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.

---

And just who is to blame for not holding her accountable?

The earlier claim was that she had no authority in declassifying documents. In reality, she probably had some limited authority. Nobody is claiming that it was the same authority as a President.

Bryanisbest said:

---

Tbs2003 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

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.

---

Do you make this up as you go or are these talking points transmitted to the sheep?

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 in

---

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:

Quote:

---

"This morning we tendered our resignations as counsel to President Trump, and we will no longer represent him on either the indicted case or the January 6 investigation," according to the joint statement from Jim Trusty and John Rowley.

---

Trump lawyers Trusty, Rowley resign | Reuters

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

The real problem the government stooges have in this case is that they drew Aileen Cannon as the judge in this case. So you've got leftist DOJ cronies but a Trump judge.

agjacent said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

Tbs2003 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

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.

---

Do you make this up as you go or are these talking points transmitted to the sheep?

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 in

---

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:

Quote:

---

"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.

---

Trump lawyers Trusty, Rowley resign | Reuters

---

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.

---

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.

---

The team of lawyers discuss what has been discussed by some of them separately. Everybody on the team could have been contaminated enough to have made themselves possible witnesses. This assumes an objection that these recordings violate Atty/client privilege is overruled.

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.

---

Agreed, he'll never take a plea. His temperament and hubris won't allow it.

Ag with kids said:

---

eric76 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

Hillary had 0 declassification authority. Trump *did*. Yet who is being indicted?

---

After Trump left office, he had zero classification authority as well.

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.

---

You didn't even read the EO you quoted me...

Funny....

---

I read through much of it some time ago when Trump's mishandling of documents came to light.

So I just looked it up again. It didn't take long to find:

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.

...

---

That isn't hard to understand, is it? Or do you need someone to explain it to you?

Do you have a response to my question based upon actual law?

Now do Biden.

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.

---

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.

Over two-thirds of the documents identified in the indictment are related to military activity, military capabilities, and/or nuclear capabilities of US and/or foreign country.

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.

All they did was see that some were marked classified. They were then required to notify the DOJ. The question if they are personal or Presidential records is a red herring.

Q: What painting is that behind him?
A: The Doctrine Of Monroe by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

"Any intervention in political affairs of the America's by foreign powers is a potential hostile threat against the United States."

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.

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.

---

**** no.

This is pure bull*****

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.

---

Sadly, most of them are cowards too. No better than Democrats. They needed to make a very big showing of solidarity here whether it's making a statement, walking out whatever but they won't

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

---

Whoa whoa, Annie! The MSM needs at least a couple weeks of "We got 'em" celebration to fully deflect from all the evidence of Biden's criminal malfeasance

aggiehawg said:

---

Do you have a response to my question based upon actual law?

---

And what law is your question based on, precisely? You said:

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?

---

Seems to me like what you're arguing is, if the NARA office of inspector general is "not authorized" to determine if classified material had been mishandled/withheld, then how could they have referred the question of whether any mishandling/withholding occurred to DOJ for DOJ to investigate?

Do you now understand how nonsensical your reasoning is here? NARA OIG said 'something seems fishy, DOJ, why don't you look into it' and then DOJ did look into it, and it was DOJ that determined crimes had been committed. If DOJ's investigation had determined that nothing fishy in fact occurred, then that's it, the matter is closed and no charges are brought against trump.

Are you arguing that the NARA OIG has no power to refer matters to DOJ for investigation? because if you're arguing (as you seem to be?) that NARA OIG doesn't have the power to say "wtf is this, DOJ can you investigate?" then uh, clearly you're wrong.

How come we have no idea what Biden had in his possession? Including the ones he stole as a senator. The counts are 1 per document. How many counts would Biden have under that standard?

Hillary deleted thousands of files, destroyed hardware, etc. She should have been charged for having that set up at her house where every adversary was able to hack it. There were spies killed because of her server.

I'm pissed about the double standard.

agjacent said:

---

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.

---

Agreed, he'll never take a plea. His temperament and hubris won't allow it.

---

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

Bryanisbest said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

I'm on the side of the rule of law and having a government that operates at a minimum level of competence.

We all outliers on here. The average person has no understanding about what's going on here, nor will they ever.

They wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign with no accountability. This indictment is reheated leftovers.

The point I'm trying to make is that none of this bumps the needle anymore, and nobody in any leadership position has any idea what to do.

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

---

he hasn't already?? now that *is* shocking.

Three things are gonna happen over the next 18-months, imo:

1. Trump is imprisoned;

2. Desantis is gone after with the full power of the federal government and intelligence apparatus; and,

3. Biden or whoever they decide to run is reelected by the very narrowest of margins.

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.

---

After reading the exchange in the indictment, my take is that this isn't the slam dunk you think it to be.

Trump was in a meeting with individuals helping him write a book. By the conversation, it's reasonable to assume that Trump was talking about Milley, and that 'Country A' was China.

If that assumption is correct, Trump was making the point that the indivdual who had actually drafted possible strike scenarios against China and presented them to Trump later went public with the "I'm in charge, here" debacle, and also went public with his calls to Chinese counterparts saying Trump was unhinged and that Milley was the one in control.

In Trump's mind, the document is exculpatory of Milley's public actions.

You're pushing a scenario where much of the administration that answered to POTUS was actually undermining POTUS, and yet Trump was the security risk. It's actually the opposite. Those in DC that were undermining POTUS - from the Joint Chiefs to the FBI - had an obligation to be loyal to OUR government or to resign. THEIR ACTIONS WERE WHAT WAS CRIMINAL, and was the security risk.

Your TDS has blinded you.

And FTR, I will not be supporting Trump in the primary. I will 100% support his pardon, if necessary.

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).

---

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).

---

So where are the allegations of defacing, alteration or destruction of records?

Quote:

---

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.

---

LINK

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

---

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:

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.

---