Who would have thought this would really apply in real life? And in Trump's case, a kid didn't die.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

The comments/statements made by NARA before the FBI investigation sure appears that this plan was hatched in late 2021, and NARA began setting the table for the investigation in January.

---

I tend to agree with this.

Trump's behavior is so predictable that it was a cakewalk for his political opponents to set him up for something like this.

Trump reacted just as predicted and walked right into this mess.

The whole thing is unjust, but its hard sell that Trump didn't serve up a fastball down the middle.

---

Yup. A major reason I decided early on against supporting him this time around. He's way too predictable and easy to bait.

Instead of giving him the respect deserving a former POTUS, they treated him like a low-rate adversary on Day 1, and got the response they were hoping for. Then all the pieces fell into place.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Charpie said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I doesn't matter whether the Welder was at one time legally in possession of the documents.

The only thing that matters is that Welder had possession of the documents, and Welder failed surrender the documents to an officer of the United States, on demand.

---

No offense, but whomever you are getting your information from, you need to stop doing so.

The relevant section literally starts off with "Whoever having unauthorized possession of,"

Welder was never in authorized possession of the documents at his home.

---

It doesn't matter if the welder (or Trump or anyone) ever was in authorized possession of the documents. What matters is whether the welder (or Trump or anyone) had possession of them when they were no longer authorized to.

If you believe Trump can overcome reasonable doubt that he continued to be legally in possession of the documents, that's fine. That's for the defense to show at trial and doesn't mean the analogy is improper. The government's opinion, clearly, is that Trump was no longer legally possessing the documents.

---

Ding ding. And being caught on tape admitting to it is pretty damming as well.

---

Except they don't have the document. There are a lot of folks here that don't want government of, by and for the people. So very strange.

---

The indictment involves 31 documents. Presumably, I would imagine, 31 documents which they have considering they have to prove what the documents are and that they were retained at Mar-A-Lago.

I don't know what "the document" is. And yes, as someone mentioned, nothing about this indictment prevents another indictment in New Jersey, or anywhere else, including another indictment in Florida, regarding other documents.

This goes back to what fka ftc was talking about the other day.

'Defense information' seems to be broadly defined in the statute.

So the DOJ alleges that Trump failed to return 'defense information' on demand ... there's room to argue there.

Who will make the determination whether the documents that Trump failed to re-deiiver were considered 'defense information within the meaning of the act?

So you could see an out there by the judge or the 11th circuit deciding that what Trump had wasn't considered defense information as a matter of law.

But that issue is probably one that won't be decided for a minimum of 3-years down the road.

BREAKING: AG Garland's deputy Lisa Monaco, who was instrumental in Obama WH's role in Russiagate frame-up of Trump, has been coordinating w Special Counsel Jack Smith thru her top adviser Marshall Miller, who acts as intermediary w Smith. Miller gave $3,800 to Biden,$3,700 to HRC

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 14, 2023

AG GARLAND ON TRUMP INDICTMENT: "As I said when I appointed Mr. Smith, I did so because it underscores the Justice Department’s commitment to independence and accountability. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor." pic.twitter.com/W7bOUl5ao1

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 14, 2023

jrdaustin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

The comments/statements made by NARA before the FBI investigation sure appears that this plan was hatched in late 2021, and NARA began setting the table for the investigation in January.

---

I tend to agree with this.

Trump's behavior is so predictable that it was a cakewalk for his political opponents to set him up for something like this.

Trump reacted just as predicted and walked right into this mess.

The whole thing is unjust, but its hard sell that Trump didn't serve up a fastball down the middle.

---

Yup. A major reason I decided early on against supporting him this time around. He's way too predictable and easy to bait.

Instead of giving him the respect deserving a former POTUS, they treated him like a low-rate adversary on Day 1, and got the response they were hoping for. Then all the pieces fell into place.

---

What exactly did Trump do wrong? Sounds like he did what any other former president does when leaving the white house. He packed up formerly classified documents and had the ability to declassify them just by saying it was so.

I think the only difference is these formerly classified documents showed crimes from the deep state and previous administrations, so they decided to do something unprecedented with help of a two-tier justice system that is proving to be just as corrupt as the rest of our government.

He's on tape saying he didn't declassify certain documents. That's a problem. And agency records aren't covered by the PRA.

ETA: these documents are going to have to be shown in open court to get any charges to stick. Do you think the "deep state" is going to show crimes they committed in those documents in court?

AgBandsman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

The comments/statements made by NARA before the FBI investigation sure appears that this plan was hatched in late 2021, and NARA began setting the table for the investigation in January.

---

I tend to agree with this.

Trump's behavior is so predictable that it was a cakewalk for his political opponents to set him up for something like this.

Trump reacted just as predicted and walked right into this mess.

The whole thing is unjust, but its hard sell that Trump didn't serve up a fastball down the middle.

---

Yup. A major reason I decided early on against supporting him this time around. He's way too predictable and easy to bait.

Instead of giving him the respect deserving a former POTUS, they treated him like a low-rate adversary on Day 1, and got the response they were hoping for. Then all the pieces fell into place.

---

What exactly did Trump do wrong? Sounds like he did what any other former president does when leaving the white house. He packed up formerly classified documents and had the ability to declassify them just by saying it was so.

I think the only difference is these formerly classified documents showed crimes from the deep state and previous administrations, so they decided to do something unprecedented with help of a two-tier justice system that is proving to be just as corrupt as the rest of our government.

---

In the grand scheme, what Trump did wrong was to continue to treat his enemies in Washington as if he was still POTUS. So they picked a fight with him and he obliged them. Therefore, they pulled out all the stops to take a ticky-tack dispute over documents that no one really cared about and transform it into a Federal crime.

Looking at the list of documents listed in the indictment, there are a number of copies of daily briefings, as well as periodic assessments which routinely show up on POTUS's desk. My guess is there are a number of each of those documents floating around and already on file with NARA. So the whole thing is really about Trump bending the knee to Washington bureaucrats - which they knew he would never do.

The whole thing could have been avoided had NARA established a facility close to MAL and asked the boxes to be placed there with a SCIF. But why do that when you can piss off and entrap a guy.

Quote:

---

Therefore, they pulled out all the stops to take a ticky-tack dispute over documents that no one really cared about and transform it into a Federal crime.

---

Posted this in the timeline thread. NARA knew those materials were being boxed and loaded upon trucks a week before he left office. Many news outlets were reporting on it with pictures of boxes stacked in a parking area of the White House. If NARA wanted them, why not go get them then?

LINK

Hold on there. There are distinctions between Personal Records, Presidential Records, and Agency Records.

Those Classified records from an agency would be classified as Agency Records and not Presidential Records according to https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/06/where-judicial-watchs-defense-of-trump-goes-wrong/

From the article:

Quote:

---

Trump's case is about agency records regarding the national defense mainly, classified intelligence reporting generated by U.S. spy agencies. The PRA, by contrast, addresses documents and other records generated by and for the president in the carrying out of his duties.

Significantly, the PRA explicitly excludes agency records from the definition of "presidential records." Under Section 2201(2)(B) the term presidential records "does not include any documentary materials that are . . . official records of an agency." As if the term agency were not clear enough, the PRA incorporates the definition set forth in Section 552 of Title 5, U.S. Code. (That definition has been moved. In 1978, when the PRA was enacted, it was in Section 552(e); it is now in Section 552(f).) That provision broadly instructs that an agency is

Quote:

---

any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.

---

Further, the provision broadly defines an agency record to include any information the agency or its contractors maintain in connection with the agency's operations. Patently, intelligence reports compiled by the Defense Intelligence Agency, CIA, NSA, FBI, and other U.S. national-security agencies are agency records. They are not presidential records by definition and by common sense i.e., these agencies are created by Congress, their operations are authorized by Congress, they are underwritten with taxpayer funds by Congress, and Congress is empowered to conduct oversight of their activities, which necessitates that agency officials and lawmakers have access to their records.

It is no surprise, then, that the PRA excludes agency records from its coverage.

---

The article then discusses Clinton's sock drawer and why that is legally distinct from this case.

And then,

Quote:

---

Even if we ignore that the PRA does not cover agency records, the only documents a president is lawfully permitted to keep without archiving are what the PRA defines as personal records. These are such items as diaries or journals not agency intelligence reports.

In any event, Judge Jackson's ruling is unavailing for Trump because the agency reports of national-defense information that he is being prosecuted over are expressly excluded from PRA coverage. But that said, to the extent Jackson reasoned or is at least being construed as having reasoned that the president is at liberty to ignore the PRA, that's just wrong.

---

One could probably argue that the intelligence reports from the spy agencies were produced to help the President and are thus Presidential Records.

It will be interesting to see whether the courts decide whether or not the classified documents were Agency Records or Presidential records.

HTownAg98 said:

---

He's on tape saying he didn't declassify certain documents. That's a problem. And agency records aren't covered by the PRA.

ETA: these documents are going to have to be shown in open court to get any charges to stick. Do you think the "deep state" is going to show crimes they committed in those documents in court?

---

The full documents won't necessarily need to be shown in full court. Indeed, they almost surely won't be. There's an entire procedure under the CIPA (the Classified Information Procedures Act) for those kind of issues.

HTownAg98 said:

---

He's on tape saying he didn't declassify certain documents. That's a problem. And agency records aren't covered by the PRA.

ETA: these documents are going to have to be shown in open court to get any charges to stick. Do you think the "deep state" is going to show crimes they committed in those documents in court?

---

In view of the strength of the PRA, I'm having trouble understanding what difference it makes if the documents were classified or not. Nor does it matter if he admitted to what he thought was a crime if in fact it couldn't be by virtue of the PRA. Can someone help me with these points?

Bryanisbest said:

---

In view of the strength of the PRA, I'm having trouble understanding what difference it makes if the documents were classified or not. Nor does it matter if he admitted to what he thought was a crime if in fact it couldn't be by virtue of the PRA. Can someone help me with these points?

---

If it turns out that the Classified Documents are Agency Records, not Presidential Records, then the PRA might not help at all.

aggiehawg said:

---

Posted this in the timeline thread. NARA knew those materials were being boxed and loaded upon trucks a week before he left office. Many news outlets were reporting on it with pictures of boxes stacked in a parking area of the White House. If NARA wanted them, why not go get them then?

LINK

---

NARA did not know what was in any particular box. How would they? NARA started noticing stuff they expected to see in what they had been provided by the White House wasn't there, which is why they started asking the former President's team where stuff was.

Quote:

---

In view of the strength of the PRA, I'm having trouble understanding what difference it makes if the documents were classified or not. Nor does it matter if he admitted to what he thought was a crime if in fact it couldn't be by virtue of the PRA. Can someone help me with these points?

---

It is really messy and a lot of questions are outstanding, in my view. Did a dive this morning on the history of the differences between Federal Records Act and the PRA, up to an including the 2014 law that amended BOTH Acts by name to include electronic records.

Basic background. Federal Records Acts go back to the 1950s, in passage of the orginal and then amendments in subsequent decades. At no time prior to the passage of the Presidential Records Act in 1978, was the Federal Records Act (as amended) applied to presidential records. Those were the property of the President. Which made sense since National Archives would have the agency copies before they had been transmitted to the White House and thus the historical record was not adversely affected.

So we have two tranches, federal records writ large and a smaller subset of those that go through the White House staff and the President that then fall under the PRA. (The 2014 Obama era amendment to BOTH acts would not be necessary otherwise, would it? Not if there was no separation between them? Further, that 2014 amendment specifically gave the archivist the authority to determine what is a federal record BUT NOT WHAT WAS A PRESIDENTIAL RECORD. Still separate tranches. My take.)

Brief derail to accentuate the point here. Reagan was the first President to which the PRA actually applied. Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech. Before the passage of the PRA, all of the edits and drafts of that speech would have been his personal records. Undr those rules, he could have made the choice to put those in his Library or not and we may not have known how much pushback he got about that speech from foreign service State Department weenies.

Now turning to the classified issue. For documents to be classified in the first place.

Start with this question.

There’s something WEIRD about the classified document #Indictment charges against @realDonaldTrump I explain it in today’s video 👇 #TrumpArraignment #TrumpArraignmentDay #TrumpIsATraitor pic.twitter.com/xrgsvPHJa4

— Ian Corzine (@iancorzine) June 14, 2023

There are specific statutes dealing directly with classified documents. Very specific statutes that address mishandling them. None of those statutes are cited in the indictment. Why not? I mean if Jack Smith wanted to do count stacking, why not use those too? Make it a 100+ count indictment?

So let's now pivot to "national defense information."

Further there is a distinction between truly classified documents and those still having classified markings. Go to the National Archives today and look for Operation Overlord records. Some will have classified markings on them even 70+ years later. Extreme example but the truth. There is a difference. Just like there is a difference between federal records and the small subset of Presidential Records.

HTH.

Quote:

---

NARA did not know what was in any particular box. How would they? NARA started noticing stuff they expected to see in what they had been provided by the White House wasn't there, which is why they started asking the former President's team where stuff was.

---

Not what the archivist said. Again, you are claiming they lied.

Trump was too busy to personally go through te 15 boxes originally sent back to NARA pursuant to their request. Later, Trump's attorneys were able to go back later and look into those boxes to check for personal records. The boxes were pretty much date oriented, which included his daily schedules. There were slips of paper inserted as "placeholders" for docs already pulled by NARA.

From the Daily Schedules, Trump's lawyers were able to tell those pulled documents related to his phone calls with leaders of state. (Cue Clinton sock drawer case.)

Can't see this but title is questionable. Some help?

The Atlantic is claiming more criminal charges from NJ?

Biden needs to pardon him. Trump's speech/comments today were cryptic.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Biden needs to pardon him. Trump's speech/comments today were cryptic.

---

That has been floated as the way Biden pardons himself and his family while pardoning Trump.

Optic that it is a reset and a "fair election" in 2024.

Optics might work from Biden's view but really unsure Biden could sell pardoning himself and his entire family right now.

And yes, the Presidential power of pardon is plenary, with only one restriction, impeachment. A POTUS can pardon himself for past conduct.

Yeah. I mentioned this earlier. Because of the recording being done at Bedminster, there are thoughts that he can also be charged there since that document hasn't been found.

eric76 said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

In view of the strength of the PRA, I'm having trouble understanding what difference it makes if the documents were classified or not. Nor does it matter if he admitted to what he thought was a crime if in fact it couldn't be by virtue of the PRA. Can someone help me with these points?

---

If it turns out that the Classified Documents are Agency Records, not Presidential Records, then the PRA might not help at all.

---

So if the records were not agency records it does not matter whether Trump thought, on the tape, he was doing anything wrong or not, right?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

NARA did not know what was in any particular box. How would they? NARA started noticing stuff they expected to see in what they had been provided by the White House wasn't there, which is why they started asking the former President's team where stuff was.

---

Not what the archivist said. Again, you are claiming they lied.

Trump was too busy to personally go through te 15 boxes originally sent back to NARA pursuant to their request. Later, Trump's attorneys were able to go back later and look into those boxes to check for personal records. The boxes were pretty much date oriented, which included his daily schedules. There were slips of paper inserted as "placeholders" for docs already pulled by NARA.

From the Daily Schedules, Trump's lawyers were able to tell those pulled documents related to his phone calls with leaders of state. (Cue Clinton sock drawer case.)

---

NARA has never said they knew at the time (pre-January 21, 2021) that he was taking documents with classified markings nor Presidential records home with him. NARA said they had a hunch records were missing and they started asking questions. You're making stuff up

aggiehawg said:

---

And yes, the Presidential power of pardon is plenary, with only one restriction, impeachment. A POTUS can pardon himself for past conduct.

---

Very much debatable.

Not an issue I have an opinion about as it's not something I've thought about, but it's plenty debatable

aggiehawg said:

---

So let's now pivot to "national defense information."

Further there is a distinction between truly classified documents and those still having classified markings. Go to the National Archives today and look for Operation Overlord records. Some will have classified markings on them even 70+ years later. Extreme example but the truth. There is a difference. Just like there is a difference between federal records and the small subset of Presidential Records.

HTH.

---

There are set time limits after which previously classified documents are considered unclassified absent a reason to keep them classified.

Documents are constantly being declassified. They will still have classified markings on them, usually along with a declassified marking. You can't and it is not practice to try to erase a classified stamp, especially off of decades old physical paper documents.

…

It is correct to say a declassified document very well might have some kind of indication of its past life as a national secret. It would be strange, abnormal and unlikely a declassified document would be declassified without some indication on it or some record of that happening. Which is partly why the "I declassified everything" piece of spaghetti always struggled to stick on Trump's wall of legal defenses.

…

This also isn't particularly relevant here because 1) there is no known colorable argument that declassified documents would be his personal documents and 2) the charges don't swing on their classification status in the first place.

Bill Clinternet said:

---

Biden needs to pardon him. Trump's speech/comments today were cryptic.

---

That would be interesting since, as I understand it, if Trump were to accept the pardon than he would, in fact, be admitting that he is guilty of the crime for which he was being pardoned.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

So let's now pivot to "national defense information."

Further there is a distinction between truly classified documents and those still having classified markings. Go to the National Archives today and look for Operation Overlord records. Some will have classified markings on them even 70+ years later. Extreme example but the truth. There is a difference. Just like there is a difference between federal records and the small subset of Presidential Records.

HTH.

---

There are set time limits after which previously classified documents are considered unclassified absent a reason to keep them classified.

Documents are constantly being declassified. They will still have classified markings on them, usually along with a declassified marking. You can't and it is not practice to try to erase a classified stamp, especially off of decades old physical paper documents.

---

Note that in the declassification process, each document is reviewed for any information that should not be released.

I have read that retired CIA employees can earn good money reviewing the documents pending declassification.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

And yes, the Presidential power of pardon is plenary, with only one restriction, impeachment. A POTUS can pardon himself for past conduct.

---

Very much debatable.

Not an issue I have an opinion about as it's not something I've thought about, but it's plenty debatable

---

You would think that. Pro tip: Start with "plenary power." Then apply it to Executive under Article II of the Constitution, Andrew Weissmann wannabe. You cannot change the Constitution just because you want to.

Plenary power. Where are the restrictions? Constitution says only impeachment.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

And yes, the Presidential power of pardon is plenary, with only one restriction, impeachment. A POTUS can pardon himself for past conduct.

---

Very much debatable.

Not an issue I have an opinion about as it's not something I've thought about, but it's plenty debatable

---

You would think that. Pro tip: Start with "plenary power." Then apply it to Executive under Article II of the Constitution, Andrew Weissmann wannabe. You cannot change the Constitution just because you want to.

Plenary power. Where are the restrictions? Constitution says only impeachment.

---

Plenty of people much smarter than I have argued against it.

Recall, Nixon considered trying this and his own Justice Department told him we don't think you can do that. So he didn't.

Have whatever opinion you want. I'm just noting you're presenting some as shut and closed that indeed is not.

Logically reading the text of the Constitution, there doesn't appear to be any restriction on the power of the pardon limiting it to pardoning other people. Of course, the cannot pardon impeachments for himself or others, but that's not the question here.

Quote:

---

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

---

Perhaps I'm missing something there.

In any event, to accept a pardon is to admit guilt, so it seems like a case of "I'm guilty, now go away."

Note that the person being pardoned is not required to accept the pardon. If a President offers himself a pardon, can he then refuse to accept the pardon?

Quote:

---

Plenty of people much smarter than I have argued against it.

---

Argued. Like all lawyers do. Guess you have not heard that we have had an adversarial system for a few hundred years.

One of the arguments I've frequently heard from experts: Do you "beg your pardon" when you're home alone and say something offensive? Or do you say "pardon me" when you're walking down an empty sidewalk by yourself?

Unless you're Smeagol looking for your magic ring, probably not.

More importantly, can a President magically pardon himself just by thinking it in the same way that some say he can declassify documents just by thinking it?

I would simply have not directed my valet to hide documents after a subpoena and lied and hid documents from my lawyers who promptly quit after the indictment was unsealed.