And just who is to blame for not holding her accountable?the_batman26 said:
Again, she wasn't held accountable. As it relates to declassification, the POTUS does hold way more authority to declassify as the supreme in the Executive Branch way more than a mere member of cabinet.
I believe the lawyer(s) he discusses committing crimes with is/are not the same lawyers who just resigned. Remember, trump goes through lawyers like kleenex.Bryanisbest said:Tbs2003 said:Just curious where you are hearing this. I haven't found the complete text of their joint statement, but this doesn't seem to mention anything about shifting their roles:Foreverconservative said:Do you make this up as you go or are these talking points transmitted to the sheep?Aggie Apotheosis said:
Trump's lawyers read the indictments and immediately quit. What does that tell you?
Reading the summaries, I would have, too.
I'm team ABT. Anybody but Trump. Even Desantis.
They didn't quit, they are shifting to the DC investigation since they were all DC based lawyers and a Florida Southern District team is being brought inTrump lawyers Trusty, Rowley resign | ReutersQuote:
"This morning we tendered our resignations as counsel to President Trump, and we will no longer represent him on either the indicted case or the January 6 investigation," according to the joint statement from Jim Trusty and John Rowley.
Could it be that a lawyer cannot ethically be both a witness and a lawyer in the same case? Conflict of interest. Apparently, there are taped conversations of Trump and his lawyers discussing the facts about the documents that the govt will attempt to use against Trump. If the govt intends to offer these tapes into evidence Trumps attorneys must resign from the case now. If so, these resignations should not be considered a sign of weakness on Trump's side, as is apparently being contended here.
It seems like we will have to wait for Biden to be out of power before he can be brought to justice. His mind may be so far gone by then that it won't be worth the trouble then.Funky Winkerbean said:boboguitar said:
Curious is they have evidence of him selling these documents. We already know he's a traitor, it's just to what extent now.
What are your thoughts on the documents showing Biden was caught in a bribe scheme? Should he be in prison? Is he a traitor?
aggiehawg said:
Since the archivist is not authorized to determine which are personal and Presidential records under the Presidential Records Act, the POTUS or former POTUS here solely has that authority, was DOJ adequately predicated to even open a case based on the referral from the archivist?
I don't think so.aggiehawg said:
Since the archivist is not authorized to determine which are personal and Presidential records under the Presidential Records Act, the POTUS or former POTUS here solely has that authority, was DOJ adequately predicated to even open a case based on the referral from the archivist?
SA68AG said:
Trump needs to be working on a plea bargain.
agjacent said:I believe the lawyer(s) he discusses committing crimes with is/are not the same lawyers who just resigned. Remember, trump goes through lawyers like kleenex.Bryanisbest said:Tbs2003 said:Just curious where you are hearing this. I haven't found the complete text of their joint statement, but this doesn't seem to mention anything about shifting their roles:Foreverconservative said:Do you make this up as you go or are these talking points transmitted to the sheep?Aggie Apotheosis said:
Trump's lawyers read the indictments and immediately quit. What does that tell you?
Reading the summaries, I would have, too.
I'm team ABT. Anybody but Trump. Even Desantis.
They didn't quit, they are shifting to the DC investigation since they were all DC based lawyers and a Florida Southern District team is being brought inTrump lawyers Trusty, Rowley resign | ReutersQuote:
"This morning we tendered our resignations as counsel to President Trump, and we will no longer represent him on either the indicted case or the January 6 investigation," according to the joint statement from Jim Trusty and John Rowley.
Could it be that a lawyer cannot ethically be both a witness and a lawyer in the same case? Conflict of interest. Apparently, there are taped conversations of Trump and his lawyers discussing the facts about the documents that the govt will attempt to use against Trump. If the govt intends to offer these tapes into evidence Trumps attorneys must resign from the case now. If so, these resignations should not be considered a sign of weakness on Trump's side, as is apparently being contended here.
Agreed, he'll never take a plea. His temperament and hubris won't allow it.amercer said:SA68AG said:
Trump needs to be working on a plea bargain.
Not sure he has it in him. He could have just handed everything over last year and avoided all of this.
I read through much of it some time ago when Trump's mishandling of documents came to light.Ag with kids said:You didn't even read the EO you quoted me...eric76 said:After Trump left office, he had zero classification authority as well.the_batman26 said:
Hillary had 0 declassification authority. Trump *did*. Yet who is being indicted?
Whining that he secretly declassified them is not enough.
Strictly speaking, Hillary probably may easily have some authority to declassify documents. Doesn't the original classification authority for a document have some ability to have them declassified after the need for classification is over? As Secretary of State, she might easily have been the classification authority for some documents.
That's not to excuse Hillary for a damned thing. Just pointing out that the President is not the only one who can declassify documents. Most documents, I think, are declassified at the end of a certain period of time.
Funny....
Quote:
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification.
(a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
2) the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or (4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.
...
Nobody is claiming that Trump did not have that right as President. His having that right as President does not make his continued possession of classified documents legal.Logos Stick said:No Spin Ag said:Ags77 said:
There is always a video or a tweet. I just turned on the TV and saw a video of Trump saying he thinks that mishandling classified documents is a DISQUALIFIER for being President. It was a reference about Hillary, I think, though he didn't say her name.
Then he signed a law making the crime for being convicted of mishandling classified documents much stronger. Irony everywhere.
If that is the case, then yeah, that would be the irony of all ironies.
Trump is not being charged under that law. I'm not surprised that you and other liberals don't understand the definition of irony.
The reason they are not charging him under that law is because Trump had the right to declassify any document he wanted. The tyrants you voted for know that and know it wouldn't stick.
You think this is a laughing matter but it's not. There are clearly two sets of justice now. Even those on the right who don't support Trump understand it. This country was already in the gutter because of woke leftist policies and the cult of climate change. Now it's been made worse.
RoadkillBBQ said:
We are well on our way to losing the Republic and faithful democrats like yourself won't have that utopia you envision.
Kinds hard to prosecute a former President for classified documents that he not only officially declassified, but that also have a presumption of declassification under the PRA
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 7, 2023
SA68AG said:
Trump needs to be working on a plea bargain.
Ron beats Don said:
I really hope the GOP has a plan to deal with this. I think there is a way everyone (on our side) can get a win in the end but I am worried egos are going to give the dems the win in the end.
annie88 said:Kinds hard to prosecute a former President for classified documents that he not only officially declassified, but that also have a presumption of declassification under the PRA
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 7, 2023
BSBirdwatcher said:
To all the Trump supporters who will read this:
Please understand that your initial reflex to jump to Trump's defense and throw out numerous "what about-isms" that you think change a thing is completely natural. Before putting those thoughts out into the world for people to suffer through, think about the actual reasons.
Trump repeatedly refused to cooperate with the NARA, lied about having records, and continued to keep records he was not permitted to keep after the DoJ subpoenaed those files. Even now, there are missing documents.
If you want to say "what about Hillary?" Or "Hunter this" or "Biden that"
Answer this: Do their hypothetical unproven crimes excuse Trump's crimes? Does someone robbing a store and not getting caught mean the cops can't charge someone for car theft? No.
Trump is on tape acknowledging he shouldn't have those records. If anyone else had these documents, they would be in jail.
This isn't persecution, this is justice.
And what law is your question based on, precisely? You said:aggiehawg said:
Do you have a response to my question based upon actual law?
Quote:
Since the archivist is not authorized to determine which are personal and Presidential records under the Presidential Records Act, the POTUS or former POTUS here solely has that authority, was DOJ adequately predicated to even open a case based on the referral from the archivist?
agjacent said:Agreed, he'll never take a plea. His temperament and hubris won't allow it.amercer said:SA68AG said:
Trump needs to be working on a plea bargain.
Not sure he has it in him. He could have just handed everything over last year and avoided all of this.
I'm on the side of the rule of law and having a government that operates at a minimum level of competence.Bryanisbest said:If you can't get excited by one candidate for president of US indicting his opponent during a campaign for the highest office in the land, I need to check your pulse, no matter what side you're on.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Burned out on Trump
It's getting hard to follow any of this nonsense.
It's the same with Biden falling or saying nonsense gibberish. Who cares anymore?
Oh look Biden fell down the stairs again ...
Oh look they indicted Trump again ...
Oh look, more evidence of corruption via Ukraine ...
Oh look, another photo of Hunter smoking crack out of a hookers *** ...
When does it end?
Probably with the rollout of Covid-24, Aliens landing, global economic collapse, or we hit that trifecta with all of the above.
he hasn't already?? now that *is* shocking.No Spin Ag said:
It'll help him sell more stuff to his base. I wouldn't be surprised if he puts out a defense funding email to his folks in the near future because of this
eric76 said:RoadkillBBQ said:
We are well on our way to losing the Republic and faithful democrats like yourself won't have that utopia you envision.
Flagged for trolling. I'm no Democrat. Anyone claiming me to be a Democrat is a filthy liar.
For what it's worth, I've voted for two Democrats in my life. One was Phil Gramm. The other was someone I knew who was running against a true idiot who had no business being a Texas Representative.
After reading the exchange in the indictment, my take is that this isn't the slam dunk you think it to be.Birdwatcher said:
To all the Trump supporters who will read this:
Please understand that your initial reflex to jump to Trump's defense and throw out numerous "what about-isms" that you think change a thing is completely natural. Before putting those thoughts out into the world for people to suffer through, think about the actual reasons.
Trump repeatedly refused to cooperate with the NARA, lied about having records, and continued to keep records he was not permitted to keep after the DoJ subpoenaed those files. Even now, there are missing documents.
If you want to say "what about Hillary?" Or "Hunter this" or "Biden that"
Answer this: Do their hypothetical unproven crimes excuse Trump's crimes? Does someone robbing a store and not getting caught mean the cops can't charge someone for car theft? No.
Trump is on tape acknowledging he shouldn't have those records. If anyone else had these documents, they would be in jail.
This isn't persecution, this is justice.
Quote:
The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as "Presidential records," NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.
Quote:
President Clinton enlisted historian Taylor Branch to assist him in creating "an oral history of his eight years in office." Compl. 8. In 2009, Branch published a book entitled, "The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President," based upon extensive conversations with President Clinton during his tenure in the White House and the events Branch observed when he was in the President's office. See Joe Klein, "Book Review: Bill Session," N.Y. Times (Sept. 25, 2009), http:// www. nytimes. com/ 2009/ 09/ 27/ books/ review/ Klein- t. html. In 2010, plaintiff filed this action. [Dkt. # 1]. Plaintiff avers that from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Branch recorded seventy-nine audiotapes that "preserved not only President Clinton's thoughts and commentary on contemporaneous events and issues he was facing as president, but, in some instances, recorded actual events such as presidential telephone conversations.
Quote:
As another court in this district has observed, "[t]he PRA incorporates an assumption made by Congress (in 1978) that subsequent Presidents and Vice Presidents would comply with the Act in good faith, and therefore Congress limited the scope of judicial review and provided little oversight authority for the President and Vice President's document preservation decisions." CREW v. Cheney, 593 F.Supp.2d 194, 198 (D.D.C.2009). Indeed, the PRA permits the President to dispose of any Presidential records that "no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value" after notifying the Archivist of the United States and designated members of Congress of the proposed disposal. 44 U.S.C. 2203(c), (d).
So where are the allegations of defacing, alteration or destruction of records?Quote:
In addition, the FRA grants the Archivist authority to:
notify the head of a Federal agency of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency that shall come to his attention, and assist the head of the agency in initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records wrongfully removed and for other redress provided by law.
44 U.S.C. 2905(a).
LINKQuote:
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.
That's two days ago. Read the indictment. Trump knew he had declassified docs. Trump himself stated, in July 2021, while holding one of the documents mentioned in the indictment things like:annie88 said:Kinds hard to prosecute a former President for classified documents that he not only officially declassified, but that also have a presumption of declassification under the PRA
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 7, 2023
Quote:
Trump: Except it is like, high confidential.
Staffer: Yeah.
Trump: Secret. This is secret information ...
...
Trump: See as president I could have declassified it.
