.

That's fine, he can declassify a document if it fits the requirements. What he does not have in my opinion is the right to take ownership of documents that are not his. They are yours, mine, and every citizens documents. We own them.

[aubiefifty 17,098]

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You can disagree all you'd like but the President does have the authority to declassify. Whether you think it's good or bad, The authority vested to the President by the Constitution is the source of the authority to declassify.

he has a right to declassify SOME docs. not all. he has to have a legit reason as well for the ones he can. he cannot declassify docs just to get out of trouble. it just does not work that way unless it had changed since the seventies...........

[Gowebb11 9,427]

I suppose it’s good to have a thread where we quibble over the nuances of the policies and procedures of classified material. The fact that corrupt liars and cheaters like Hillary and Trump can rise to power in America and even be privy to classified documents is not a good sign for the future of our republic. 330 million of us and these are the type of bozos who end up holding prominent positions in our government. I weep for our future. 

[AUFAN78 3,943]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

He answered your question.  Like most cultists, you just can't handle the truth.

He didn't. You know it yet lie about it. So typical of you homey. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just now, creed said:

That's fine, he can declassify a document if it fits the requirements. What he does not have in my opinion is the right to take ownership of documents that are not his. They are yours, mine, and every citizens documents. We own them.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/18/report-2012-clinton-sock-drawer-tapes-case-could-have-significant-legal-bearing-on-mar-a-lago-raid/

Ten years ago, a U.S. District Court judge ruled there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act that would compel the National Archives to seize records from a former president. The 2012 case has “direct relevance” to the FBI’s decision to raid Mar-a-Lago earlier this month, and could impact upcoming legal battles, according to Just the News.

In her Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration opinion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. rejected the conservative watchdog’s suit to force the Archives to seize hours of audio recordings that former president Bill Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.

She noted that any challenge to a former president’s handling of records is the responsibility of the National Archives (NARA), and any enforcement mechanism initiated by them and the attorney general would be a civil procedure, and have no criminal penalty.

 

Jackson also said “the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office.”

The audio tapes in question were kept in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer at the White House, according to Branch, who wrote about the interviews in his chummy 2009 book, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President.

“Finding room for the tapes wasn’t hard because Clinton “had a lot of socks,” Branch said in an appearance at the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas in 2007.

Some legal experts believe the case could have “significant impact over the FBI search of Melania Trump’s closet and Donald Trump’s personal office,” Just the News reported.

 

 

In her ruling, Jackson made declarations that they believe have direct relevance on the FBI’s decision to seize Trump’s handwritten White House notes and files from his Mar-a-Lago residence—namely, a president’s discretion on determining what are personal vs. official records, and his his right to declassify or destroy records at will.

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision against Judicial Watch.

The judge made clear that presidents have the right to destroy any records they want during their tenure and their only responsibility is to inform the Archives.

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

Jackson’s full ruling can be read here.

 

She said it was unreasonable to force NARA to seize tapes a president has concluded were personal.

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

___________________________________________

In 2012 a U.S. District Court judge ruled the President has sole discretion to choose which documents are personal records and which are Presidential records.

Trump claiming documents as personal records has now caused new legal theories to be crafted in order to charge him criminally.

Clinton took whatever audiotapes he wanted and the NARA didn't lift a finger to object or legally challenge him to recover the tapes after he left office.

[creed 1,666]

10 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/18/report-2012-clinton-sock-drawer-tapes-case-could-have-significant-legal-bearing-on-mar-a-lago-raid/

Ten years ago, a U.S. District Court judge ruled there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act that would compel the National Archives to seize records from a former president. The 2012 case has “direct relevance” to the FBI’s decision to raid Mar-a-Lago earlier this month, and could impact upcoming legal battles, according to Just the News.

In her Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration opinion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. rejected the conservative watchdog’s suit to force the Archives to seize hours of audio recordings that former president Bill Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.

She noted that any challenge to a former president’s handling of records is the responsibility of the National Archives (NARA), and any enforcement mechanism initiated by them and the attorney general would be a civil procedure, and have no criminal penalty.

 

Jackson also said “the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office.”

The audio tapes in question were kept in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer at the White House, according to Branch, who wrote about the interviews in his chummy 2009 book, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President.

“Finding room for the tapes wasn’t hard because Clinton “had a lot of socks,” Branch said in an appearance at the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas in 2007.

Some legal experts believe the case could have “significant impact over the FBI search of Melania Trump’s closet and Donald Trump’s personal office,” Just the News reported.

 

 

In her ruling, Jackson made declarations that they believe have direct relevance on the FBI’s decision to seize Trump’s handwritten White House notes and files from his Mar-a-Lago residence—namely, a president’s discretion on determining what are personal vs. official records, and his his right to declassify or destroy records at will.

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision against Judicial Watch.

The judge made clear that presidents have the right to destroy any records they want during their tenure and their only responsibility is to inform the Archives.

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

Jackson’s full ruling can be read here.

 

She said it was unreasonable to force NARA to seize tapes a president has concluded were personal.

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

___________________________________________

In 2012 a U.S. District Court judge ruled the President has sole discretion to choose which documents are personal records and which are Presidential records.

Trump claiming documents as personal records has now caused new legal theories to be crafted in order to charge him criminally.

Clinton took whatever audiotapes he wanted and the NARA didn't lift a finger to object or legally challenge him to recover the tapes after he left office.

Lot's of legalities there. 

So a question. Are you okay with a federal employee taking ownership of documents created or acquired on the job?

Edited June 12, 2023 by creed

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just now, creed said:

Lot's of legalities there. 

So a question. Are you okay with a federa employee taking ownership of documents created or acquired on the job?

I want fairness whether I like somebody or not. I don't want selective prosecution. If it's not criminal when somebody they like does it, it shouldn't be criminal when somebody they don't like does it.

[creed 1,666]

15 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I want fairness whether I like somebody or not. I don't want selective prosecution. If it's not criminal when somebody they like does it, it shouldn't be criminal when somebody they don't like does it.

My question was not partisan. 

One has to be careful about justifying inproprieties just because one feels punishment hasn't been applied farely to previous cases. At some point an example needs to be set. 

I'd almost wager that after Trump, Mr. Biden is going to face similar consequences, maybe not to the same degree, but his ass will be warmed up here soon.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

21 minutes ago, creed said:

My question was not partisan. 

One has to be careful about justifying inproprieties just because one feels punishment hasn't been applied farely to previous cases. At some point an example needs to be set. 

I'd almost wager that after Trump, Mr. Biden is going to face similar consequences, maybe not to the same degree, but his ass will be warmed up here soon.

 

No, if there is a two tiered system then you don't wager or hope the other side faces similar consequences sooner than later. If you don't fight for fairness then you're never going to get it.

[creed 1,666]

3 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

No, if there is a two tiered system then you don't wager or hope the other side faces similar consequences sooner than later. If you don't fight for fairness then you're never going to get it.

Are you proposing that if someone does something wrong they should not be punished because someone else did the same thing and didn't get punished?

Edited June 12, 2023 by creed

[arein0 983]

Just now, creed said:

Are you proposing if someone does something wrong they should not be punished because someone else did the same thing and didn't get punished?

Would love to see the "well OJ got off free and i did the same thing. You can even see this glove i just brought doesnt fit. So you must acquit." defense. 

[TexasTiger 13,130]

[TexasTiger 13,130]

48 minutes ago, creed said:

My question was not partisan. 

One has to be careful about justifying inproprieties just because one feels punishment hasn't been applied farely to previous cases. At some point an example needs to be set. 

I'd almost wager that after Trump, Mr. Biden is going to face similar consequences, maybe not to the same degree, but his ass will be warmed up here soon.

 

You haven’t read the indictment, have you? All charges are for things other than merely possessing these documents.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

18 minutes ago, creed said:

Are you proposing that if someone does something wrong they should not be punished because someone else did the same thing and didn't get punished?

I'm proposing both sides being held to the same set of rules.

You're acting as though this is a one time instance of someone doing something wrong and not being punished. This is a pattern of one side getting to bend the rules repeatedly while the other side is being put through the legal ringer for the same type of thing.

You can't have a system like that and have everyone be okay with it.

[creed 1,666]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You haven’t read the indictment, have you? All charges are for things other than merely possessing these documents.

No I haven't read the indictment, but would the indictment have been submitted without the documents being held hostage.

[creed 1,666]

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I'm proposing both sides being held to the same set of rules.

You're acting as though this is a one time instance of someone doing something wrong and not being punished. This is a pattern of one side getting to bend the rules repeatedly while the other side is being put through the legal ringer for the same type of thing.

You can't have a system like that and have everyone be okay with it.

So now i understand your way of thinking. It's if the other team cheats or doesn't play fair...I approve my team not playing fair. 

I don't agree with that moral characteristic.

[TexasTiger 13,130]

10 minutes ago, creed said:

No I haven't read the indictment, but would the indictment have been submitted without the documents being held hostage.

Had the documents been turned over, not intentionally hidden, not shared with others, no false statements, not a single charge.

[Leftfield 2,714]

12 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

The President has the ultimate authority to declassify and retain documents. Pretty wild that the President is given the Commander in Chief title and has the unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons but suddenly now having classified documents and retaining them is grounds for Obstruction and Espionage that started from a non-criminal engagement over the Presidential Records Act.

Not all classified documents can be declassified by just the President alone. Sensitive documents, particularly pertaining to national defense, must be approved for declassification by related agencies. Even the documents he can declassify on his own must go through a process so the government is aware of the status of the documents: https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/#:~:text=Those secrets cannot be automatically,been declassified and decisions memorialized.

It's interesting that you cite the unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons. I didn't realize it, but apparently that's been a concern for decades - check out the bit about Nixon toward the end of the first paragraph here: https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-markey-and-rep-lieu-announce-legislation-to-limit-us-presidents-power-to-unilaterally-start-nuclear-war#:~:text=“No president has the right,strike%2C” said Senator Markey.

It also sounds like consideration for eliminating the President's unilateral authority has picked up steam due to Trump's erratic time in office: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-06/features/nuclear-launch-authority-too-big-decision-just-president

 

12 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

So by that argument had Trump just cooperated and returned all the documents as requested then he wouldn't have been charged. That would mean it wasn't illegal for him to possess the documents in the first place.

No, it would mean no prosecutor in his right mind would attempt to prosecute because it would be extremely difficult to do. The fact is that plenty of politicians have been "guilty" of still having classified documents when they left office, but the situation was resolved because nobody before Trump was stupid enough to not cooperate with the attempt to return them. As your first sentence says, he would have nothing to worry about (well, except for the other lawsuits he's facing) had he just given everything back, and he had multiple opportunities to do so. 

 

12 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

This isn't about Trump being 'above the law'. It's about creating new legal theories meant to criminalize Trump's conduct.

NO ONE is creating legal theories here. Trump's actions are unprecedented, intentional, and have crossed the line. He's like a three-year-old who keeps testing his boundaries to see how far he can go, and now can't seem to understand why he's getting spanked.

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Leftfield

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

20 minutes ago, creed said:

So now i understand your way of thinking. It's if the other team cheats or doesn't play fair...I approve my team not playing fair. 

I don't agree with that moral characteristic.

That's fine. I don't expect you to agree.

The political system has to be fixed. It's not going to be reformed by just accepting one side prosecuting the other for something the prosecuting side is guilty of to.

[Cardin Drake 1,892]

It's interesting how you'all are discussing this like the facts matter. We know how every single person on this board would vote if they were on the jury. They would listen carefully, weigh all the evidence, and then 100% vote according to their predisposition about Trump.  40% of America sees this as a partisan witch hunt by an out of control DOJ, which has already completely destroyed it's own credibility with the Mueller investigation and 40% think any means is fair as long as the ends is "getting" Trump.  The trial won't be held until after the election, so the whole purpose is to cost him a few percentage points in an already tight race. It's interesting that the FBI and DOJ have so eroded their own credibility that a  37 count felony indictment hardly costs Trump any support.  Still, in a close election, that could be enough. Congratulations, DOJ we have now have further descended into a 3rd world political and judicial system.

[Leftfield 2,714]

6 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

...and 40% think any means is fair as long as the ends is "getting" Trump.

Would like to see your basis for this. Is this from polls that were conducted?

 

6 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

The trial won't be held until after the election, so the whole purpose is to cost him a few percentage points in an already tight race.

You can't think that this is the only, or even main, reason for prosecuting him. 

 

6 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

 Congratulations, DOJ we have now have further descended into a 3rd world political and judicial system.

You seem to have no problem blasting the DOJ for its credibility, but I don't see any criticism from you of Trump for his actions.

I guess we know how you would vote on the jury.

 

[DKW 86 7,481]

20 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’ve been vomiting the same crap on every thread for the last seven years even when it’s about something else. 

And been correct every time.

[TexasTiger 13,130]

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And been correct every time.

Look at the name on the thread. The topic never seems to matter to you.

[DKW 86 7,481]

20 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I'll explain this clearly again.  According to the FBI, the emails in question did not have classified markings when transmitted, although ___________ contained classified information.  Classified markings include what you listed above and more.
 

In other words, in the SUBJECT HEADING, the email wasn't marked with any identifying heading as is usually the case when classified information is transmitted.  Make no mistake, that type information is transmitted daily at that level of government.  That is really irrelevant due to the fact that ... as stated by the FBI at the time of the announcement to not charge.....the FBI could not

“find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts” as “all the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an interference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CHARGE THAT SHE KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY HELD AND TRANSMITTED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.  Without that evidence, the only charge available requires a finding of GROSS NEGLIGENCE and the classified information must be related to National Defense.  They weren't going to be able to prove "gross negligence" given the fact that the two prior Secretaries had used multiple unsecured email accounts in the same manner and there was also no evidence that the information considered to be classified had anything to do with national defense.

If it ain't there .... it ain't there.  That leads to two options.  Recommend that no charges be filed OR prepare to get your ass beat to a pulp and have your legal career flushed when you lose badly at trial.

 

Man, where is the link? They found well over a 100 clearly marked classified docs on her server. According to you, there were none there. There were. Possesion os all you need in a classified document mishandling. Nothing more. You are wrong on the number and the law. They chose not to go after HRC, Powell, et al when they were CLEARLY breaking the classified doc law. 

[Gowebb11 9,427]

What shouldn’t get lost amongst all of the posting of complex court cases and legal diatribes is this. How stupid do you have to be to store classified documents in shoe boxes and cars and personal Computers and sock drawers and think that this is safe and good for the nation? 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Gowebb11