Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

#6,801
#6,801
NCFisher said:
Our resident experts who continue to claim certain criminality, seem reluctant to comment on this standing case law entirely relevant to the Trump case.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute

The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"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," she added.

You can read the full ruling here:
File
memorandum opinion.pdf
The judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his tenure and his only responsibility was to inform the Archives.

As to whether records a president concluded were personal can be forcibly seized after he leaves office, the court concluded it was unreasonable to force NARA to go get the tapes

"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them," Jackson noted. "Defendant considers this to be an 'extraordinary request' that is unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law. The Court agrees."

That defendant was the same Justice Department that authorized the raid on Trump's estate. You can read their arguments a decade earlier here:

File
Hearing Transcript.pdf

Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.
Click to expand...
So now you are the Resident Expert with the Answers with Expert Opinions & references from the Internet. Classified documents and holding onto other documents seems to be the issue here. Nice try time will tell. Nothing to debate time will tell just let this play out.
 
#6,802
#6,802
Sudden Impact said:
So now you are the Resident Expert with the Answers with Expert Opinions & references from the Internet. Classified documents and holding onto other documents seems to be the issue here. Nice try time will tell. Nothing to debate time will tell just let this play out.
Click to expand...

I posted case law relevant to Trump's case quoting Judge Berman-Jackson, not "Answers with Expert Opinions & references from the Internet" and not playing "Resident Expert".
If you can't follow along, why bother?

The judge directly disposes of arguments you have asserted as fact, likely why you framed your response glibly instead of responding to Berman-Jackson..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and davethevol
#6,803
#6,803
I am assuming you have never handled CLASSIFIED documents at any level.
Follow along?
You stated and provided your interpretations of case law with total disregard for others for not referring to your cited case when there is much more to the case than you state. Most of this will be Apples to Oranges and other laws apply in Trump situation than what you have referenced. If I am not following along then you are even on the trail. Don't kid yourself you cited some case law not all. Trump is Not going to get to pick which laws or codes he violated. DOJ will.
 
Last edited:
#6,804
#6,804
Apparently, frump's "special master" that he requested's first order of business was to ask frump which documents he "declassified", and Frump is refusing to identify them. 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sin City Vol
#6,805
#6,805
1
Sudden Impact said:
I am assuming you have never handled CLASSIFIED documents at any level.
Follow along?
You stated and provided your interpretations of case law with total disregard for others for not referring to your cited case when there is much more to the case than you state. Most of this will be Apples to Oranges and other laws apply in Trump situation than what you have referenced. If I am not following along then you are even on the trail. Don't kid yourself you cited some case law not all. Trump is Not going to get to pick which laws or codes he violated. DOJ will.
Click to expand...

Again, no - the post was an excerpt from the article; I did not provide an interpretation.

No, I haven't handled classified info but manage to understand a false equivalence between the president and everyone else on the planet. No one else has the plenary powers of the executive presidency. When you claim to handle CI but draw a specious comparison "But if I did that....", you impugn your own knowledge, or motive.

Contrary to your assertion and others, there is no constitutional provision that the president must follow declassification rules and procedures that govern everyone else. No predicate for stating a president - with a word or gesture- may not declassify as he sees fit or that congress or the judiciary can limit it. If Trump's lawyers certified there were no longer CI docs at MAL, I don't see the judiciary not eventually deciding for him if his defense is "I declassified those docs taken in the raid before leaving office". The constitution does not prescribe how the executive does so, thus the broad acknowledgement the executive alone has sweeping classification power.

Garland has moved us into uncharted territory. If the president has such broad discretion but still from 2019-2020 worked with agencies and accepted their redactions to declassify a large collection of documents, announced publicly, and then remanded to DOJ on Jan 19 2021 to complete, it appears the onus is on DOJ to do so. If the Biden DOJ was derelict in that perfunctory action, it does not change those documents being declassified the moment Trump declared it.

Similarly, if Trump is working with DOJ and giving them documents in June, complying with a request for more security, and inviting them back should they need anything else, to make that jump to an extraordinary armed raid of a former president is stunning. Garland should have exhausted subpoena action, but they've grown rather fond of emulating Stasi.

These are some of the presumptions dismissed outright by Judge Berman-Jackson's decision, and some of the constitutional questions arising should Garland indict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL
#6,808
#6,808
Basically, the judge has seen fit that all materials are classified unless you can tell him which documents he "declassified". Frumps fuxt
 
#6,811
#6,811
Quotes from a real Judge Dearie;

"It's time to put up or shut up."

"You cannot have your cake and eat it too."

"(I'm going to sum this one) I've been given a case, and told to find out which docs were classified, and which were not, until you can tell me which ones were declassified they are ALL classified. What business of this court which is which?"

^^^
This last one is brilliant because no lawyer worth thier salt is going to purger themselves.
 
#6,812
#6,812
IluvdoubleD's said:
Quotes from a real Judge Dearie;

"It's time to put up or shut up."

"You cannot have your cake and eat it too."

"(I'm going to sum this one) I've been given a case, and told to find out which docs were classified, and which were not, until you can tell me which ones were declassified they are ALL classified. What business of this court which is which?"

^^^
This last one is brilliant because no lawyer worth thier salt is going to purger themselves.
Click to expand...


This is starting to have the feel that, except for perhaps the district court judge, both the special master and even maybe the panel who got the case at the 11th circuit appreciate on the front end that this is another round of largely delay tactics, typical of Trump in litigation for decades, and they aren't going to let it sit while Trump waits for a GOP-led set of Congressional committees to try to gum it up before a conclusion is reached.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IluvdoubleD's
#6,814
#6,814
Forgot to mention Judge Dearie has set a final court date of OCT7, unless further evidence arises. That means you cannot draw this out beyond that.
 
#6,815
#6,815
IluvdoubleD's said:
Forgot to mention Judge Dearie has set a final court date of OCT7, unless further evidence arises. That means you cannot draw this out beyond that.
Click to expand...


Trump will seek to delay and is counting on a GOP-controlled House to intervene with a committee, subpoenas, some type of investigation, to slow the criminal investigation of him to a crawl.

But I'm not sure he will get his way even if that transpires. There are a lot of people in the GOP leadership who have had quite enough of his drama and I'm not sure would necessarily put themselves out there to save Trump's bacon yet again.

For at least some, you have to think that they would want iron clad proof that Trump was not up to something severely underhanded in this before they paste their own names to protecting him on it. Let's hope they have the guts to say so.
 
#6,816
#6,816
NCFisher said:
1

Again, no - the post was an excerpt from the article; I did not provide an interpretation.

No, I haven't handled classified info but manage to understand a false equivalence between the president and everyone else on the planet. No one else has the plenary powers of the executive presidency. When you claim to handle CI but draw a specious comparison "But if I did that....", you impugn your own knowledge, or motive.

Contrary to your assertion and others, there is no constitutional provision that the president must follow declassification rules and procedures that govern everyone else. No predicate for stating a president - with a word or gesture- may not declassify as he sees fit or that congress or the judiciary can limit it. If Trump's lawyers certified there were no longer CI docs at MAL, I don't see the judiciary not eventually deciding for him if his defense is "I declassified those docs taken in the raid before leaving office". The constitution does not prescribe how the executive does so, thus the broad acknowledgement the executive alone has sweeping classification power.

Garland has moved us into uncharted territory. If the president has such broad discretion but still from 2019-2020 worked with agencies and accepted their redactions to declassify a large collection of documents, announced publicly, and then remanded to DOJ on Jan 19 2021 to complete, it appears the onus is on DOJ to do so. If the Biden DOJ was derelict in that perfunctory action, it does not change those documents being declassified the moment Trump declared it.

Similarly, if Trump is working with DOJ and giving them documents in June, complying with a request for more security, and inviting them back should they need anything else, to make that jump to an extraordinary armed raid of a former president is stunning. Garland should have exhausted subpoena action, but they've grown rather fond of emulating Stasi.

These are some of the presumptions dismissed outright by Judge Berman-Jackson's decision, and some of the constitutional questions arising should Garland indict.
Click to expand...
I guess you can start reading the thread at the point where you ended the post quoted above for your answer. Pretty much sums it up...lol. Apples to Oranges completely different keep digging...
 
#6,817
#6,817
NCFisher said:
1

Again, no - the post was an excerpt from the article; I did not provide an interpretation.

No, I haven't handled classified info but manage to understand a false equivalence between the president and everyone else on the planet. No one else has the plenary powers of the executive presidency. When you claim to handle CI but draw a specious comparison "But if I did that....", you impugn your own knowledge, or motive.

Contrary to your assertion and others, there is no constitutional provision that the president must follow declassification rules and procedures that govern everyone else. No predicate for stating a president - with a word or gesture- may not declassify as he sees fit or that congress or the judiciary can limit it. If Trump's lawyers certified there were no longer CI docs at MAL, I don't see the judiciary not eventually deciding for him if his defense is "I declassified those docs taken in the raid before leaving office". The constitution does not prescribe how the executive does so, thus the broad acknowledgement the executive alone has sweeping classification power.

Garland has moved us into uncharted territory. If the president has such broad discretion but still from 2019-2020 worked with agencies and accepted their redactions to declassify a large collection of documents, announced publicly, and then remanded to DOJ on Jan 19 2021 to complete, it appears the onus is on DOJ to do so. If the Biden DOJ was derelict in that perfunctory action, it does not change those documents being declassified the moment Trump declared it.

Similarly, if Trump is working with DOJ and giving them documents in June, complying with a request for more security, and inviting them back should they need anything else, to make that jump to an extraordinary armed raid of a former president is stunning. Garland should have exhausted subpoena action, but they've grown rather fond of emulating Stasi.

These are some of the presumptions dismissed outright by Judge Berman-Jackson's decision, and some of the constitutional questions arising should Garland indict.
Click to expand...
I've handled Classified and Secret. I in no way would ever mistreat the documents as that would be a sure way to get fired. Having said that, I do not have the powers that the president does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher and Orangeburst
#6,818
#6,818
Dang this all dumb..The President of the USA being raided for Classified docs..Think about it and be honest.
 
#6,819
#6,819
82_VOL_83 said:
I've handled Classified and Secret. I in no way would ever mistreat the documents as that would be a sure way to get fired. Having said that, I do not have the powers that the president does.
Click to expand...
The President has power no doubt, but must follow the procedures to declassify. There are some that told him he could not do what he did without going through proper procedures. He is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
#6,823
#6,823
825VOL said:
All Trump needs to say is "I declassified all of them". There is nothing the DOJ or the curt can do about it.
Click to expand...

Clearly, trump and his team of attorney's haven't thought of this for some odd reason. Clearly your JD is superior to those of the attorney's he's hired.

Why aren't you working for Donny?
 
#6,824
#6,824
Sudden Impact said:
I guess you can start reading the thread at the point where you ended the post quoted above for your answer. Pretty much sums it up...lol. Apples to Oranges completely different keep digging...
Click to expand...

"Lol" is a juvenile dodge, not a response.

Berman-Jackson did not predicate a president's classification authority upon the case details, but rather highlighted the complete authority over any Presidential records in contrast to (lesser) personal records.
"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," she added.

SCOTUS declared in Dept. of Navy vs. Egan:
The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 890 (1961).

SCOTUS is stating the president is THE classification authority, independent of congress and vested in the executive by the constitution. Now, go ahead - make another silly 'apples/oranges' statement. Convince us what the court really meant is presidential classification authority depends - in some odd way - on a federal employee getting clearance.

Sudden Impact said:
The President has power no doubt, but must follow the procedures to declassify. There are some that told him he could not do what he did with going through proper procedures. He is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Well, no, as demonstrated above. And it's unknown if Trump had any documents other than those DOJ reviewed and he declared declassified on Jan 19, 2021.

Just whose "procedures" are you contending the constitutional classification authority must follow?
Certainly not congress, certainly not the courts - ? Unelected bureaucrats?

You should take a breath and get your wits about you prior to answering. This may help: PolitiFact - Does the president have 'the ability to declassify anything at any time'?
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top