aggiehawg said:

---

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

---

Mark Levin made this very argument a couple hours ago

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

---

If you are talking about today's indictment, none of those things are alleged to my understanding.

Counts 1-31: Willful Retention of National Defense Information
Count 32: Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice
Count 33: Withholding a Document or Record
Count 34: Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record
Count 35: Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation
Count 36: Scheme to Conceal
Count 37: False Statements and Representations

It's a hard sell that at least one of the 37 counts in the indictment won't stick.

The people on the other side of this do this for a living too.

If you going up against a federal prosecutor in a criminal case in federal court, your ass-is-grass.

Trump could put on a perfect defense and still easily lose this case.

Another problem trump has got is that the lawyers with the experience necessary to put up the absolute best possible defense won't touch this case for any amount of money. They've politicized this so much that nobody wants that kind of heat.

Trump might die in jail before it ever has a chance to run through the courts, and even after all that the SC could decline to hear the case.

At the end of the day, this means that jailing ones political opponents is the first line of attack from here on out.

There's no way to stuff that genie back in that bottle.

Trump being brought up on criminal charges has been 7-years in the making. It's a free-for-all now.

I don't mean to impugn you or your career, but I get a sense that you're blinded to the reality that the DOJ has completely shed whatever notion of nonpartisanship it once could credibly claim.

A seated president is prosecuting and attempting to imprison his predecessor and likely election rival in the guise of what anyone with a functioning brain has to admit are hopelessly weak (at best) allegations.

That's Maoist/Soviet level stuff. Why don't the democrats want to own that reality just a little?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

At the end of the day, this means that jailing ones political opponents is the first line of attack from here on out.

---

winner.

That said, I presume this culminates with scotus ordering the indictment dismissed 6-3 with a reasoned dissent from Kagan and a ragey hissy fit from Jackson.

eric76 said:

---

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?

---

oh I understand classified information much better than you. I lived it. You read about it on the internet and then make up your own rules...

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

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.

---

Link?

EKUAg said:

---

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.

---

Can attest Eric is no Democrat. He just doesn't like Trump. Nothing wrong with that.

---

Trump being elected completely broke eric.

He ONLY posts about Trump now. And it's ONLY when he's convinced he's going to jail.


I've got a couple liberal friends like that. They're absolutely giddy about this.

They don't understand what the word precedent means, though, so...

With this idiocy, could President Desantis both pardon Trump and indict Biden for his destructive efforts against the country economically and socially?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I don't mean to impugn you or your career, but I get a sense that you're blinded to the reality that the DOJ has completely shed whatever notion of nonpartisanship it once could credibly claim.

A seated president is prosecuting and attempting to imprison his predecessor and likely election rival in the guise of what anyone with a functioning brain has to admit are hopelessly weak (at best) allegations.

That's Maoist/Soviet level stuff. Why don't the democrats want to own that reality just a little?

---

Because they know it makes them look bad and that gives them a sad face...

As to going jail...since Trump has 365/24/7 Secret Service protection, are they planning on putting those guys in jail, too?

And while we are on the subject ...

Some of you may recall a pretty extensive thread 4 or 5 years ago discussing the eventual consequences of this very issue.

The title of the thread was something long the lines of 'Is this the beginning of a coup d tat' or something to that effect.

You might go in search of that thread but unfortunately it no longer exists.

So for the folks that just rolled up in here, the makings of all this has been discussed and hashed out for a very long time.

agjacent said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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

---

oh, aggiehawg. the case you linked deals with recordings that a president made of his own thoughts, observations, opinions, conversations, etc, and involves a group suing NARA to get their hands on said recordings. the court held that NARA didn't have the authority to deem these tapes "presidential records" and had no duty or right to seize them as such and turn them over to the plaintiff in response to their FOIA request.

can you not see that classified documents such as intelligence briefings - ie documents NOT created by the president but rather created by other government officials/agencies - are not the same as the president's own words recorded on tape? these different facts distinguish the case you cited from the present matter.

---

Tell that to Nixon. Also Clinton allowed the recordings of his Presidential telephone calls to other heads of state.

Trump's status as a former POTUS makes this a very unusual case since he had almost unlimited authority here. Just ignoring the PRA like it doesn't even exist won't cut it.

Has the DOJ advised the Secret Service to be prepared to spend many years in Federal Prison ?

richardag said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Candidate Trump said he would not stand for this type of behavior.

---

^ Behold the target leftist demographic

Now they don't have to trouble their heads about defending Biden selling his office to the highest foreign bidder

---

Can anyone make a reply without using Biden or Hillary?

---

It's hard not to, considering equal treatment under the law no longer exists, specifically in the eyes of the FBI, Federal DOJ, IRS and now many states, cities and counties.

---

"Equal treatment under the law" in this discussion seems to mean "special treatment for Trump".

What do you think they do with lower level people who are not handling classified documents according to the law?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

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.

---

Not sure of this. I have already seen it mentioned that this won't go to trial until after the election.

OBTW, thus one is in the 11th Circuit. Guess which SCJ is assigned the 11th Circuit.....Clarence Thomas.

You probably right. We might not see a resolution to this case for 2, 3 -4 years.

Quote:

---

"Equal treatment under the law" in this discussion seems to mean "special treatment for Trump".

What do you think they do with lower level people who are not handling classified documents according to the law?

---

Are they a former POTUS? His status is different under a federal law that applies to Presidents and Vice Presidents.

There is also a separation of powers issue here.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

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.

---

What do you bet that the judge will be under intense scrutiny and that every ruling had better be spot on?

Quote:

---

the present matter is about NARA receiving boxes from a former president containing classified material and NARA asking DOJ to look into whether these classified materials had been mishandled.

if you can't see how the present set of facts is completely different from the case you linked...

---

It is not the facts that make any difference in the authority as held by the court. The precedent still applies.

And note those were civil cases, as this one should have been, too. Also note again, why was the probable cause affidavit in support of the search warrant is still sealed. Why?

TAMU1990 said:

---

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.

---

It would be surprising if every adversary with the technical means did not hack it.

She really should be charged for her actions, too.

DallasAg03 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"Equal treatment under the law" in this discussion seems to mean "special treatment for Trump".

What do you think they do with lower level people who are not handling classified documents according to the law?

---

Are they a former POTUS? His status is different under a federal law that applies to Presidents and Vice Presidents.

There is also a separation of powers issue here.

---

Is it? Once you add former to the front of that title things change.

---

even TRUMP knows this lmao

I think most people are lost in the weeds on this. First off this is completely unfair and disgusting and a true threat to the Republic. That said you have to remember who the real threat is and that is the Deep State even more than the Democrats. Thoughts and predictions:

1. While this is all pretty bogus, in the end Trump screwed himself by running his mouth. He can deflect and deny and talk about Biden all he wants but he also appears to have bragged about having Classified docs and they had military secrets. That's going to sink him with the public even if he somehow manages to avoid jail. Trump supporters forget that he has to win over voters.

2. There is more to come for Trump, this is only Round 2 of at least 4. The DC and GA Grand Juries will drop the hammer soon enough. Also witch hunts but Trump likely did stupid things there as well and will make things worse.

3. The goal here is to get foolish Republicans to think they are battling this by nominating Trump who has zero chance of winning. It's a double win because he will lose and they can get even more people to feel helpless to stop it.

4. The Biden stuff is sticking but it's a distraction. He's being setup as the Fall guy. I fully expect Biden to drop out, likely citing health reasons, and then be blamed for everything but it won't matter much because they guy likely won't live much longer. He will also likely pardon his son on the way out the door. Then the Dems just replace him with Newsom and you have a Newsom/Trump election with Trump dealing with 4 separate legal battles that have nothing to do with Newsom. Newsom wins.

5. The only way out of the trap is DeSantis. He has all the tools necessary to win and to fight this after he is elected. He's the only one of the current field with a chance. Even then he is in for a rough time but at least he has a chance.

Indictment confirms Garland's indictment of Trump is political:

1. Presidential Records Act, not Espionage Act, controls former president's handling of his presidential records

2. Generally, legally impossible to obstruct investigation into non-crime, per binding 2019 OLC memo

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) June 9, 2023

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

---

Now the picture is becoming more clear. Can't have anyone exposing the unethical behavior of Richard Milhouse Obama.

Quote:

---

oh, i see. you just don't understand what it means to distinguish a case.

---

Under which facts does the holding that NARA archivists have no authority to make such distnctions under the PRA suddenly becomes invalid? That holding is statutory construction. They don't have that authority, period.

BigRobSA said:

---

With this idiocy, could President Desantis both pardon Trump and indict Biden for his destructive efforts against the country economically and socially?

---

I've read that the DOJ and the President try to remain separate on what is investigated and prosecuted so that it doesn't become a situation of a President taking revenge on his enemies. So it should be a DOJ decision rather than that of a President.

That said, the DOJ should generally be at least somewhat affected by who is President and who the Attorney General is.

That is, any decision not to prosecute Hillary, rightly or wrongly, was probably the DOJ's decision. Trump, to his credit, did not apparently direct the DOJ to prosecute Hillary. If they had decided to prosecute Hillary, I suspect that they would have asked Trump for his approval due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Similarly, the prosecutorial decisions against Trump are likely coming from the DOJ alone, but the DOj are likely to have cleared the decision with Biden before proceeding very far. While Biden probably did not set the investigations into motion, it doesn't seem likely that he told the DOJ to back off.

After DeSantis wins, whether or not he pardons Trump is entirely up to him (I would be surprised if he didn't), but the decision to prosecute Biden should come from the DOJ, not the Executive Office.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"Equal treatment under the law" in this discussion seems to mean "special treatment for Trump".

What do you think they do with lower level people who are not handling classified documents according to the law?

---

Are they a former POTUS? His status is different under a federal law that applies to Presidents and Vice Presidents.

There is also a separation of powers issue here.

---

There is an executive order that describes how a former President and Vice President can have access to classified documents.

I'm not sure about the separation of powers. It's still all within the Executive Branch, isn't it?