Look what he's done to himself!
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...mg&oe=6329A4E1
|
Look what he's done to himself!
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...mg&oe=6329A4E1
2 Developments
1. GSA NOT Trump staffers packet up the boxes of docs that ended up at Trump's residence at MaL . Trump could not possibly be responsible for what ended up at his home . This puts to bed the issue of intent . If indeed there were docs in MaL that had not been declassified ,it was the fault of the GSA . The narrative that "Trump took 15 boxes of classified documents" is a lie, Given the fact that Trump had been cooperating with the FBI in the storage and return of docs ;the raid was completely unnecessary for that reason.
2. Clueless waived privilege claims by Trump to facilitate the raid. His claim that the WH was not involved and had no prior knowlege is a lie .White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su had conversations with the FBI, DOJ and National Archives after 15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned to the Archives from MaL Su told the Archives that Clueless would not object to waiving Trump's claims to executive privilege, a decision that opened the door for DOJ to get a grand jury to issue a subpoena compelling Trump to turn over any remaining materials he possessed from his presidency.
Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote ;
"The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported 'protective assertion of executive privilege,'" ". I have therefore decided not to honor the former President's 'protective' claim of privilege."
Biden White House facilitated DOJ's criminal probe against Trump, scuttled privilege claims: memos | Just The News
Alan Desrshowitz in Snoozeweek summarizes the issue.
Executive privilege, rooted in Article Two of the Constitution, empowers the president to confer confidentially with members of his staff without fear that these secret communications will be made public. It is akin to similar privileges such as those with one's lawyer, priest, doctor and spouse. Their purpose is to encourage candid communications that are intended to remain secret.
But now, the Biden administration is claiming that communications made by President Donald Trump when he was in office can be waived by subsequent presidents. If this were the case, it would mean the end of executive privilege, since no one would be able to count on the future confidentiality of communications made with a sitting president.
Executive Privilege Means Nothing if the Next President Can Waive It | Opinion (newsweek.com)
Hey this could be a good thing . Let's say Trump wins in 2024 and the DOJ gets serious about investigating the Biden crime family . Trump could waive Quid Pro Joe's privileges when he was Veep and President . Maybe Clueless did not think this one through .
3 The privileges of former Presidents in the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes used in the warrant to justify the raid .
The WSJ explains
The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added). These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.
The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis - WSJ
example of the retracted affidavit released by the Justice Dept under court order
https://static-assets-1.truthsocial....8ff329bbb4.jpg
you can "read " the whole thing here .
Heavily redacted Trump search affidavit released: Live updates | AP News
In the May search, the FBI found 184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documentsmarked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET. There is no reference to what was contained in those documents.There is a reference to material marked FISA. That could be Russiagate related material but there is no confirmation of the subject matter. Trump ordered the declassification of Russiagate material before he left office. Classification markings on documents only note they were classified at one point in time. It’s quite probable the docs were later declassified but the markings not updated before he left office.
I don't believe this has been discussed here yet
Trump has a RICO lawsuit ongoing in Florida in which he has named virtually every coconspirator of the Russiagate hoax as defendants .
He initiated the suit in March Some of the defendants named have been removed from the suit by court order. It appears that in late July there was a lot of movement in the case Comey was removed as a defendant as was Andrew McCabe. BUT the FBI is not off the hook yet . Last week Adam Schiffhead and Rod Rosenstein were removed by court order .
The Westfall Act allows the federal government to substitute itself as defendants in civil claims against federal employees when claims are related to defendants’ work as an employee. This happened on July 22. Note the date . 2 weeks later the FBI raided MaL and grabbed up docs that the affidavit says are Russiagate ;FISA related docs.
Here's the document. The first few pages involve definitions and are not redacted. Start at page 9 and go to 30. See how much information you get out of that.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...rant-affidavit
The problem is Trump did not keep organized filing systems . So docs marked confidential were comingled with love letters from un-Kim .That poses a national security threat .
Now what is more secure
1. Evita's email server where classified docs were stored and destroyed
2. The national archives were Sandy Burger walked in and stuffed docs into his socks
3. Bubba's sock draw
4. Mar a Largo where Trump kept docs at the FBI direction in a double locked room in a building that was guarded by secret service.
5. The swamp where classified docs are routinely leaked to the press.
Great point. It's a shame the liberal dems here have abandoned the field. I'd love to know their view on that.Quote:
Now what is more secure
1. Evita's email server where classified docs were stored and destroyed
2. The national archives were Sandy Burger walked in and stuffed docs into his socks
3. Bubba's sock draw
4. Mar a Largo where Trump kept docs at the FBI direction in a double locked room in a building that was guarded by secret service.
5. The swamp where classified docs are routinely leaked to the press.
Why did Trump take all those classified documents to Mar-a-Loco?
Why wouldn't he? Now if someone can demonstrate some nefarious intention on his part, then fine, but so far that has not been the case.
Did you also ask why HC had classified documents on a personal, unsecured email server?
This is actually what I'd like to know your view on.
Quote:
Now what is more secure
1. Evita's email server where classified docs were stored and destroyed
2. The national archives were Sandy Burger walked in and stuffed docs into his socks
3. Bubba's sock draw
4. Mar a Largo where Trump kept docs at the FBI direction in a double locked room in a building that was guarded by secret service.
5. The swamp where classified docs are routinely leaked to the press.
Did he have official permission?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
what do you mean by "official permission " ?? He was the President . Who was he supposed to get permission from ?
A President can leave office and take with him anything he wants?
(Our country has three equal branches of government -- executive, legislative, and judicial.)
He can declassify anything he wants.
The question you were asked, as is oftentimes the case, goes unanswered.
With no oversight by the other two branches of government?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The Legislative can impeach or override a veto. SCOTUS can decide a legal issue once someone brings suit.
When Biden decides to commit the feds to 500 bil in new spending without the approval of Congress, that would be a good time for the repubs to bring a legal case pointing out how unconstitutional that is and let the SCOTUS decide it.
The answer is that there is a vague ambiguous law called the Presidential Records Act that has no enforcement written into the law. Disputes between the President and the National Archives have been handled in the past by negotiations between the 2 .
I have no doubt that this is heading to SCOTUS for resolution and Congress will no doubt move to strengthen the law .
They better make that move prior to November.
A judge in FLA will appoint a "special master " to review the stuff the FBI seized and prevent the FBI from reviewing privileged information.
The judge also will order the FBI to "specifying all property seized" . Presumably that will prevent them from making Russiagate related docs disappear .
wouldn't matter Art 1 sec 9 prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto lawQuote:
They better make that move prior to November.
Not what I meant. I was just saying that after the Nov elections, the dem majority in the House will be history.Quote:
wouldn't matter Art 1 sec 9 prohibits Congress from passing ex post facto law
I'm beginning to wonder about the red wave.
NY 19th district had a special election . The Repub Marc Molinaro tried to make the economy ,crime and inflation the issue. The Dem upset winner Pat Ryan made the SCOTUS Dobbs abortion decision the issue. NY 19th is a bell weather district that voted for consecutively the emperor; Trump, Clueless.
This comes after the surprising abortion decision in Kansas.
Special elections are often a measure of voter enthusiasm for party or issues.
The margin of error is getting too close for comfort. I have no doubt that the Repubs will take the House ,but maybe not by this wave they expect and better dare not assume
The Senate is way too close for comfort . . A REAL wave could go a long way to pushing the Repubs over the edge.
The so called process of classification and declassification was clarified in EO 13526 by the emperor
The President Executive Order 13526 | National Archives
I want to highlight a key section :
Information originated by the incumbent President or the incumbent Vice President; the incumbent President’s White House Staff or the incumbent Vice President’s Staff; committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section,"
This was affirmed by SCOTUS in 1987 'Dept. of 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 and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 509 , n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief
DEPARTMENT OF NAVY v. EGAN | FindLaw
The new spin i'm hearing is that classified or not the DOJ used statutes in the affidavit that do not rely on the classification status of the docs .
The question is who runs the government ...... the elected chief executive President of the United States or some permanent unelected bureaucracy ?
The idea that, "It's wrong if Trump does it, but it's OK for liberal dems," should concern us. That unequal application of law is a serious enemy.
Good question.Quote:
The question is who runs the government ...... the elected chief executive President of the United States or some permanent unelected bureaucracy ?
Our government is run by three branches -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- that cooperate with each other and with none overriding the other two.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The legislative and executive branches routinely check each other with no participation at all from SCOTUS. One checks the other.
Thus, "the elected chief executive President of the United States" does not "run the government".Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
lol I disagree Each branch has unique and specific functions and we would be better off if all the branches understood that and did not encroach on each other's powers .Quote:
Our government is run by three branches -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- that cooperate with each other and with none overriding the other two.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says the legislative or judicial branches can make executive decisions. In fact the Constitution is very clear
The 1st sentence of Article 2 states
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Deciding what is and what is not classified is an executive decision.
Likewise a President who makes an EO that "forgives " student loans encroaches on the power of the Legislative Branch as Madam Mimi correctly stated a year ago.
Likewise there is nothing in Article 3 that gives courts the power to legislate ;as our courts have so often done.
I didn't say they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
then you agree that the chief executive of the US RUNS the government much like every chief executive of every business in the world runs the business. They may not own it but they are selected to run it .
Not at all! The three branches are in this governing thing together and consult, communicate with each other. Chief executives consult with others in the company before making decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
no there is only ONE chief executive in any company and there is only one President who by Constitutional authority is the sole and only chief executive .
To help you understand ; the Constitution gives each branch it's own distinct role .
Congress ,may make law but it is the President who enforces the law . In a company that may be the Chief financial officer who gives a budget to the CEO , and of course they are all answerable to the board of directors ..... in the case of the government that is the American people through the electoral process .
Checks and balances are written in ;but there in no ambiguity that the President is the chief executive
Specifically he alone decides what is classified or not .
If you can show me the instance where Congress had any say in that then please let me know .
The chief executive does not take decisive action on his own. He does his homework first and that includes consulting with other company branches and/or employees.
The Pres does "run" the country within the confines of laws decided on by the legislative branch and interpreted by the Supreme Court. But if you really believe what you have said above, then why are you not being critical of Biden? He made a unilateral decision to make some Americans pay for the dumb debt decisions of other Americans. Why do you seem to be OK with that? Isn't he breaking the rules you laid out above?Quote:
Thus, "the elected chief executive President of the United States" does not "run the government".
Whether the CEO consults with staff or not ;the final call is the CEOs .
Who would you have decide what is classified ;the geek running the national archives ?
I can repeat this all day . It has been confirmed by SCOTUS . The President decided what is and what is not classified . Before Trump left office he made a blanket declassification . The only REAL question is if the docs in question should be given to the National Archives .
As I have previously commented ;that has traditionally been done through negotiations ;not a bum rush gestapo raid of the President's residence.
Biden is not part of this conversation. Neither is Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
. Title of the thread. "How far will the left go to get rid of Trump ?"Quote:
Biden is not part of this conversation. Neither is Trump
Not the title of the thread, but the conversation side road that tomder and I took.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:22 PM. |