---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Mondemonium's attempt at derail notwithstanding, here's my follow up:

As I understand the situation, there is necesarilly a time required in which the Archivist of NARA and the EOP have to determine what is Presidential, and what is Personal. Members of an outgoing administration have days to get everything packed and out. Naturally, Presidential and Personal records will be comingled.

PRA desginates that a NARA "holding factility" be designated to house the records, but looking a recent precedent, the fact that Biden and Pence as VPs had boxes of records as well that contained classified documents indicates that there is not a difinitive process has been normally followed.

So my questions are:
1. Why did not NARA and/or the Biden administration have a facility designated to transport records to? And is this even a thing? What happened to the boxes of records under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, & Obama while Personal records were being sorted from Presidential records.

2. Was it not Biden/NARA that originally authorized sending the docs to MAL?

(I would argue that the first Bush presidency might provide the only comparable example as GHWB was the only one-term president who had run for re-election and lost.) Were Bush's records sent to A&M? I do know that the library was not built yet. I'm not even sure ground was broken. So where did they go?

To me, these are the driving factors of whether this indictment holds water. To Mondemonium's derail, it is an inane argument to assert that Trump should have had to turn over all his Personal records along with Presidential records to avoid prosecution. And this is not about drinking a Beer. It's an administrative, process dispute that has been conflated to a crime for political purposes. Everyone knows it. Half the country is willing to admit it.

---

FishrCoAg said:

From election day to inauguration is 2+ months. Did they even start sorting or were they too focused on the "stop the steal" campaign that Trump is on reportedly on record as knowing was untrue?

---

jrdaustin said:

My guess is no. Up until Jan 6th, I think Trump believed that the election was fraudulent and that his presidency would continue. If that's the case, then the WH had 14 days to prepare to vacate. Basically, just enough time to throw everything into boxes and sort it out later.

Not the smartest thing to do, but hardly criminal.

---

eric76 said:

I've read that NARA employees were sent to the White House a month or so before to train the White House employees on how different records should be handled and to help them with the job.

---

My general word-of-mouth understanding is that traditionally, the Archivist sends guidance and draft internal guidance orders to the White House for POTUS to sign on January 21.

And while the PRA doesn't tell the White House exactly how to do it, the PRA says the designations are supposed to be made contemporaneously when the material is created.

Quote:

---

(b) Documentary materials produced or received by the President, the President's staff, or units or individuals in the Executive Office of the President the function of which is to advise or assist the President, shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.

---

Immigrants have been seen way worse than Jan. 6; it's a bit of a privileged position to pearl-clutch at that.

Opalka said:

---

For all of you getting your knickers in a knot over this case.....there's a LOT more coming down the pike. Namely, regarding Jan. 6th. except there are now 10 congressmen's names associated with it, that met with Pence to try to talk him into overturning the election results. And that could be YUGE, if 10 congressmen go down with Trump on that one. You can probably guess most of the names, like Jim Jordon, MTG. Stay tuned.

---

Fulton County is not going to be a picnic either. The 40% MAGA base will call him God and super duper pinky swear they are going to emphatically vote for him EVEN MORE enthusiastically x 1000% because of all those things the "Deep State" made him do (which he admits doing but didn't do, but even if he did do, he had the full godlike power to do). But the independents and CM will be even more turned off, hold their noses one more time and vote for Dementia Joe in the general election. Everything Trump Touches, Dies. Including the GOP and our country.

the_batman26 said:

---

You can say that Trump shouldn't have done what he did and that Hillary shouldn't have either. But one is being charged, and "no reasonable prosecutor" could bring charges on the other.

---

And claiming that one should not be charged BECAUSE the other wasn't charged is textbook whataboutism.

Focus on the felonies Trump committed.

Opalka said:

---

For all of you getting your knickers in a knot over this case.....there's a LOT more coming down the pike. Namely, regarding Jan. 6th. except there are now 10 congressmen's names associated with it, that met with Pence to try to talk him into overturning the election results. And that could be YUGE, if 10 congressmen go down with Trump on that one. You can probably guess most of the names, like Jim Jordon, MTG. Stay tuned.

---

Dude, if something like that were to happen, bullets would start being used. You think the right will sit by idly while you your fellow Marxists start taking down congressmen?

Lol, no.

And for your info, the target will not be government, it will be jurors and judges and those in positions of wealth and power and influence that facilitate the work of the Marxist government. For example, those left-wing news journalists you adore at MSNBC.

Except one did destroy said documents. The other did not.

Irrelevant.

---

the_batman26 said:

---

You can say that Trump shouldn't have done what he did and that Hillary shouldn't have either. But one is being charged, and "no reasonable prosecutor" could bring charges on the other.

---

fc2112 said:

And claiming that one should not be charged BECAUSE the other wasn't charged is textbook whataboutism.

Focus on the felonies Trump committed.

---

Not Guilty your Honor

Lol how is that irrelevant? She was also a cabinet member who holds way, way less authority surrounding classified documents than the head of the Executive Branch.

Good watch Hawg. I assume you a primarily referring to the David Nunes part which occurs about halfway through.

He ends by mentioning the Obama Trump letter and the Kim Jong "love letters". I came across that separately in the other thread where you asked about when this flipped from NARA to Espionage. WaPo had an article from Feb 9, 2022 on the request from NARA to DOJ to look into the dispute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/09/trump-archives-justice-department/

(behind paywall, I am sure someone can quote it)

This is absolute weaponization and "trumped" up allegations.

But 81 million people are focused on Jim Jordan and other congressman being hung for Treason and Insurrection and gleefully call that "justice".

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

FishrCoAg said:

---

Unless you are required by law to have it done…

---

jrdaustin said:

LIke Biden obviously did, right? I mean, he had only 7 years to go through his crap, where Trump had a huge two years.

---

FishrCoAg said:

Stealing a blue star of whataboutism for this reply.

---

jrdaustin said:

Ok. So equal justice means nothing to you, correct? No need to hold a VP to the same standard with 2.5x the time and less records to go through. We've got our man, no?

Whataboutism is a fun card to play in the political arena. We're in the legal arena now, and precedent is a thing.

---

eric76 said:

So which court decisions do you claim would excuse Trump?

---

That's not the point I was making. I was saying DOJ cannot decline to prosecute one group of individuals for an act, then target a different group for the same act.

Dersh made an analogy of LE deep south not caring if white people ran a stop sign, but hammering people of color who did. Are you saying that's okay?

So what was this all about to begin with?

May 17, 2023.

Quote:

---

Today, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (OH-10) issued the following statement after the Committee voted to release an unclassified transcript containing the testimony of officials from the National Archives and Records Administration that took place in March:

"Testimony from the National Archives and Records Administration officials makes clear that the handling and mishandling of classified documents are a problem that stretches beyond the Oval Office. In fact, dozens of former Members of Congress and senior government officials have taken classified documents with them after leaving office and donated them to libraries and universities across the country. This is a systemic problem that dates to the Reagan Administration. We need a better way for elected officials who are leaving office in both the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to properly return classified material and protect the integrity of our national security," said Chairman Mike Turner.
To read the unclassified transcript, click here.
Background:

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials testified that when it comes to the retention of classified documents, the problem is broader than former Presidents and Vice Presidents. Since 2010, NARA has received over 80 calls from different libraries and universities where former Members of Congress and senior government officials have taken papers and donated them. For instance, Senator Edmund Muskie inadvertently sent 98 classified documents to Bates College.
NARA officials testified that every presidential administration since the Reagan Administration has mishandled classified material, and they found classified and unclassified documents that were commingled.

NARA was looking for items of historical interest (e.g., the letter that President Obama left for President Trump and President Trump's correspondence with Kim Jong Un) and was not aware of missing classified documents.

---

House Intelligence Community

So what was so special about Obama's letter welcoming Trump to the White House?

He inserted classified information about North Korea's nuclear capabilities into it. Why? Couldn't that info be inserted into a PDB and not a personal letter? And who probably drafted the letter for him? Susan Rice and Lisa Monaco. The same Lisa Monaco that is Bratt's Gal Friday at DOJ Nat Sec.

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

Updating my odds to 1% that Trump is exiled to the island of Saint Helena off the coast of Africa for the rest of his natural life.

---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

Quote:

---

There is no reason, when the DOJ has been sued, that the DOJ should be expected to sit back as a judge butchers the law multiple times.

---

aggiehawg said:

So appointing a Special Master never happens when the FBI seizes attorney client communications?

That is what you are saying?

---

jrdaustin said:

Not only that, but tax returns, passports, personal documents and items, private records containing personal notations, etc.

Apparently all of that is fair game against a former POTUS dare they question the actions of the almighty F. B. I.

Not to mention it's information that can be quite useful in a future election campaign.

---

eric76 said:

"Taint team". I assume that they did their job and returned documents that were not covered by the subpoena. Did they not do that?

---

I don't know. Do you? Should a DOJ taint team that answers to a political rival have unfettered access to documents that could assist their side in a future election?

Be careful before you answer. We have a full election season to go through and it's not yet time for anonymous leaks of information.

They also wanted the "modified "Hurricane Dorian Map w/ Trump Sharpie". Why that document?

Well, if you remember, many tried to claim altering the hurricane map BROKE THE LAW.

Quote:

---

Some on Twitter also noted that, under law, knowingly issuing a false weather report is a violation of the law subject to imprisonment and or fine.

---

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757586936/trump-displays-altered-map-of-hurricane-dorians-path-to-include-alabama

Quote:

---

18 U.S. Code 2074 - False weather reports

Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

---

fka ftc said:

---

They also wanted the "modified "Hurricane Dorian Map w/ Trump Sharpie". Why that document?

Well, if you remember, many tried to claim altering the hurricane map BROKE THE LAW.

Quote:

---

Some on Twitter also noted that, under law, knowingly issuing a false weather report is a violation of the law subject to imprisonment and or fine.

---

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757586936/trump-displays-altered-map-of-hurricane-dorians-path-to-include-alabama

Quote:

---

18 U.S. Code 2074 - False weather reports

Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

---

---

Holy crap I had forgotten about that. The left is completely unhinged

Vivek needs to go ahead and endorse Trump already. This is freaking hilarious with Loomer trying to get him on a megaphone. Oh, he also says that DeSantis isn't in Florida which is untrue while he wears a hat saying "Truth" like it's an ad for Trump's platform, he just isn't in Miami.

Vivek Ramaswamy struggles to get a megaphone working while giving a speech outside of the Miami courthouse. pic.twitter.com/UDpokbYW3o

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 13, 2023

Loading full tweet…

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

---

It is not necessarily a matter of pre-emption but as a rule the more narrow statute that applies to the precise facts is preferred over a much broader statute such as the 100 year old Espionage Act.

And not to put too fine a point on this but there are other statutes that specifically apply to dissemination or retention of classified information that would have applied if it were really about classified documents other than the Espionage Act. Where are they in the indictment?

Quote:

---

So what was so special about Obama's letter welcoming Trump to the White House?

He inserted classified information about North Korea's nuclear capabilities into it. Why? Couldn't that info be inserted into a PDB and not a personal letter? And who probably drafted the letter for him? Susan Rice and Lisa Monaco. The same Lisa Monaco that is Bratt's Gal Friday at DOJ Nat Sec.

---

That's not at all what that says. What are you talking about?

They'd seriously try it lol. I guess 2016-2023 is kinda akin to the various coalitions against Napoleon.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

---

aggiehawg said:

It is not necessarily a matter of pre-emption but as a rule the more narrow statute that applies to the precise facts is preferred over a much broader statute such as the 100 year old Espionage Act.

And not to put too fine a point on this but there are other statutes that specifically apply to dissemination or retention of classified information that would have applied if it were really about classified documents other than the Espionage Act. Where are they in the indictment?

---

That's now how our legal system works, nor is the PRA "more narrow" than the statutes in the indictment, anyhow.

Quote:

---

That's not at all what that says. What are you talking about?

---

So the archivist was lying to the House Intelligence Committee about what they really wanted?

the_batman26 said:

---

They'd seriously try it lol. I guess 2016-2023 is kinda akin to the various coalitions against Napoleon.

---

Hence my comments regarding his passports and international travel. You can be assured if they cannot be in prison they will find a way to send him to exile island.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

---

aggiehawg said:

It is not necessarily a matter of pre-emption but as a rule the more narrow statute that applies to the precise facts is preferred over a much broader statute such as the 100 year old Espionage Act.

And not to put too fine a point on this but there are other statutes that specifically apply to dissemination or retention of classified information that would have applied if it were really about classified documents other than the Espionage Act. Where are they in the indictment?

---

TXAggie2011 said:

That's now how our legal system works, nor is the PRA "more narrow" than the statutes in the indictment, anyhow.

---

Yes it is. And the PRA only applies to the documents in this case and no others. Can't get any narrower than that.

---

Opalka said:

---

For all of you getting your knickers in a knot over this case.....there's a LOT more coming down the pike. Namely, regarding Jan. 6th. except there are now 10 congressmen's names associated with it, that met with Pence to try to talk him into overturning the election results. And that could be YUGE, if 10 congressmen go down with Trump on that one. You can probably guess most of the names, like Jim Jordon, MTG. Stay tuned.

---

Logos Stick said:

Dude, if something like that were to happen, bullets would start being used. You think the right will sit by idly while you your fellow Marxists start taking down congressmen?

Lol, no.

And for your info, the target will not be government, it will be jurors and judges and those in positions of wealth and power and influence that facilitate the work of the Marxist government. For example, those left-wing news journalists you adore at MSNBC.

---

Settle down there rambo. The only ones on the right that might even attempt to start using bullets are Trump loyalists. I guarantee many on the right would draw the line at doing something stupid. What you would likely have is another Jan 6 only this time with people actually firing weapons. No one of any intelligence is going to risk their or their families livelihood for Trump.
Certainly no one on this board is dumb enough to, as you put it 'target jurors and judges'. People need to just step back from the crazy.

---

Quote:

---

That's not at all what that says. What are you talking about?

---

aggiehawg said:

So the archivist was lying to the House Intelligence Committee about what they really wanted?

---

You posted something saying NARA was looking for Obama's letter to Trump and Trump's correspondence with Kim Jung Un, amongst other documents, and then I understand your post to have said "Obama slipped North Korean info" into his welcome letter.

Clarify what you're claiming because that's not what was said in that document

Quote:

---

That's not the point I was making. I was saying DOJ cannot decline to prosecute one group of individuals for an act, then target a different group for the same act.

---

Really? J6 v BLM ring a bell? How many filed selective prosecution motions to dismiss?

Quote:

---

Dersh made an analogy of LE deep south not caring if white people ran a stop sign, but hammering people of color who did. Are you saying that's okay?

---

Likely referenced US v Armstrong.

---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

---

aggiehawg said:

It is not necessarily a matter of pre-emption but as a rule the more narrow statute that applies to the precise facts is preferred over a much broader statute such as the 100 year old Espionage Act.

And not to put too fine a point on this but there are other statutes that specifically apply to dissemination or retention of classified information that would have applied if it were really about classified documents other than the Espionage Act. Where are they in the indictment?

---

TXAggie2011 said:

That's now how our legal system works, nor is the PRA "more narrow" than the statutes in the indictment, anyhow.

---

aggiehawg said:

Yes it is. And the PRA only applies to the documents in this case and no others. Can't get any narrower than that.

---

The PRA covers a universe of documents which may or may not be national defense info. The national defense info statutes in the indictment cover a universe of documents which may or may not be materials covered by the PRA.

There is nothing preemptive of the other, or inherently more narrow than the other. They are simply each their own circles within a complicated Venn diagram.

It wouldn't be defending Trump. Not at all. It's defending the rule of law.

If they are wrong the DOJ can't amend the substance of the indictment now. So it's up to this judge to it all sort out. If the DOJ charges under the wrong law, then what? Then what is that this case still drags out for 3-years. Then the 11th cir has got to power over whether a case against a former president and current presidential candidate can move forward. A truly unprecedented situation.

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

Opalka said:

---

For all of you getting your knickers in a knot over this case.....there's a LOT more coming down the pike. Namely, regarding Jan. 6th. except there are now 10 congressmen's names associated with it, that met with Pence to try to talk him into overturning the election results. And that could be YUGE, if 10 congressmen go down with Trump on that one. You can probably guess most of the names, like Jim Jordon, MTG. Stay tuned.

---

Logos Stick said:

Dude, if something like that were to happen, bullets would start being used. You think the right will sit by idly while you your fellow Marxists start taking down congressmen?

Lol, no.

And for your info, the target will not be government, it will be jurors and judges and those in positions of wealth and power and influence that facilitate the work of the Marxist government. For example, those left-wing news journalists you adore at MSNBC.

---

BluHorseShu said:

Settle down there rambo. The only ones on the right that might even attempt to start using bullets are Trump loyalists. I guarantee many on the right would draw the line at doing something stupid. What you would likely have is another Jan 6 only this time with people actually firing weapons. No one of any intelligence is going to risk their or their families livelihood for Trump.
Certainly no one on this board is dumb enough to, as you put it 'target jurors and judges'. People need to just step back from the crazy.

---

Good grief. I never claimed that anyone on this board would do a darn thing.

And you're as gullible as a two year old if you think jailing conservative reps and senators would not lead to bloodshed. That's a bridge to far my liberal friend. Jail Trump and see what happens. I wouldn't want to be a jury member. That's not a threat from me Einstein, it's a prediction of what someone will do.

It won't be January 6th because it won't be done openly. Do you believe people are that stupid? They've seen what happens to the right when you attack liberals with cell phones.

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

---

aggiehawg said:

It is not necessarily a matter of pre-emption but as a rule the more narrow statute that applies to the precise facts is preferred over a much broader statute such as the 100 year old Espionage Act.

And not to put too fine a point on this but there are other statutes that specifically apply to dissemination or retention of classified information that would have applied if it were really about classified documents other than the Espionage Act. Where are they in the indictment?

---

TXAggie2011 said:

That's now how our legal system works, nor is the PRA "more narrow" than the statutes in the indictment, anyhow.

---

aggiehawg said:

Yes it is. And the PRA only applies to the documents in this case and no others. Can't get any narrower than that.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

The PRA covers a universe of documents which may or may not be national defense info. The national defense info statutes in the indictment cover a universe of documents which may or may not be materials covered by the PRA.

There is nothing preemptive of the other, or inherently more narrow than the other. They are simply each their own circles within a complicated Venn diagram.

---

Agreed and thats the way it probably plays out here. The reverse of this would mean that the DOJ didn't do any kind of due diligence and completely ****ed up the indictment. What is more likely the case here?

---

---

+ 4 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

---

aggiehawg said:

It is not necessarily a matter of pre-emption but as a rule the more narrow statute that applies to the precise facts is preferred over a much broader statute such as the 100 year old Espionage Act.

And not to put too fine a point on this but there are other statutes that specifically apply to dissemination or retention of classified information that would have applied if it were really about classified documents other than the Espionage Act. Where are they in the indictment?

---

TXAggie2011 said:

That's now how our legal system works, nor is the PRA "more narrow" than the statutes in the indictment, anyhow.

---

aggiehawg said:

Yes it is. And the PRA only applies to the documents in this case and no others. Can't get any narrower than that.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

The PRA covers a universe of documents which may or may not be national defense info. The national defense info statutes in the indictment cover a universe of documents which may or may not be materials covered by the PRA.

There is nothing preemptive of the other, or inherently more narrow than the other. They are simply each their own circles within a complicated Venn diagram.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Agreed and thats the way it probably plays out here. The reverse of this would mean that the DOJ didn't do any kind of due diligence and completely ****ed up the indictment. What is more likely the case here?

---

The DOJ would have no role in a dispute between NARA and Trump under the PRA.

So their only choice was to indict over the Espionage Act.

This isn't rocket science. This is a weaponized DOJ run by corrupt folks wanting to get Trump at all costs, no matter how badly they have to misapply laws and ignore other laws and other crimes.

So its not as much as the DOJ ****ed it up intentionally, they only had one road to go down no matter the costs.

And they also do not care if this goes to trail quickly or ever. As long as this can be used by MSM to provide cover for Pedo Pay for Play Joe, then it will be allowed to continue. Or it will die a long slow death if it proves no longer useful.

You and others have mentioned, none of this is about the actual laws, justice or the US Constitution.