The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[AM64]

I don’t think you understand. If the President decides that it’s personal papers then he can show it to whoever he wants. He can say they are secret or whatever but they are not Presidential docs if he decides they are personal.

Now should he have to explain politically why he is showing these to people outside the government? I think so but it’s political not a legal matter per the ruling I referenced earlier.

There really needs to be some firewalls. For example, a classified document that originated in the DOD or an intelligence agency shouldn't be considered a personal paper belonging to the president - that should be somewhat obvious. I understand the thought about personal papers; I'm not totally in agreement with the concept that a wide range of documents should be considered personal papers and belong to the president. However, all presidents should be treated equally; if it's the rule in effect, then that's just the way it is - doesn't matter who is in or leaving office.

Overall though it seems that a sane, comprehensive policy needs to be developed to ensure that classified documents are secure, that nobody in the executive office can declassify or deviate from the rules applicable to military and intelligence classified materials, and so on. After the latest military security debacle, the military is finally sitting down and getting its stuff together regarding classified materials; the non-military side of government needs to do the same. Maybe we should just recognize that when the job is over, it's over, and an ex-president might keep the really personal stuff like a journal, visitor logs, correspondence with foreign and domestic officials - more in line with memorabilia as long as copies exist in official records. It was a job; and just like for the rest of us, the work product goes with the company not with the employee.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I don’t think you understand. If the President decides that it’s personal papers then he can show it to whoever he wants. He can say they are secret or whatever but they are not Presidential docs if he decides they are personal.

Per "The Presidential Records Act of 1978" (amended in 2014), that is blatantly false.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2209, governs the official records of the Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents and subsequently NARA, must manage the records of their Administrations. The PRA was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions.

Under the very first bullet point :

Specifically, the PRA:

• Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.

The President does not define what a Presidential record is. The PRA does.

I know that you are just continuing to lean on the "Judicial Watch v. NARA" ruling from 2012 ... but just like Donald Trump, you are misreading the law and citing a case which is not applicable to Trump's ..., which, by the way, is not a binding precedent for other District Courts or Courts of Appeal to follow, anyway. See the link below.

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

 

[BowlBrother85]

There really needs to be some firewalls. For example, a classified document that originated in the DOD or an intelligence agency shouldn't be considered a personal paper belonging to the president - that should be somewhat obvious. I understand the thought about personal papers; I'm not totally in agreement with the concept that a wide range of documents should be considered personal papers and belong to the president. However, all presidents should be treated equally; if it's the rule in effect, then that's just the way it is - doesn't matter who is in or leaving office.

Overall though it seems that a sane, comprehensive policy needs to be developed to ensure that classified documents are secure, that nobody in the executive office can declassify or deviate from the rules applicable to military and intelligence classified materials, and so on. After the latest military security debacle, the military is finally sitting down and getting its stuff together regarding classified materials; the non-military side of government needs to do the same. Maybe we should just recognize that when the job is over, it's over, and an ex-president might keep the really personal stuff like a journal, visitor logs, correspondence with foreign and domestic officials - more in line with memorabilia as long as copies exist in official records. It was a job; and just like for the rest of us, the work product goes with the company not with the employee.

There is such a firewall already in place. A classified document that originated in the Department of Defense, or an intelligence agency, is not considered to be the personal property of the President. This is covered by The Presidential Records Act of 1978. Upon leaving office, the PRA specifically states that the President should hand over documents, such as the one that you described, to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

@Gandalf is just wrong.

The President does not define what a Presidential record is. The Presidential Records Act does.

There is no logic, or current legal rationale behind his argument. All he can do is cite an opinion by Judge Amy Berman Jackson from 2012 (which is non-binding on Trump's case, anyway).

 

[hUTch2002]

What makes me irrational, that I think Trump is sleezy scumbag or that I think Biden and his crotch spawn ought to be in jail alongside Hillary?

Please be specific.

I’m going to start calling my kids crotch spawns.

 

[hUTch2002]

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.

For something he wrote down I could see the personal document angle working but for a hypothetical plan to invade Iran? There’s nothing personal about that.

 

[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.

The part in bold is where you are wrong. The President doesn't get to decide what is personal, and what is a Presidential record. The Presidential Records Act defines what is a Presidential record.

Would the system you are suggesting is in place make any sense? The President could just declare everything personal and detail nuclear secrets in a best selling book ... and it would be perfectly legal.

 

[hUTch2002]

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.

You’re thinking one to two steps ahead. Dems are way ahead of you. They would absolutely LOVE for Trump to be found guilty, get this in front of the SCOTUS and Trump win an appeal. Then they get to say Trump was guilty and the “far-right” SCOTUS yet again shows their right wing bias.

 

[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.

This is where you are going wrong. You are hanging everything on that case.

FACT FOCUS: Trump twists Presidential Records Act, Clinton ‘sock drawer’ case to mount defense

^^^ This goes into detail about the multiple reasons as to why you are misusing that case.

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

As I've already said, the Presidential Records Act (PRA) defines what a Presidential record is ... not the President. The above link to The PRA defines a "Presidential record" as :

Under 2201. Definitions

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

Please click on that link and read it. The President does not get to define what constitutes a Presidential record. or what constitutes a personal record. The law does that. In this case, the law is in the form of the Presidential Records Act.

 

[Gandalf]

This is where you are going wrong. You are hanging everything on that case.

FACT FOCUS: Trump twists Presidential Records Act, Clinton ‘sock drawer’ case to mount defense

^^^ This goes into detail about the multiple reasons as to why you are misusing that case.

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

As I've already said, the Presidential Records Act (PRA) defines what a Presidential record is ... not the President. The above link to The PRA defines a "Presidential record" as :

Under 2201. Definitions

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

Please click on that link and read it. The President does not get to define what constitutes a Presidential record. or what constitutes a personal record. The law does that. In this case, the law is in the form of the Presidential Records Act.

I would tend to agree that if a document was created by some agency of government, then it is "Presidential" but what the ruling said was that that PRA decides how to handle Presidential records. BUT the President decides what is Personal. If a record is deemed Personal, then by definition, the PRA has no jurisdiction over it. They get the leftovers.

The other trouble is that there really wasnt some higher level arbiter set up to adjudicate between the two if there is a disagreement. You absolutely cannot tell me that there are not documents in Obama, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton's possession that were not gov created docs that they simply took with them (for whatever reason). The difference is that no one was using this as a political football before - well, Judicial Watch tried but didnt get very far. Then again, they didnt have a weaponized and utterly corrupt DOJ at the time either.

I am not saying all of this is right and good btw. I do think there should be better standards but all should be treated equally. I also think it would be silly if it wasnt so perfidious to be trying to use this as a political weapon, when we both know that this is what this is about.

In any normal situation, an ex President's lawyers would be going back and forth with NARA as to what had to go back and then eventually they would go to court (civil) and it would get decided (just like Clinton's, note there was no raid on his home). The difference? Trump is running again for 2024.

 

[Gandalf]

You’re thinking one to two steps ahead. Dems are way ahead of you. They would absolutely LOVE for Trump to be found guilty, get this in front of the SCOTUS and Trump win an appeal. Then they get to say Trump was guilty and the “far-right” SCOTUS yet again shows their right wing bias.

If this was about the law, then a conviction of a criminal would matter. But this is simply a prong of an election plan. I'm sure the goal is to hope Trump wins the primary and then convict him of this and other made up crimes next summer so that he is entering November as a convicted felon of some sort. The presumption is that this would pull enough of the independent vote away or be a justification for the fraudulent ballot stuffing ops to win 2024. Joe is the perfect empty suit.

 

[BowlBrother85]

BUT the President decides what is Personal. If a record is deemed Personal, then by definition, the PRA has no jurisdiction over it. They get the leftovers.

This is where you are wrong, though.

Per The Presidential Records Act of 1978, the act itself defines what constitutes a Presidential record and what constitutes a personal record; not the President.

This is where The Presidential Records Act says that it defines what the term "Presidential record" is ...

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

Under the first bullet point.

• Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.

This explains how the PRA defines both a "Presidential record" and a "personal record" ... You can find the definitions next to (2) and (3) in the link below.

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

 

[Gandalf]

This is where you are wrong, though.

Per The Presidential Records Act of 1978, the act itself defines what constitutes a Presidential record and what constitutes a personal record; not the President.

This is where The Presidential Records Act says that it defines what the term "Presidential record" is ...

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

Under the first bullet point.

• Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.

This explains how the PRA defines both a "Presidential record" and a "personal record" ... You can find the definitions next to (2) and (3) in the link below.

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

You have repeatedly said the above and I am not disagreeing with it.

Now please show me who defines which records are personal and which ones are not? Note, I am not saying who defines what a personal record is but rather who gets to decide which documents are personal records?

 

[evillawyer]

Only the best people

 

[BowlBrother85]

You have repeatedly said the above and I am not disagreeing with it.

Now please show me who defines which records are personal and which ones are not? Note, I am not saying who defines what a personal record is but rather who gets to decide which documents are personal records?

I thought I already said that ... The PRA itself, is the legally recognized authority, which defines both Presidential records and personal records.

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

Under :

2201 Definitions

(3) The term "personal records" means 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 ceremonial duties of the President.

Below (3) there are specific examples of personal records cited in (A), (B) and (C) columns.

 

[RockyTop85]

You have repeatedly said the above and I am not disagreeing with it.

Now please show me who defines which records are personal and which ones are not? Note, I am not saying who defines what a personal record is but rather who gets to decide which documents are personal records?

I think this argument ultimately loses, but also think it’s the correct way to frame the argument.

I think the correct counter argument is that the president’s discretion to decide that a document is a personal record is constrained by the statutory definition of personal records and that in a dispute between the government and the president over whether a certain record meets that definition, a judge could decide it.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No, Biden and Trump don't deserve to "share a cell." An absurd, ludicrous statement. Trump deserves jail--probably--because facts. Convictions, indictments--and more to come. Biden...nothing. All the Biden blather is just that--conspiracy nonsense. FACT.

What 'facts'?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Is it a conspiracy to say that according to Hunter Biden’s text messages, Joe Biden was involved in extortion?

Even his attorney admits the texts are real.

Turbos dedication to stupidity truly is impressive

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Does it get any "swampier" than Donald Trump at this point?

Donald Trump clearly doesn't believe that laws involving the handling of classified material, which he repeatedly accused Hillary Clinton of breaking in 2016, are laws that he should also be expected to follow.

Trump even jokes about it. That's pretty swampy behavior.

Now do Biden

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

He’s the anti swamp that’s the main reason he’s enemy number 1 to everyone that resides in the swamp, democrats and republicans alike.

Fixed it

 

[RockyTop85]

Fixed it

So anti-swamp that the people he hired at DOJ and FBI are conducting a witch hunt against him?

 

[Vol8188]

So anti-swamp that the people he hired at DOJ and FBI are conducting a witch hunt against him?

To be clear we’ve already seen FBI political bias against Trump in the Russia investigation right? You could argue that it had no real consequences, but the bias is a matter of fact.

And I don’t think any president could ever fully fix the fbi and/or doj. But if your point is to just point out that he did claim he would “drain the swamp” and didn’t, sure that’s fair. But it also seems fair to expect future fbi bias against trump given the history of past bias

 

[TN Ribs]

So anti-swamp that the people he hired at DOJ and FBI are conducting a witch hunt against him?

It's far easier for Trump and his supporters to simply play the victim card and shout from the rooftops - everybody's picking on me! It's their crutch, they lean on it incessantly. I've never seen a group that whines more than Trump supporters, but they get it from their leader who just happens to be the super bowl champion of whining.

 

[AM64]

I think this argument ultimately loses, but also think it’s the correct way to frame the argument.

I think the correct counter argument is that the president’s discretion to decide that a document is a personal record is constrained by the statutory definition of personal records and that in a dispute between the government and the president over whether a certain record meets that definition, a judge could decide it.

Or maybe a classified document can hardly be considered personal? Certainly (at least with some presidents) some personal documents probably "need" to be "classified" but wouldn't meet the qualifications to classify them. One thing for sure is that there's a huge disconnect between documents the military and intelligence agencies classify because of real national security concerns and those that politicians classify because the release could be embarrassing. Maybe the first step is two separate classification systems and policies reflecting that military and intelligence classification are never to be considered personal documents and that anyone handling them is subject to the same penalties that the lowest ranking military member would be.

 

[AM64]

To be clear we’ve already seen FBI political bias against Trump in the Russia investigation right? You could argue that it had no real consequences, but the bias is a matter of fact.

And I don’t think any president could ever fully fix the fbi and/or doj. But if your point is to just point out that he did claim he would “drain the swamp” and didn’t, sure that’s fair. But it also seems fair to expect future fbi bias against trump given the history of past bias

As soon as someone opened a drain to the swamp, some swamp creature would stuff an alligator in the hole. You can't fix it on the fly; you'd have to burn the place down and restart.

 

[RockyTop85]

Or maybe a classified document can hardly be considered personal? Certainly (at least with some presidents) some personal documents probably "need" to be "classified" but wouldn't meet the qualifications to classify them.

One thing for sure is that there's a huge disconnect between documents the military and intelligence agencies classify because of real national security concerns and those that politicians classify because the release could be embarrassing. Maybe the first step is two separate classification systems and policies reflecting that military and intelligence classification are never to be considered personal documents and that anyone handling them is subject to the same penalties that the lowest ranking military member would be.

I separated this into two paragraphs and the first one is something I’ve thought about.

The XO says that, in order to be classified, information has to be related to the national defense. (Paraphrasing).

I haven’t looked to see if it’s identical language to what’s in the charging statute, but it is similar. More importantly it is definitely not consistent with the definition of a personal record.

So it kind of creates a situation where the “president is the ultimate authority over classified material” could work against him. “Courts don’t second guess national security decisions of the executive, and here we don’t have to because by classifying this record the executive told us that it is related to national security and therefore it cannot be a personal record under the PRA…”

I think congress could do what you suggest in the second paragraph by writing it into the PRA. That’s probably a good idea. And therefore it will never happen.