J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Not really the point though. He could have avoided all of this by just giving them back (which is what Biden and Pence did immediately). But, like the 5 year old he is, he wanted to keep his toys. Which is objectively pretty hilarious.

---

Pence did. Biden has not. See boxes at Penn and at U of Delaware. Specifically, no ONE but Biden knows what are in the Delaware boxes from his 40 years as Senator, a period from which he stole documents from a SCIF as evidenced by the docs found in his garage. Try again.

jteAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Trump had EVERY right to possess the docs in question under the PRA. Period, the end.

The rest is just noise and witch hunting.

---

Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
Part of the PRA .
Just because he says he intitled to these, he's not being truthful. But, hey, he's never lied or misled before, right?

---

Then why did the Biden admin ship them to Trump's personal residence? Seems like whomever did that is the one who violated the PRA, not Trump.

And the incumbent POTUS has the right to declare whatever he wants as PERSONAL and NARA has to prove it otherwise NOT personal. You guys need to try and keep up with the facts. Read back through the previous 20 pages.

fka ftc said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the absolute funniest part to me. All he had to do was just give them back and none of this would be happening. But he can't do that, because he's a 76 year old child.

---

All he had to do was tell the Jan 6 folks to peacefully protest and nothing would have happened to him...oh wait.

All he had to do was provide the transcript of the call he made with Zelensky and nothing would have happened to him...oh wait.

All he had to do was to tell reporters about Charlottesville that and I quote "you had people and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists" and nothing would happen to him and he wouldn't be misquoted two billion times as a racist calling skinheads and neo-Nazis fine people...oh wait.

---

I mean, I'm no legal expert, but it seems like it would be tough to charge him with mishandling classified documents if he…had already given them back?

---

On what legal grounds was he required to give them back?

Hint: None. He had the right to possess under PRA. Its a civil dispute that the weaponized DOJ fabricated into a criminal case. Try and keep up.

---

Under Executive Order 13526, Trump was required to have a waiver of the "need to know" requirement to access classified materials but according to the indictment, he never obtained any such waiver.

Note that when he was running for President in 2016, Trump repeatedly said that he would enforce all laws regarding classified information. He said that "No one will be above the law." Now, he wants to change that.

fka ftc said:

---

jteAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Trump had EVERY right to possess the docs in question under the PRA. Period, the end.

The rest is just noise and witch hunting.

---

Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
Part of the PRA .
Just because he says he intitled to these, he's not being truthful. But, hey, he's never lied or misled before, right?

---

Then why did the Biden admin ship them to Trump's personal residence? Seems like whomever did that is the one who violated the PRA, not Trump.

And the incumbent POTUS has the right to declare whatever he wants as PERSONAL and NARA has to prove it otherwise NOT personal. You guys need to try and keep up with the facts. Read back through the previous 20 pages.

---

He was asked, then requested, to return the files back to the Archives.
He took many steps to disregard the request, the made numerous efforts to hide and move the files.
He thinks he's God, that he can do whatever he wants, and is above the law!
No matter what he did while in office, he ruined his legacy by Jan 6, Election interference, and this self-inflicted stunt with the files.
May he rot in jail. EOT, period.

eric76 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the absolute funniest part to me. All he had to do was just give them back and none of this would be happening. But he can't do that, because he's a 76 year old child.

---

All he had to do was tell the Jan 6 folks to peacefully protest and nothing would have happened to him...oh wait.

All he had to do was provide the transcript of the call he made with Zelensky and nothing would have happened to him...oh wait.

All he had to do was to tell reporters about Charlottesville that and I quote "you had people and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists" and nothing would happen to him and he wouldn't be misquoted two billion times as a racist calling skinheads and neo-Nazis fine people...oh wait.

---

I mean, I'm no legal expert, but it seems like it would be tough to charge him with mishandling classified documents if he…had already given them back?

---

On what legal grounds was he required to give them back?

Hint: None. He had the right to possess under PRA. Its a civil dispute that the weaponized DOJ fabricated into a criminal case. Try and keep up.

---

Under Executive Order 13526, Trump was required to have a waiver of the "need to know" requirement to access classified materials but according to the indictment, he never obtained any such waiver.

Note that when he was running for President in 2016, Trump repeatedly said that he would enforce all laws regarding classified information. He said that "No one will be above the law." Now, he wants to change that.

---

Is there a tweet, clip or some kind of receipt where Trump said this?

I'm sorry, but there are Romanians and Cambodians, to name but a few, who'd like a word on what actual, violent attempts to subvert government look like; compared to whatever Jan 6 was.

I expect these kind of appeals to emotions from sips.

Quote:

---

Under Executive Order 13526, Trump was required to have a waiver of the "need to know" requirement to access classified materials but according to the indictment, he never obtained any such waiver.

---

And what are the sanctions for violating said EO?

Quote:

---

(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.

---

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Under Executive Order 13526, Trump was required to have a waiver of the "need to know" requirement to access classified materials but according to the indictment, he never obtained any such waiver.

---

And what are the sanctions for violating said EO?

Quote:

---

(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.

---

LINK

---

Quote:

---

Note that when he was running for President in 2016, Trump repeatedly said that he would enforce all laws regarding classified information. He said that "No one will be above the law." Now, he wants to change that.

---

So he is being prosecuted for breaking a campaign promise now? For maybe being a hypocrite?

Because if that is the standard now, I know of a few other people who should be held accountable.

Executive Orders are more of an Admin Law thing anyway. Not sure why armchair JDs are giving it such weight.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Note that when he was running for President in 2016, Trump repeatedly said that he would enforce all laws regarding classified information. He said that "No one will be above the law." Now, he wants to change that.

---

So he is being prosecuted for breaking a campaign promise now? For maybe being a hypocrite?

Because if that is the standard now, I know of a few other people who should be held accountable.

---

Yet the only one they acknowledge is Trump. How convenient.

A sitting POTUS is not bound by any laws of the United States except as provided for under the US Constitution explicitly. Any alleged violation of those laws for a sitting POTUS is the impeachment process.

POTUS is the Executive Branch. He is not head of it, he IS the Executive. As such, he is not bound by any of his rules he creates or that were created prior to him assuming office.

You may not like those facts, but its clear as day in the US Constitution. In fact, its is that way to prevent the sort of ****nannery we are seeing now.

However, since these allegations of inappropriate handling of incumbent POTUS records has occurred after he was no longer in office, there will be a debate on whether the PRA supersedes the Espionage Act. That will likely wind up at SCOTUS and for the sake of our Country then DJT should prevail.

Quit watching CNN to get your talking points folks. We are in brand new territory and the most literal interpretation should prevail. If Dems want to block Trump from running, charge him with Treason, impeach & convict him, of shut the ever living f up for once.

We have elections for a reason. Jailing your political opponents is sort of counter-productive to democratic norms and elections.

jteAg said:

---

He was asked, then requested, to return the files back to the Archives.
He took many steps to disregard the request, the made numerous efforts to hide and move the files.
He thinks he's God, that he can do whatever he wants, and is above the law!
No matter what he did while in office, he ruined his legacy by Jan 6, Election interference, and this self-inflicted stunt with the files.
May he rot in jail. EOT, period.

---

You first.

Every single point above is just flat out wrong or gross hyperbole.

But if following Rachel Maddow for advice, then God speed to you.

the_batman26 said:

---

Executive Orders are more of an Admin Law thing anyway. Not sure why armchair JDs are giving it such weight.

---

My point is that even violating an EO is not converted into an act of espionage by the EOs own terms.

Precisely. People who didn't, fortunately, sit through an Admin Law class read something foreboding like "Executive Order" and think it's this all powerful thing, when it's not.

the_batman26 said:

---

Precisely. People who didn't, fortunately, sit through an Admin Law class read something foreboding like "Executive Order" and think it's this all powerful thing, when it's not.

---

Also it is an Obama EO. Very long, very complicated, contradictory in places, kind of a mess really.

My eyes were glazing over reading through it to find the sanctions provision because I knew it was in there somewhere.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Under Executive Order 13526, Trump was required to have a waiver of the "need to know" requirement to access classified materials but according to the indictment, he never obtained any such waiver.

---

And what are the sanctions for violating said EO?

Quote:

---

(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.

---

LINK

---

---

Wow. So in your mind that would include "put in jail and throw away the key"?

I'm having a hard time believing we grew up in the same country.

jteAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

jteAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Trump had EVERY right to possess the docs in question under the PRA. Period, the end.

The rest is just noise and witch hunting.

---

Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
Part of the PRA .
Just because he says he intitled to these, he's not being truthful. But, hey, he's never lied or misled before, right?

---

Then why did the Biden admin ship them to Trump's personal residence? Seems like whomever did that is the one who violated the PRA, not Trump.

And the incumbent POTUS has the right to declare whatever he wants as PERSONAL and NARA has to prove it otherwise NOT personal. You guys need to try and keep up with the facts. Read back through the previous 20 pages.

---

He was asked, then requested, to return the files back to the Archives.
He took many steps to disregard the request, the made numerous efforts to hide and move the files.
He thinks he's God, that he can do whatever he wants, and is above the law!
No matter what he did while in office, he ruined his legacy by Jan 6, Election interference, and this self-inflicted stunt with the files.
May he rot in jail. EOT, period.

---

Can Hilliary, Bidens, Barack, Comey, Strock, FISA judges, etc rot with him? If you support Biden and the democrat corruption you are my enemy

If not for the history of corruption involving collusion of the DOJ, FBI, Clintons, Obamas, Bidens, and the democrat party going after Trump before the 2016 election and ever since, I might consider some of the indictments to be concerning. However, the DOJ, including the FBI, has ZERO credibility with me, and any other person with one good brain cell left who has been paying any attention at all. FJB, all his cohorts, and anybody that supports them. We have had government of, by, and for those t u r d s for decades. A president comes along that they cannot buy or bully, who wants to give government back to the people, and they go apoplectic. F them.

Edited to add that if any of the other republican candidates for president had a modicum of patriotism, they would stand down and support Trump as a matter of principle to defeat the tyrannical bureaucracy of unelected RULERS.

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

Pretty obvious the law does not apply to some people, as you just proved above.

---

Who does the law not apply to?

I am the complete opposite of saying that it does not apply to some people. Trump should be held accountable. Biden should be held accountable. Hillary should be held accountable.

---

BUT THEY'RE NOT. That's the whole damn point. Then the law doesn't mean anything, and the ones tasked with enforcing the law lose their authority given by the People to do so.

---

And why aren't they? Why hasn't Hillary already been prosecuted? Trump's DOJ certainly had the opportunity.

---

The same DOJ that pushed the Russia thing for most of his term and have been shown to have been biased against him?

You just keep proving that there are 2 tiers of justice.

And since you only rail on here about one of them (zero posts about ANYONE else - but 50+/day about Trump) it's pretty obvious which tier you care about...

fka ftc said:

---

And the incumbent POTUS has the right to declare whatever he wants as PERSONAL and NARA has to prove it otherwise NOT personal. You guys need to try and keep up with the facts. Read back through the previous 20 pages.

---

Please let us know where you found that in the PRA. I find it hard to believe there is any way a classified document created by DoD or CIA could be considered a personal document of the president.

Well said.

Deference is give the incumbent POTUS.

This based on SCOTUS case.

Do your own research. I did mine and now enjoying the pool.

Please keep in mind that the precedent has been set. Trump was impeached and tried in the Senate after he had left office. The same can be done to Biden now, for what he did as VP.

Two leading candiates for POTUS could be fightng a federal indictment and extended impeachment heraings in the House during the primaries.

Crazy times we are living in.

aggiehawg said:

---

Please keep in mind that the precedent has been set. Trump was impeached and tried in the Senate after he had left office. The same can be done to Biden now, for what he did as VP.

Two leading candiates for POTUS could be fightng a federal indictment and extended impeachment heraings in the House during the primaries.

Crazy times we are living in.

---

True, and the cause for such is what?

That's a fun point Hawg. But correct, and Biden cannot pardon himself against impeachment, but he would for the underlying "crime".

Congrats Dems, you have woven our government that is going to busy ****ing unto itself.

Laughing stock of the world, because an outsider dared to become POTUS.

fka ftc said:

---

A sitting POTUS is not bound by any laws of the United States except as provided for under the US Constitution explicitly. Any alleged violation of those laws for a sitting POTUS is the impeachment process.

POTUS is the Executive Branch. He is not head of it, he IS the Executive. As such, he is not bound by any of his rules he creates or that were created prior to him assuming office.

You may not like those facts, but its clear as day in the US Constitution. In fact, its is that way to prevent the sort of ****nannery we are seeing now.

However, since these allegations of inappropriate handling of incumbent POTUS records has occurred after he was no longer in office, there will be a debate on whether the PRA supersedes the Espionage Act. That will likely wind up at SCOTUS and for the sake of our Country then DJT should prevail.

Quit watching CNN to get your talking points folks. We are in brand new territory and the most literal interpretation should prevail. If Dems want to block Trump from running, charge him with Treason, impeach & convict him, of shut the ever living f up for once.

We have elections for a reason. Jailing your political opponents is sort of counter-productive to democratic norms and elections.

---

The taking of a public record or document is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 641. The destruction of such records may be reached under 18 U.S.C. 1361. In both instances, however, proving a $100 loss, the prerequisite to a felony conviction, may be difficult. Thus, neither of these statutes adequately protects government records.

The necessary measure of protection for government documents and records is provided by 18 U.S.C. 2071. Section 2071(a) contains a broad prohibition against destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records. This section provides that whoever: willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2, 000 fine, or both

Quote:

---

True, and the cause for such is what?

---

The cause for the Biden impeachment? Bribery from Burisma when he was VP.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

True, and the cause for such is what?

---

The cause for the Biden impeachment? Bribery from Burisma when he was VP.

---

The unprecedented level of politicization of the DOJ and the bureaucracy in general, and for basically one party, hence "crazy" times.

So when you say that, "He had the right to possess under PRA," you aren't referring to anything actually in the PRA to establish that?

Wanting agencies, especially ones not at all consistent with their functions prescribed by Congress, to undermine the Executive is a bad look.

The POTUS is the Executive, who holds much weight as per the Vesting Clause in Article II and general Unitary Executive Doctrine.

MagnumLoad said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

True, and the cause for such is what?

---

The cause for the Biden impeachment? Bribery from Burisma when he was VP.

---

The unprecedented level of politicization of the DOJ and the bureaucracy in general, and for basically one party, hence "crazy" times.

---

Oh misunderstood your question. And here I thought John Mitchell would be the worst AG ever. Holder, Lynch and Garland say hold by beer.

aggiehawg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

True, and the cause for such is what?

---

The cause for the Biden impeachment? Bribery from Burisma when he was VP.

---

The unprecedented level of politicization of the DOJ and the bureaucracy in general, and for basically one party, hence "crazy" times.

---

Oh misunderstood your question. And here I thought John Mitchell would be the worst AG ever. Holder, Lynch and Garland say hold by beer.

---

And the guy that quit (recused) right after Trump appointed him. "They" got to him. What a coward.