Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

#8,028
#8,028
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t get the relevance of all this talk about discarding executive orders. His presidency is over. He didn’t discard it. It’s was and still is in effect.

I’d need a source for Trump deliberately and officiously declassifying the items that were found at Mar-a-largo, while he was still president. You’re the only person I’ve ever heard assert that. Even Trump didn’t claim that, he went with the “standing order” that anything removed from the White House was declassified, right? As far as I know, it’s still not even been made public exactly what was found.
Click to expand...

Yes, he left an EO in effect which is Rules for Executive Underlings. If, for example, Trump declared Pence would have no class authority, he doesn't need to amend the existing or create a new EO; it simply is. The VP doesn't retain authority because a prior president granted his VP authority. Asserting otherwise or that a sitting CIC must consult with or acquiesce to underlings in order to declassify, is to assert a former president - or appointees/subordinates - may nullify the present executive. Even if such counsel with aides and agency - or ensuing process - is typical good practice, the constitution places no such demands on the executive.

I'm pointing to the Jan 19 '21 memorandum, and the docs K. Patel stated were declassed in the weeks & days preceding Trump leaving the WH in his presence and/or counsel. I've been careful to state - as you do - no one knows which docs Trump refers to or had in his possession (declassed or not). Garland's potential criminal case is an obstruction charge based upon asserting a falsified affidavit and moving/concealing documents. And remotely, the outlandish proposition Trump may have organized the J6 riot.

But for a potential obstruction charge, the two are similar in offense; the non-criminal violation of the PRA. It'd be interesting to see how a high court decision would treat the difference between constitutionally delegated classification authority and that delegated by the president to a vice president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, davethevol and StarRaider
#8,032
#8,032
ClearwaterVol said:
You work so hard to look crazy.
Click to expand...


I'm just calling it exactly what it is. What's crazy is how so many things that you guys call crazy today will turn out to be proven true in a few years. At that point you guys will have moved on and just basically ignore the thing that used to be crasy that is now a known fact. That's exactly how this works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, BreatheUT and Orangeburst
#8,033
#8,033
VolinWayne said:
I'm just calling it exactly what it is. What's crazy is how so many things that you guys call crazy today will turn out to be proven true in a few years. At that point you guys will have moved on and just basically ignore the thing that used to be crasy that is now a known fact. That's exactly how this works.
Click to expand...



jennifer-lawrence-j-law.gif
 
#8,034
#8,034
VolinWayne said:
I'm just calling it exactly what it is. What's crazy is how so many things that you guys call crazy today will turn out to be proven true in a few years. At that point you guys will have moved on and just basically ignore the thing that used to be crasy that is now a known fact. That's exactly how this works.
Click to expand...

It's been years and your election bs is no closer to proof than it was before. You just keep pivoting and changing the argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#8,040
#8,040
NCFisher said:
Yes, he left an EO in effect which is Rules for Executive Underlings. If, for example, Trump declared Pence would have no class authority, he doesn't need to amend the existing or create a new EO; it simply is. The VP doesn't retain authority because a prior president granted his VP authority. Asserting otherwise or that a sitting CIC must consult with or acquiesce to underlings in order to declassify, is to assert a former president - or appointees/subordinates - may nullify the present executive. Even if such counsel with aides and agency - or ensuing process - is typical good practice, the constitution places no such demands on the executive.

I'm pointing to the Jan 19 '21 memorandum, and the docs K. Patel stated were declassed in the weeks & days preceding Trump leaving the WH in his presence and/or counsel. I've been careful to state - as you do - no one knows which docs Trump refers to or had in his possession (declassed or not). Garland's potential criminal case is an obstruction charge based upon asserting a falsified affidavit and moving/concealing documents. And remotely, the outlandish proposition Trump may have organized the J6 riot.

But for a potential obstruction charge, the two are similar in offense; the non-criminal violation of the PRA. It'd be interesting to see how a high court decision would treat the difference between constitutionally delegated classification authority and that delegated by the president to a vice president.
Click to expand...
The first paragraph is generally incorrect. Think about it logically, and it makes perfect sense. It also illustrates the point I’ve been repeating since this came up: the executive branch doesn’t run on word of mouth.

If you are a civil servant working in the office of the Vice President and you’re asked by the VP to prepare classification markings for a document and you know that yesterday there was an executive order that delegated him that authority and nothing in the federal register changed that authority and no memorandum has been circulated but you overheard some secret service guys at the water cooler say Trump told him he couldn’t, what do you do? Do you run on what you overheard or do you go by the official, published rules governing the executive branch? It sort of answers itself.

I don’t know that every change in standing executive branch policy needs to be reflected in the federal register to be binding, but good luck enforcing any that isn’t.

The third paragraph overstates the constitutional gravitas. The constitution doesn’t “delegate classification authority.” Classification is an assumed component of the national defense power. Both other branches see wisdom in allowing state secrets to be kept in the service of national defense and have acquiesced to it. An executive order has been published articulating the executive branch’s use of that authority. Neither other branch has seen fit to disturb it. That’s it. That’s all it is.

That’s essentially what Egan says: courts defer to the president on matters of national security. So, I don’t really see a court limiting the president’s ability to delegate responsibility when it’s an exercise of that same national security role, which the executive order clearly is.

A court probably would defer to any decision that arguably serves the national security interest or public interest, even if it goes beyond the order. However, negligently leaving classified documents in a garage or country club, declassifying information to avoid the inconvenience associated with protecting it, and declassifying documents simply by mishandling them don’t seem to be actions that have a national security hook and even seem to be contrary to that duty. I’d buy a court saying these things need to be handled by impeachment but not that they’re a valid exercise of presidential power.
 
#8,041
#8,041
ClearwaterVol said:
You trumpies really just need to stop the contortionist routine to defend him. He's as guilty as Joe. Charge them both.
Click to expand...
Can we circle back and make it a trio with Hillary, or does double jeopardy somehow apply? I'm okay with publicly executing all three. Then we can circle back to all the other politicians who deserve it, which is pretty much all of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst, AM64, ClearwaterVol and 2 others
#8,043
#8,043
Weezer said:
Can we circle back and make it a trio with Hillary, or does double jeopardy somehow apply? I'm okay with publicly executing all three. Then we can circle back to all the other politicians who deserve it, which is pretty much all of them.
Click to expand...
Bring back the old days and watch people have meltdowns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and InVOLuntary
#8,044
#8,044
rekinhavoc said:
If the FBI investigated you for X and you found out one of the agents investigating you was found to be committing X you would scream from the mountain tops about it regardless of the extent he was involved .
Click to expand...

I would like to know the extent of the involvement.
 
#8,045
#8,045
Weezer said:
Can we circle back and make it a trio with Hillary, or does double jeopardy somehow apply? I'm okay with publicly executing all three. Then we can circle back to all the other politicians who deserve it, which is pretty much all of them.
Click to expand...

If they broke the law charge 'em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,047
#8,047
ClearwaterVol said:
I would like to know the extent of the involvement.
Click to expand...

Good point, but if you find one flea on a dog, you know there are more. The FBI can't seem to keep even its own house in order; why should we believe it can fairly and honestly do its job - particularly when it has to do with politics and politicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, Orangeburst and hog88
#8,048
#8,048
RockyTop85 said:
The first paragraph is generally incorrect. Think about it logically, and it makes perfect sense. It also illustrates the point I’ve been repeating since this came up: the executive branch doesn’t run on word of mouth.

If you are a civil servant working in the office of the Vice President and you’re asked by the VP to prepare classification markings for a document and you know that yesterday there was an executive order that delegated him that authority and nothing in the federal register changed that authority and no memorandum has been circulated but you overheard some secret service guys at the water cooler say Trump told him he couldn’t, what do you do? Do you run on what you overheard or do you go by the official, published rules governing the executive branch? It sort of answers itself.

I don’t know that every change in standing executive branch policy needs to be reflected in the federal register to be binding, but good luck enforcing any that isn’t.

The third paragraph overstates the constitutional gravitas. The constitution doesn’t “delegate classification authority.” Classification is an assumed component of the national defense power. Both other branches see wisdom in allowing state secrets to be kept in the service of national defense and have acquiesced to it. An executive order has been published articulating the executive branch’s use of that authority. Neither other branch has seen fit to disturb it. That’s it. That’s all it is.

That’s essentially what Egan says: courts defer to the president on matters of national security. So, I don’t really see a court limiting the president’s ability to delegate responsibility when it’s an exercise of that same national security role, which the executive order clearly is.

A court probably would defer to any decision that arguably serves the national security interest or public interest, even if it goes beyond the order. However, negligently leaving classified documents in a garage or country club, declassifying information to avoid the inconvenience associated with protecting it, and declassifying documents simply by mishandling them don’t seem to be actions that have a national security hook and even seem to be contrary to that duty. I’d buy a court saying these things need to be handled by impeachment but not that they’re a valid exercise of presidential power.
Click to expand...

I still think we are looking at this all wrong in many ways. We were supposed to elect a president to run a country according to rules made by another body - all supposedly done in accordance with the Constitution and Amendments. We don't have a king with the associated privileges granted a monarch - the FFs, and specifically a guy named George, said that wasn't the way we were going to operate.

Perhaps some of this stuff with "classified" documents is semantics, but it doesn't look like all of it is. The president you suppose would want to declare information concerning his office politically sensitive, and a simple way to do that would be to use the rules for classification. If that's the case, he should also just as easily be able to declassify those documents on a whim. Perhaps we should be looking at two levels of security classification. One the real security classifications for real reasons of national security, and the other a classification at an administrative level for convenience and political sensitivity ... stuff that wouldn't harm the nation but could be embarrassing to a president or an agency. The president or agency heads could then classify and declassify to their heart's content without being a threat to the real need for classifying documents and materials.

One thing stands out, and that is if something is classified correctly as a national security concern, then there should be both a formal classification and declassification process. The framework needs to be basically like a building with walls and doors. The president like everyone else enters and leaves through doors. It's not a game; the president doesn't have magical powers to allow him to pass through walls. He uses the damn doors and processes and procedures just like everybody else. We don't elect kings; we don't elect dictators; we do elect a transient CEO with fixed semi-fixed expiration date, and he didn't build the country - he's just a high level administrator charged with keeping the train on the tracks, and most don't do it that well anyway. We're talking a transient figure who is in office generally 4-8 years vs an enduring nation ... if we can keep it together in spite of the trash we keep electing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top