The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I hear you and hate that our leaders use politics as a career. And I think an argument can be made that he tears down any institution or person he perceives as a threat. He's attacked and turned his followers against journalists, law enforcement (FBI, DOJ, CIA) most of his Cabinet, elections - anyone and anything that was perceived to be a threat to his power or otherwise hold him accountable was attacked as the enemy. It's astonishing that in four short years all of these instituions have become the mortal enemy of the MAGA crowd.

LMAO .... you live in LaLa Land along w/Pelosi & Schumer as roomates.

 

[Gandalf]

I don't believe that's accurate - it's literally why NARA asked him to give some of it back. Keeping War plans or nuclear secrets/ as personal keepsakes not only seems deeply irresponsible but an outright threat to national security.

In the past, it has been common for NARA to negotiate with ex Presidents on getting some of the docs back once they identify they exist. Usually, thats why the pres grabs a bunch for the memoirs and then, after they are finished with them or figure out, that would be too sensitive to have around the house, they give them back or put them in their own presidential library.

Its not like NARA has any absolute authority. They are basically beggars nagging them - and eventually, that usually works even if it is several years later. Look and see if there were not issues with Bush and Obama. Its just nobody ever tried to use it in a criminal sense before - not for President at least.

 

[BreatheUT]

I hear you and hate that our leaders use politics as a career. And I think an argument can be made that he tears down any institution or person he perceives as a threat. He's attacked and turned his followers against journalists, law enforcement (FBI, DOJ, CIA) most of his Cabinet, elections - anyone and anything that was perceived to be a threat to his power or otherwise hold him accountable was attacked as the enemy. It's astonishing that in four short years all of these instituions have become the mortal enemy of the MAGA crowd.

I think we have seen that there is a lot of corruption in these areas. I don't see how anyone can dispute this.

Look at how Fauci was basically allowed to manipulate the people and cover for China. It's stunning. Do these journalists and bureaucracies really stand for truth and justice?

Do you seriously think most of the people we see out here today are reliable journalists?

 

[BreatheUT]

I hear you and hate that our leaders use politics as a career. And I think an argument can be made that he tears down any institution or person he perceives as a threat. He's attacked and turned his followers against journalists, law enforcement (FBI, DOJ, CIA) most of his Cabinet, elections - anyone and anything that was perceived to be a threat to his power or otherwise hold him accountable was attacked as the enemy. It's astonishing that in four short years all of these instituions have become the mortal enemy of the MAGA crowd.

Anyway, I'm off topic in this thread. I digress.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Your alls obsession with Trump

It is ridiculous how much some of you complain about the number of posts related to Trump, while posting inside of threads with Trump's name in the title.

If Trump was off-topic, I could understand the complaint, but when Trump's name is in the subject heading of the thread .... Who / What do you expect to see being discussed ?

 

[BowlBrother85]

From my understanding, its not that he declassifies. Thats an afterthought. It is his power to decide what is PERSONAL and what is NOT. All he has to do is decide it is personal and that is that. If it is currently classified in some way, then it gets declassified perhaps but bottom line is he has sole discretion to decide what is personal and he can show it to whomever he will. That, at least has been the precedent.

That may be an oversimplistic rendering of the legal structure of it but it seems very similar to what SCOTUS said about Bill Clinton's case IIRC.

Your understanding is wrong.

 

[Gandalf]

Can you cite the precedent through statute or court opinions? Not saying it doesn't exist, just don't want to do the homework and assume you have because you are saying it's your opinion.

see the case text in judicial watch vs clinton Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Tidbits"
The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records. Id. § 2201(3)(A). The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b).

The categorization of the records during the Presidency controls what happens next: at the conclusion of the President's term, the Archivist is directed to “assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.” Id. § 2203(f)(1). The Archivist is required to “make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of [the PRA].” Id. The statute assigns the Archivist no role with respect to personal records once the Presidency concludes.

As another court in this district has observed, “[t]he PRA incorporates an assumption made by Congress (in 1978) that subsequent Presidents and Vice Presidents would comply with the Act in good faith, and therefore Congress limited the scope of judicial review and provided little oversight authority for the President and Vice President's document preservation decisions.” CREW v. Cheney, 593 F.Supp.2d 194, 198 (D.D.C.2009).

Plaintiff insists that it is not challenging President Clinton's classification of the audiotapes as personal, but rather defendant's “erroneous decision the audiotapes are not presidential records.” Pl.'s Opp. at 11–12. This is at odds with paragraph 16 of the complaint, which specifically alleges that the President retained the tapes and did not transmit them to the Archivist as part of his Presidential records at the conclusion of his presidency—in other words, that it was his decision.

So if Trump took the morning National Security Briefing, that might be considered Presidential, even if he wanted it personally but the problem is, Congress gave little oversight to this process, trusting to Presidents to largely decide what is personal, so NARA is not really empowered to tell him otherwise.

Essentially, if he keeps it while President, it’s personal. NARA’s purview is only Presidential records, and just to keep them and have them available, not act as a cop to force him to give back docs he took while in office.

 

[CobbVol]

1) They do not provide a source for such a belief.

2) They do not explain a basis for having such a belief. What does the alleged misconduct involve? They don't say.

3) Leading Report has a history of reporting fake news. It's wishful thinking more than it is based on actual verifiable information.

4) Can you cite other sources (even a right-wing source) such as Fox News, NewsMax, OAN, The Washington Times or The New York Post, who is reporting the same thing? If not ... why? Fox News, NewsMax and OAN wouldn't sit on a potential bombshell as that. Their opinion shows would at the very least speculate on it.

If they had used "according to anonymous sources" like NYT, WaPo, LATimes, have been using would that have helped in any way?

 

[OrangeBoro]

It is ridiculous how much some of you complain about the number of posts related to Trump, while posting inside of threads with Trump's name in the title.

If Trump was off-topic, I could understand the complaint, but when Trump's name is in the subject heading of the thread .... Who / What do you expect to see being discussed ?

You all turn every thread into a Trump thread. At least the ones you don’t avoid like the Biden threads

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

You all turn every thread into a Trump thread. At least the ones you don’t avoid like the Biden threads

Him & luthervol do it all the time.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You all turn every thread into a Trump thread. At least the ones you don’t avoid like the Biden threads

This complaint would have legitimacy, if it was posted in a thread without Trump's name in the title ... but once again, it's not.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I want to be critical of Trump, I look for threads with his name in the subject headings and limit my posts to those threads.

If you don't like reading posts concerning Donald Trump, then you should avoid clicking on threads with Trump's name in the title.

 

[CobbVol]

Here is another article with more details about potential prosecutorial misconduct ...

DOJ Misconduct Justifies The Dismissal Of Trump's Charges (thefederalist.com)

 

[BowlBrother85]

Him & luthervol do it all the time.

That is not true. When I'm posting about Donald Trump ... it will be in a thread with Trump's name in the title - LIKE THIS ONE, FOR EXAMPLE.

 

[OrangeBoro]

Him & luthervol do it all the time.

Of course because what else do they have to talk about? The avoid Biden threads like hunter avoids rehab

 

[BowlBrother85]

Here is another article with more details about potential prosecutorial misconduct ...

DOJ Misconduct Justifies The Dismissal Of Trump's Charges (thefederalist.com)

That is weak.

The Federalist (strangely) links an article to The Guardian, which includes this quote from Joyce Vance. On the "news reports" link :

Regarding a potential "shakedown" by the DOJ seeking cooperation from Walt Nauta, by way of his attorney :

"Even if it's true, it would not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutors don't have any influence over judicial applications and all the parties to the conversation would have known that." - Joyce Vance (a frequent MSNBC contributor)

If this is what the potential DOJ misconduct is based on? Then this is a joke. I also find it odd that The Federalist would be using The Guardian as a source. That gives some insight as to the depth of their desperation here.

 

[Septic]

Of course because what else do they have to talk about? The avoid Biden threads like hunter avoids rehab

It hasn't escaped me that you are crying about us talking about Trump in a thread about ...... trump when your last three posts in this thread have ended with you whining about the Biden's.

The irony is delicious.

 

[BowlBrother85]

If they had used "according to anonymous sources" like NYT, WaPo, LATimes, have been using would that have helped in any way?

It would have helped if they had admitted that their source was The Guardian (See post #4,940). The Guardian article makes it pretty clear that there wasn't any prosecutorial misconduct.

You didn't want to post the original source material either. You did it by way of The Federalist. The right is trying to make a controversy out of a story which The Guardian broke ... but they de-bunked it as a scandal, while they were breaking it.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It hasn't escaped me that you are crying about us talking about Trump in a thread about ...... trump when your last three posts in this thread have ended with you whining about the Biden's.

The irony is delicious.

Exactly.

 

[AM64]

You raise an interesting question, who would comprise the Board? For courts martial it is supposed to be made up of serving officers, but you also have it be made up of equal or higher ranking officers.

Then just shoot him. Problem solved. Milley was probably responsible for creating the waste when the Army created that old but new god awful uniform, too.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It make sense now why those right-wingers didn't want the source material for that "DOJ misconduct" story to be revealed.

The source material was The Guardian, a left-wing site, who de-bunked it as a scandal while they were reporting it. Do you really think that The Guardian is going to report information which is helpful to Trump? That is crazy. This is the best sign yet, that the right is getting desperate over this.

 

[AM64]

You care to show where He said it was “typed up by Milley”?

He probably meant “hyped up by Milley”

 

[RockyTop85]

It hasn't escaped me that you are crying about us talking about Trump in a thread about ...... trump when your last three posts in this thread have ended with you whining about the Biden's.

The irony is delicious.

You have any theories that explain the strong correlation between “OrangeB” in one’s username and angry, incoherent ranting?

 

[BowlBrother85]

see the case text in judicial watch vs clinton Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Tidbits"
The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records. Id. § 2201(3)(A). The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b).

The categorization of the records during the Presidency controls what happens next: at the conclusion of the President's term, the Archivist is directed to “assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.” Id. § 2203(f)(1). The Archivist is required to “make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of [the PRA].” Id. The statute assigns the Archivist no role with respect to personal records once the Presidency concludes.

As another court in this district has observed, “[t]he PRA incorporates an assumption made by Congress (in 1978) that subsequent Presidents and Vice Presidents would comply with the Act in good faith, and therefore Congress limited the scope of judicial review and provided little oversight authority for the President and Vice President's document preservation decisions.” CREW v. Cheney, 593 F.Supp.2d 194, 198 (D.D.C.2009).

Plaintiff insists that it is not challenging President Clinton's classification of the audiotapes as personal, but rather defendant's “erroneous decision the audiotapes are not presidential records.” Pl.'s Opp. at 11–12. This is at odds with paragraph 16 of the complaint, which specifically alleges that the President retained the tapes and did not transmit them to the Archivist as part of his Presidential records at the conclusion of his presidency—in other words, that it was his decision.

So if Trump took the morning SNEE, that might be considered Presidential, even if he wanted it personally but the problem is, Congress gave little oversight to this process, trusting to President's to largely decide what is personal, so NARA is not really empowered to tell him otherwise.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System - National Agricultural Law Center

District Court decisions are not binding precedent on any other District Court or Federal Court decisions outside of their jurisdiction.

 

[Gandalf]

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System - National Agricultural Law Center

District Court decisions are not binding precedent on any other District Court or Federal Court decisions outside of their jurisdiction.

Perhaps so but liberal Judge Jackson was emphatic in her smack down and I very much doubt that a Florida district judge will overturn that, much less this SCOTUS.

This will be great for political reasons but even if a kangaroo court could convict it cannot survive any appeal.

But that’s not what any of this is about anyway. It’s just politics using the cops and to win 2024.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Perhaps so but liberal Judge Jackson was emphatic in her smack down and I very much doubt that a Florida district judge will overturn that, much less this SCOTUS.

This will be great for political reasons but even if a kangaroo court could convict it cannot survive any appeal.

But that’s not what any of this is about anyway. It’s just politics using the cops and to win 2024.

Nothing has to be overturned. It is not unusual for District Court decisions to be in conflict with each other. The case you are citing is not binding precedent to the Trump Case in Florida.

District Court opinions are not binding on other District Courts or on Courts of Appeal.