All sound like great arguments ... ... on appeal.
Trump indicted over classified documents
279,521 Views |
3652 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by aggiehawg
How would the archivist of a federal Article II agency have more power than the President, from which whatever authority the archivist has are derived?Quote:
I'm not sure about the separation of powers. It's still all within the Executive Branch, isn't it?
Simple principal and agent law. Agent cannot have more authority delegated than the principal has. And the line of cases under the PRA have routinely held that the judiciary branch has a very narrow, very narrow lane of judicial oversight. Again because of separation of powers, as well.
There are multiple areas of the law that applies to this case simply because Trump was POTUS. Different legal animal, altogether.
After Cannon quashes the indictment?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
All sound like great arguments ... ... on appeal.
The case you linked was about NARA (not) having the authority to designate documents as presidential records. ie, NARA cannot point to documents (specifically in the case you cited, documents CREATED by a president) and say "those materials are hereby presidential records."aggiehawg said: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.Quote:
oh, i see. you just don't understand what it means to distinguish a case.
In the trump matter, NARA was not designating any documents to be presidential records. they received documents with classified markings and said "wtf? doj, maybe take a look at this."
Perhaps you don't understand that "designating" a document to be a presidential record is not the same as simply looking at a document and seeing classified markings on it?
Are you arguing that NARA should have seen at the documents with classified markings and said "we have no way of knowing whether these documents are personal records or presidential records so therefore let's do nothing"? Do you think that by referring the matter to doj, nara was somehow "designating" documents with classified markings to be "presidential records"?
Do you think that a document that is actively classified at any level can somehow be a president's "personal records"? like, i think pretty much by definition, a classified document - ie one whose disclosure could damage the interests/security of a country - cannot somehow be the "personal" document of a president.
You have heard and verified these recordings. Sounds legit.agjacent said:trump himself says in the recordings that he KNOWS the documents are still classified and that he COULD have declassified them when he was president, but he didn't, and now he can't because he's no longer president.fka ftc said:
You have heard those recordings and they have been verified? Have you reviewed the documents in question?
And yes, it has been repeatedly established that POTUS is not bound by process regarding declassification.
i'm gonna go ahead and guess that those recordings were "verified" by at least one of the multiple other people who are present on them.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
NARA finds secrets documents. NARA tells FBI. FBI ask for for documents. Trump tells assistant to lie about location of boxes. Trump attorney certifies compliance with FBI request base on info from the assistant. Trump meets with FBI and says he's cooperating fully. Trump flies boxes to another house. FBI gets search warrant of Mara Lago cameras and sees boxes being moved. FBI does search and finds documents. Trumps assistant knowingly lies to FBI in voluntary interview.
This is so stupid.
This is so stupid.
I am not Mike Davis, but I have been tooting this horn for nearly a year.aggiehawg said:Indictment confirms Garland's indictment of Trump is political:
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) June 9, 2023
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
Who gets to decide which law / act applies? One would think POTUS, and not a political hack head of the DOJ who has an axe to grind against Rs on Biden / Obama's behalf.
This is all totally legit.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
i mean, if you choose to hang your trumpy hopes on the doj obtaining an indictment partially based on recordings that they won't be able to authenticate in court, go right ahead.fka ftc said:You have heard and verified these recordings. Sounds legit.agjacent said:trump himself says in the recordings that he KNOWS the documents are still classified and that he COULD have declassified them when he was president, but he didn't, and now he can't because he's no longer president.fka ftc said:
You have heard those recordings and they have been verified? Have you reviewed the documents in question?
And yes, it has been repeatedly established that POTUS is not bound by process regarding declassification.
i'm gonna go ahead and guess that those recordings were "verified" by at least one of the multiple other people who are present on them.
Where are the criminal penalties in the PRA? There are none. If there are no criminal sanctions under the PRA, what the hell was DOJ convening a grand jury and investigating? Not a crime unless they alleged an imminent destruction of a document. Which they did not allege. (Again, what was the probable cause supporting the search warrant for Mar A Lago? All lies? Fruit of the poisonous tree?)agjacent said:The case you linked was about NARA (not) having the authority to designate documents as presidential records. ie, NARA cannot point to documents (specifically in the case you cited, documents CREATED by a president) and say "those materials are hereby presidential records."aggiehawg said: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.Quote:
oh, i see. you just don't understand what it means to distinguish a case.
In the trump matter, NARA was not designating any documents to be presidential records. they received documents with classified markings and said "wtf? doj, maybe take a look at this."
Perhaps you don't understand that "designating" a document to be a presidential record is not the same as simply looking at a document and seeing classified markings on it?
Are you arguing that NARA should have seen at the documents with classified markings and said "we have no way of knowing whether these documents are personal records or presidential records so therefore let's do nothing"? Do you think that by referring the matter to doj, nara was somehow "designating" documents with classified markings to be "presidential records"?
Do you think that a document that is actively classified at any level can somehow be a president's "personal records"? like, i think pretty much by definition, a classified document - ie one whose disclosure could damage the interests/security of a country - cannot somehow be the "personal" document of a president.
Which your hero, Sandy Berger, actually did. Stole documents and destroyed them to protect Clinton's cowardice in not taking out Bin Laden. Did he go to jail? No. Did Petraeus? No.
Pretending that a President is Julius Rosenberg, is just beyond insane.
On the law here, you are just wrong.
Now, just read what you wrote and go read the Durham report. You really want to, at this point in time, just weeks following the Durham report, claim the DOJ and FBI are above manipulation, corruption and lies?agjacent said:i mean, if you choose to hang your trumpy hopes on the doj obtaining an indictment partially based on recordings that they won't be able to authenticate in court, go right ahead.fka ftc said:
You have heard and verified these recordings. Sounds legit.
That is unequivocally LAUGHABLE.
Thanks, I think I dislocated a rib again just LOL-ing.
The DOJ being reputable. Funny *****
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
An orange man broke you and I, with others, think it's hilarious. Bravo.
If SCOTUS does not intervene and at least call a timeout, we are headed down a very dangerous path.
If I was a clerk for SCOTUS, I would be ensuring my summer vacations were refundable. The shark has been jumped and we are all in brand new territory.
And if they also ignore, we are headed to a dissolution of the Republic.
Hawg, as always I appreciate your legal view and your long experience combined with your research on many of these things.
If I was a clerk for SCOTUS, I would be ensuring my summer vacations were refundable. The shark has been jumped and we are all in brand new territory.
And if they also ignore, we are headed to a dissolution of the Republic.
Hawg, as always I appreciate your legal view and your long experience combined with your research on many of these things.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
How many forms did JFK and McNamara sign to go on TV and reveal our intelligence capabilities on national TV during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Must have had writer's cramp, huh?
Doesn't matter at this point what law applies, they let it all go forward and sort it out at later.
This case will drone on for years.
To think trump is not up **** creek on this is pie-in-the-sky.
They'll put Trump in jail and argue about what law applies later.
This case will drone on for years.
To think trump is not up **** creek on this is pie-in-the-sky.
They'll put Trump in jail and argue about what law applies later.
Oh, SCOTUS clerks leak opinions they don't like now. With 0 repercussions despite, you know, defacing the authority of the land's highest court.
No biggie.
No biggie.
Its sad but we are headed to down this path. And its not just the left doing this, there are plenty of supposed "conservatives" and "Republicans" on this thread that think Trump is being treated justly.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Doesn't matter at this point what law applies, they let it all go forward and sort it out at later.
This case will drone on for years.
To think trump is not up **** creek on this is pie-in-the-sky.
They'll put Trump in jail and argue about what law applies later.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
Firm response from DeSantis
DESANTIS slams the “different standard for a Democrat secretary of state and a former Republican president.”
— DeSantis War Room 🐊 (@DeSantisWarRoom) June 9, 2023
“There needs to be ONE standard of justice in this country. Let’s enforce it on everybody … You can’t have one faction of society weaponizing the power of the state… pic.twitter.com/uEaVf4dh2o
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Thanks but I'm just trying to make some sense out of very confusing and complicated issues. And for any hope that SCOTUS steps in, they cannot as they can only hear cases and rule on controversies that are ripe for consideration. IOW, they do not issue advisory opinions.Quote:
Hawg, as always I appreciate your legal view and your long experience combined with your research on many of these things.
One more thing. Look at the records of the prosecutors working the case against Trump. Scum, all of them have been castigated by courts for prosecutorial misconduct. The local AUSA, stepped down from a case back in 2009 when she was wiretapping defense attorneys' phone conversations with their clients/witnesses in a drug trial. Not courthouse conversations. The defense attorneys' phone were illegally tapped.
Now think about what was grabbed during the MAL raid? Attorney client records? Worse using 702/703 to do FISA queries? They have times, dates and durations of Trump talking with his aide at MAL. From where did that originate?
Something really stinks here. I wish Trump was not running but sitting back while this crap keeps happening, is getting old for me. I love the law. Or what the law used to be, that is. I don't even recognize this legal system anymore. Law is the last thing on any of these prosecutors' minds. Nor ethics.
aren't there people who post here that have ties to trump, or at least his campaign?
if so, then i truly, sincerely think that those people should put aggiehawg in contact with trumpworld, so she can explain her theories to people that can actually pursue them in trump's defense.
these 'presidential records act doesn't have criminal penalties' and 'nara cannot designate documents to be presidential records' theories sounds like real winners. why isn't trump pursuing them instead of his current (?) 'i declassified them with my mind' defense?
if so, then i truly, sincerely think that those people should put aggiehawg in contact with trumpworld, so she can explain her theories to people that can actually pursue them in trump's defense.
these 'presidential records act doesn't have criminal penalties' and 'nara cannot designate documents to be presidential records' theories sounds like real winners. why isn't trump pursuing them instead of his current (?) 'i declassified them with my mind' defense?
Would be interesting if they can string together a writ of certiorari to get the Court to hear his case under original jurisdiction.
Just shooting in the dark. I did find it interesting that Turley jumped immediately to Trump pardoning himself if ever elected. He mentioned it in practically every interview today.
I was not able to catch an interview with Dersh. He probably knows this stuff better than most. I imagine those true constitutional experts are vomiting in their mouths over this.
And you are right, it stinks to high heaven.
Just shooting in the dark. I did find it interesting that Turley jumped immediately to Trump pardoning himself if ever elected. He mentioned it in practically every interview today.
I was not able to catch an interview with Dersh. He probably knows this stuff better than most. I imagine those true constitutional experts are vomiting in their mouths over this.
And you are right, it stinks to high heaven.
Quote:
Article III. [JUDICIAL]
Section 2. [JURISDICTION] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
Cool your jets homey.agjacent said:
aren't there people who post here that have ties to trump, or at least his campaign?
if so, then i truly, sincerely think that those people should put aggiehawg in contact with trumpworld, so she can explain her theories to people that can actually pursue them in trump's defense.
these 'presidential records act doesn't have criminal penalties' and 'nara cannot designate documents to be presidential records' theories sounds like real winners. why isn't trump pursuing them instead of his current (?) 'i declassified them with my mind' defense?
One does not put forth their defense as the first step in these sorts of proceedings.
The defenses will be presented during any pre trail proceedings (if relevant) or during the trial.
There are people way, war smarter than your average poster on TexAgs. Certainly smarter than the average Joe that think this is justice being applied to Trump.
PRA is does not have civil penalties. Go read it and look it up and look at any article explaining it.
NARA does not have the right nor authority to designate records as personal v presidential. This is in the PRA and in subsequent SCOTUS rulings.
Educate yourself then try again.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
You have already seen the defense motions here? I haven't.agjacent said:
aren't there people who post here that have ties to trump, or at least his campaign?
if so, then i truly, sincerely think that those people should put aggiehawg in contact with trumpworld, so she can explain her theories to people that can actually pursue them in trump's defense.
these 'presidential records act doesn't have criminal penalties' and 'nara cannot designate documents to be presidential records' theories sounds like real winners. why isn't trump pursuing them instead of his current (?) 'i declassified them with my mind' defense?
But I would wager his lawyers will say the same as I did. It might be complicated but it ain't rocket science.
Nice try but nope.Quote:
Would be interesting if they can string together a writ of certiorari to get the Court to hear his case under original jurisdiction.
Seems like the most appropriate option is a convention of the states and let's rework this whole thing.
Our Constitution has been *******ized to the point that it needs to be eulogized. Sad what the progressive libs have brought upon us.
Our Constitution has been *******ized to the point that it needs to be eulogized. Sad what the progressive libs have brought upon us.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
I hope you're right, aggiehawg. I really do. I can't wait for trump's legal team to make these arguments. After all, if it's not 'rocket science' then any competent attorney should be able to identify these defenses and successfully argue them in court.aggiehawg said:You have already seen the defense motions here? I haven't.agjacent said:
aren't there people who post here that have ties to trump, or at least his campaign?
if so, then i truly, sincerely think that those people should put aggiehawg in contact with trumpworld, so she can explain her theories to people that can actually pursue them in trump's defense.
these 'presidential records act doesn't have criminal penalties' and 'nara cannot designate documents to be presidential records' theories sounds like real winners. why isn't trump pursuing them instead of his current (?) 'i declassified them with my mind' defense?
But I would wager his lawyers will say the same as I did. It might be complicated but it ain't rocket science.
According to Jesse tonight: everybody else is wrong. The Presidential Records Act clearly allows Trump to do what he did. Open/Shut. The Supreme Court case on Bill Clinton authored by a Obama federal circuit court of appeals judge shuts down all arguments. Jesse really put his neck out tonight. I think he's right!
The PRA was put in place to prevent these sorts of disputes from being "criminal" in nature following the Nixon ruckus.
Its more complex than what Jesse boils it down to, but its not off the mark.
Everyone is about to become VERY familiar with the PRA. I read it last August and have oft referred to it.
Same with the classification issue. People are laughing about the "tape recordings". Trump can equally say "yea, I forgot I actually did declassify that but knew I couldn't share it, so in those discussions I just held up a piece of paper as an example". Its his word against.... well, its just his word and you can either believe or not.
Sit back and enjoy, its not a simple case at all.
Its more complex than what Jesse boils it down to, but its not off the mark.
Everyone is about to become VERY familiar with the PRA. I read it last August and have oft referred to it.
Same with the classification issue. People are laughing about the "tape recordings". Trump can equally say "yea, I forgot I actually did declassify that but knew I couldn't share it, so in those discussions I just held up a piece of paper as an example". Its his word against.... well, its just his word and you can either believe or not.
Sit back and enjoy, its not a simple case at all.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
I do not think the Clinton sock drawer case went to SCOTUS. Do you have a citation?Bryanisbest said:
According to Jesse tonight: everybody else is wrong. The Presidential Records Act clearly allows Trump to do what he did. Open/Shut. The Supreme Court case on Bill Clinton authored by a Obama federal circuit court of appeals judge shuts down all arguments. Jesse really put his neck out tonight. I think he's right!
ETA: Pro tip, don't try to use ChatGPT.
Of course you do.Bryanisbest said:
According to Jesse tonight: everybody else is wrong. The Presidential Records Act clearly allows Trump to do what he did. Open/Shut. The Supreme Court case on Bill Clinton authored by a Obama federal circuit court of appeals judge shuts down all arguments. Jesse really put his neck out tonight. I think he's right!
If Jesse said Trump was guilty, you'd be throwing him under the bus.
Agreed probably nope ...
But,
Trump could argue that as former president and current presidential candidate he falls within the meaning of 'other public ministers' under the Judicial Act of 1789 and therefore the Court is entitled to exercise original jurisdiction.
But,
Trump could argue that as former president and current presidential candidate he falls within the meaning of 'other public ministers' under the Judicial Act of 1789 and therefore the Court is entitled to exercise original jurisdiction.
That's what I was getting at but its a whole new area. I tend to think we are squarely within "unprecedented" territory so SCOTUS is going to have to grow a pair this time around.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Agreed probably nope ...
But,
Trump could argue that as former president and current presidential candidate he falls within the meaning of 'other public ministers' under the Judicial Act of 1789 and therefore the Court is entitled to exercise original jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS saw what happened last time it applied the Constitution to a controversial issue. People tried to kill them at the encouragement of Libs and the DOJ stood idly by.
Just ****ing disgusting.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
aggiehawg said:I do not think the Clinton sock drawer case went to SCOTUS. Do you have a citation?Bryanisbest said:
According to Jesse tonight: everybody else is wrong. The Presidential Records Act clearly allows Trump to do what he did. Open/Shut. The Supreme Court case on Bill Clinton authored by a Obama federal circuit court of appeals judge shuts down all arguments. Jesse really put his neck out tonight. I think he's right!
ETA: Pro tip, don't try to use ChatGPT.
No, he did not give a citation. As I understood it, he was not citing S Ct but a federal circuit court of appeals which was not taken up to S Ct. Now, we'll settled law.
So few cases under PRA that the Clinton opinion was by a federal district court and went no further.Quote:
No, he did not give a citation. As I understood it, he was not citing S Ct but a federal circuit court of appeals which was not taken up to S Ct. Now, we'll settled law.
.aggiehawg said:So few cases under PRA that the Clinton opinion was by a federal district court and went no further.Quote:
No, he did not give a citation. As I understood it, he was not citing S Ct but a federal circuit court of appeals which was not taken up to S Ct. Now, we'll settled law.
Hawg, do you have a cite on that Clinton case. What is your opinion on it?
Already linked it in the thread. Federal District Court Judge Amy Berman, who hates Trump BTW, wrote the decision.Bryanisbest said:.aggiehawg said:So few cases under PRA that the Clinton opinion was by a federal district court and went no further.Quote:
No, he did not give a citation. As I understood it, he was not citing S Ct but a federal circuit court of appeals which was not taken up to S Ct. Now, we'll settled law.
Hawg, do you have a cite on that Clinton case. What is your opinion on it?
ETA: But here you go LINK
Featured Stories
See All
OK, Boomer: Old hallmarks still vital to winning football games
by Olin Buchanan
Seven 'Quadrant 1A' resume boosters still available for Texas A&M
by Luke Evangelist
40:22
5h ago
947
The Fan Show sponsored by PrizePicks
by Ryan Brauninger
12:20
1d ago
8.4k
25:24
7h ago
1.2k
Logan Lee chats about A&M hoops' highs and lows as SEC play rolls on
by Ryan Brauninger