Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post looked at the claim of Hillary Clinton on Twitter this week that “the fact is that I had zero emails that were classified.” The Post declared Clinton “technically correct” in the claim, which left out that she was substantively wrong. While the Post elects not to award any “Pinocchios,” Clinton’s statement is clearly false and even the Post appears to recognize that fact at the very end of its analysis. Indeed, “technical” truth is wonderfully Clintonesque — captured in Bill’s infamous defense during the Monica Lewinsky investigation that “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” The email scandal now depends on what the meaning of “were” was. Hillary Clinton is focusing on whether the emails were marked classified as opposed to whether they contained classified information.
I previously wrote about Hillary’s claim and argued that it was demonstrably false. While I focused on her claim that there is an unfair “Clinton standard” that applies to her, I noted how Clinton is making a signature technical claim regarding classified markings rather than classified content.The tortured logic is transparently and knowingly misleading.
As I have stated previously, I do not believe that the email scandal warranted criminal charges and certainly did not justify the “lock her up” mantra used in the 2016 presidential campaign. However, Clinton is now rewriting history with the help of many in the media who simultaneously pushed this line that the email scandal was a type of conservative hoax. It was not.
The Post’s analysis is not part of that trivialization of the scandal. However, it contained critical errors in how the analysis was framed.
Kessler’s analysis largely follows the false framing of Hillary’s tweet: whether emails were actually marked classified. Even on that point, Hillary is wrong. There were emails with “confidential” classifications. Admittedly, that is the lowest level of classification and there was a controversy on whether those markings should have been removed. Kessler spends considerable time chasing that rabbit down the hole in the Clinton tweet when there is a virtual chasm next to it. The focus of the tweet and the Post analysis was not the focus of the investigation.
Hillary elected to use an unsecured personal server despite the strong policy against such systems for the discussion of State Department business. The reason is obvious. The servers are more easily penetrated by foreign intelligence and, according to the FBI, “hostile actors gained access” to some of the information through the emails of Clinton’s associates and aides.
Emails are a particular concern for security experts because they rarely have classification markings. Officials engage in contemporary and rapid exchanges that can reveal classified information. People often try to “talk around” such classified facts, but they can easily compromise sensitive programs or information. That is precisely the reason why they are told to use only secured servers and government email systems.
In Clinton emails, the inspector general noted this very same pattern where aides showed a “conscious effort to avoid sending classified information, by writing around the most sensitive material.” It did not work. A 2018 report of Department of Justice inspector general revealed that “81 email chains containing approximately 193 individual emails” were “classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time.”
There was never an allegation that Clinton or her aides intended to reveal classified information, but rather than they conveyed classified information while using the private server.
What the private server allowed was control by the Clintons. That control would later prove key when Clinton delayed full disclosure to federal officials and ultimately deleted thousands of emails.
While endlessly detailing the classification markings of three emails, Kessler does note that “sometimes classified information seeped into email exchanges.” That is the point. It is not the markings but the content of the emails that compromised national security information.
It is only at the very end, that the Post again acknowledges this point in affirming a “technical” truth in favor of Clinton:
“Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That’s technically correct. Whether those emails contained classified information was a major focus of the investigation, but a review of the recent investigations, including new information obtained by the Fact Checker, shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump.”
Unpack this line. The column admits that it was not the markings but the content that was a “major focus of the investigation,” but then declared Clinton “technically correct.”
The use of a strawman argument is classic Clinton, but it looks silly when adopted by a serious journalist. Take the conclusion that this is different from the Trump allegation of holding classified information at Mar-a-Lago. Of course, it is different. While Trump insists that as a president he was allowed to remove the documents and that he declassified them, that claim remains unestablished. However, these were clearly marked classified documents, including some at extremely high levels of classification.
Yet, there is one aspect that is more analogous and entirely omitted from the Post analysis. The most likely charge against Trump is obstruction in failing to turn over the material after a formal subpoena. Again, while there are obvious differences, Clinton and her staff were also accused of withholding material and delaying such disclosures
The State Department investigators worked furiously to determine the extent of any compromising of classified information in these emails by Clinton or her staff, including the possession of classified information on various laptops. Clinton and her staff did not fully cooperate with investigators in refusing to turn over her emails and other evidence. They delayed such efforts to estimate any national-security damage. Ultimately, the FBI cut deals with her aides to secure their cooperation. Later , additional classified material was found on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who was married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin — 49,000 emails potentially relevant to the Clinton investigation.
Moreover, the thousands of emails cited by Hillary do not include thousands destroyed by her staff. In 2014, Clinton and her staff were aware that these emails were being sought by both congressional and federal investigators. However, they used BleachBit to wipe out thousands of emails and then told investigators that they made the unilateral decision that such emails were “personal.”
The Clintons have long thrived in the gray area between “technical” and actual truth from Hillary’s claim to being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to Bill Clinton parsing of the word “is.” Yet, that ability to shape truth to their immediate needs is only possible with assistance of an endlessly enabling media.
A slightly difference version of this column ran on Fox.com
If some Air Force colonel had sent the kind of information over his private Email that Clinton did, he’d have gone to Leavenworth to pound rocks.
RE:”The tortured logic is transparently and knowingly misleading.”……only to the sophisticated in these matters, a majority of whom [i.e Comey and Company] have already given reason as to why prosecution will not go forward. So what should she fear. As for the braindead basket of deplorables for whom her remarks are intended, well………………………….
S. Meyer, will there ever come a time when we no longer have to hear Clinton apologists and Trump haters, all in the same post? Bill Clinton was, as someone already has said, one of the most intelligent and gifted politicians we have produced in decades, but he and Hillary squandered it all out of greed, in his case sex, and later perjury. The establishment and their handmaidens in the press decided long ago to confer on them the immunity normally reserved for royalty… remember the history of sovereign immunity– “the King can do no wrong.” This same establishment decided that it would do whatever is required to destroy Trump because they learned they could not control him. Unlike the Clintons and Obamas, he did not need or want their money. And, he did not care whether they liked him or not. Those qualities that Trump has are ones we should demand in our leaders, but not the “liberals” and their apologists in the press. It portends a sad future for our country.
RE:”Unlike the Clintons and Obamas, he did not need or want their money.” Trump was clear, in his inaugural address, what his mission was going to be in office. Rashida Tlaib and others of her ilk were clear, immediately post-election, what theirs was. The die was cast directly out of the gate! ‘Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night would stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds”
Good commentary, Honest Lawyer! I think that we are already on the “sad future” trajectory. Do you see a way to reverse course?
“Unlike the Clintons and Obamas, he did not need or want their money.”
What was the Obama’s book advance? A combined $63 million? Gee, it’s almost as if that astronomical amount was more like a payoff advance “for services rendered.”
Clinton wasn’t a bad President. He was made better by a divided government which is normally my preference. I thought the impeachment of Clinton was not a good idea and argued against it. If they were to impeach him, everything involving Lewinsky should have been excluded. We need to deal with significant things involving our nation’s security and the welfare of the people.
You are right, “Bill Clinton was, as someone already has said, one of the most intelligent and gifted politicians we have produced in decades.” We squander good talent by dealing with unimportant things and not holding our leaders to their promises and the law. They need to work for the people and thank them for their permission for him to administer the country.
I support Trump for numerous reasons. His policies were good, especially his foreign policy, which is very much in the domain of the President. Trump wanted to prove something, and that is important. He wanted to prove the country could do a lot better than it was. His payment is success and recognition. That is why he will run again, to prove he can make America better than it is. That is admirable, even if it is only for his self-satisfaction, because making America better benefits everyone. I also support him because he is a straight shooter and tried to satisfy all his promises to the people. Despite what leftists say, Trump was one of the most transparent presidents. Sometimes he was so transparent he got into trouble.
I will vote for Trump because of those things and not because I personally like who he is though I don’t dislike him. I want George Washington, but I can’t have him, so Trump has to suffice.
Stepping back from all the details, which posed the greater risk:
1. Clinton conducting her entire official State Department email communications including classified information while Secretary of State on a private server that was considerably less secure than the official one she should have use; or
2. Trump storing documents including classified or declassified information in hard copy form in a storeroom and office in a private residence protected by the secret service.
Seems pretty obvious that Clinton’s conduct posed a greater risk. If I recall, counterintelligence analysts concluded that foreign governments had likely penetrated Clinton’s server.
Trump’s office was visited by lots of foreign nationals. Secret Service protects Trump, not his documents.
Making progress. They are his documents, declassified documents.
Iowan2,
“ Making progress. They are his documents, declassified documents.”
No. They are NOT his documents. Whether they are classified or not they did not belong to him. According to the law Trump was in possession of stolen documents.
The documents were never declassified. Trump lied about that. His own lawyers will not make that claim in court because they know it’s not true and they will be sanctioned if they make false claims in court. Being that Trump is a prolific liar we can’t take any of his assertions at face value.
No, no progress, just a mistake in wording on my end. Unlike you, I have no problem admitting my mistakes.
So you accidentally got something right and are now returning to your previous error.
Lets try some questions. Assume for the moment nothing is classified.
Lets assume that Mark Meadows participated in the Abraham accords, and several leaders of mideastern governments email him at his whitehouse.gov address expressing thanks for his assistance in negotiating those accords.
These emails came through the official whitehouse.gov email – so it is beyond any doubt that the govenrment and NARA has them.
Can Meadows print a paper copy of those emails praising him and take those copies home ?
Is every single copy of every government record ever created the exclusive property of the government ?
What if Meadows prints a copy and then takes a picture of the copy with his iPhone ?
What if Meadows holds up a copy and has a reporter take a picture of him holding a copy ?
Is the national archives obligated to hunt down and confiscate all the privately held copies of the declaration of independence and constitution ?
Do you understand that it is highly unlikely there is a single thing that even under the broadest interpretation of government document, that existed at MAL that NARA does not likely have many copies of, including the originals electronic or otherwise.
So Was NARA trying to preserve the record of the history of the Trump presidency,
or were they trying to prevent any of that history derogatory to the DOJ/FBI or current whitehouse from being disclosed ?
Anonymous: you are correct, and, for the record, Trump and his Secret Service detail WEREN’T EVEN THERE when the FBI executed the search warrent, so there’s no way anyone was protecting these documents. .
I find it inconceivable that anyone could think hard copies at Trump’s residence a greater risk than electronic versions on an insecure server.
What you do or don’t find inconceivable doesn’t actually determine which were more secure. Again: Trump had lots of foreign nationals IN his office with the documents, and he admittedly had people (like his lawyer Habba) looking through documents in his office who didn’t have security clearances.
“Trump had lots of foreign nationals IN his office with the documents, and he admittedly had people (like his lawyer Habba) looking through documents in his office who didn’t have security clearances.”
Source ?
Or is this more of the nuclear codes nonsense ?
Source on Habba:
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1565067893317967872
Source on Trump having foreign nationals in his MaL office:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2022/09/02/trump-hosted-all-these-people-in-his-mar-a-lago-office-where-hed-stashed-government-secrets/
His MaL office had classified documents in it per the manifest filed with the court.
I don’t know what “nuclear codes nonsense” you’re referring to. We certainly didn’t have any exchange about that.
Can I presume that you are not claiming Habba is a foreign national ?
As long as you are not, there is nothing in this regarding Habba.
Only left wing nuts seeking to expand the law far beyond its scope could seen anything associated with Haba as an issue.
Classified documents have classified binders on them – as the FBI photo’s have show, for many reasons, including to prevent reading their contents without opening them. Habba is not obligated to open the binders.
In fact – if the claim that the PRA makes these government documents, not Personal documents – she would not be obligated to look at any of them at all.
Those of you on the left want to have everything both ways – you can not.
All the Habba nonsense is proof of the idiotic extent to which left wing nuts will demand impossible precision from english.
Learn to read English. The claim was (1) Trump had lots of foreign nationals IN his office with the documents, and (2) he admittedly had people (like his lawyer Habba) looking through documents in his office who didn’t have security clearances. These are distinct claims. I gave you evidence of each claim.
If you think the above two statements make you sound intelligent, think again. Both statements are foolish.
Every time you respond with nothing but insult, I know that it’s because you have no factual counter, and you’re ceding the point.
ATS, your statement was foolish, and I explained it. My comment wasn’t an insult. It was true.
I do not have any problems with english.
Though aparently you do.
You have NOT established either of the things you claims.
Why is it you beleieve that Habba was routing through classified documents ?
Her statement does not claim that.
As is typical of left wing nuts – you read everything as infinitely broad.
Habba’s verification was regarding an unrelated civil lawsuit and a subpeona or discovery request.
He response was specific to a search for items responsive to that request. Not a search for classified documents.
Do you think she search the Pool house at MAL ? The guest rooms ? Every shed on the golf course ?
Further, whether you like it or not, searches related to subpeona’s or discoveries are not hostile searches.
A lawyer is entitled to presume their client is not lying to them.
If a Client says – I do not have responsive material in among melania’s intimate – they are not obligated to search there.
In fact Lawyers are not obligated to conduct the search at all. The clients is free to search for responsive materials and the lawyer is entitled to rely on their assertions.
Here are the actual Habba affadavits, read them in their entirety. They do not say what you think they say.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=jurj2ITrDTrAJW/JpaeMsg==&system=prod
“Why is it you beleieve that Habba was routing through classified documents ?”
I didn’t say or imply “routing through.” I said “he admittedly had people (like his lawyer Habba) looking through documents in his office who didn’t have security clearances.” She has admitted that she does not have a security clearance. She has admitted that she looked through all of the documents in his office for purposes of finding relevant documents for a separate legal case. We know that Trump’s office had classified documents in it per the manifest provided to the court. She could not search ALL of the documents in Trump’s office without coming across the classified documents that were mixed with others.
“Habba does not say that she searched Trump’s government office. She says she searched his personal office. Those are not the same.”
Duh. It’s his personal office that I was referring to. His personal office at MaL had classified documents in it per the manifest. Why at this late date do you know already know this?
“I do not know if Habba has a security clearance.”
She said that she did not. That YOU do not know it is irrelevant. SHE said so.
Much Ado About Nothing
“I didn’t say or imply “routing through.” I said “he admittedly had people (like his lawyer Habba) looking through documents in his office who didn’t have security clearances.””
So ? Can Habba search Melania’s closet without risk to national security ?
This is trivial – either you beleive Habba had unsupervised access to classified documents – or you are just blowing smoke.
There is nothing in her affadavit that says that she searched Trump’s presidential documents – which has absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit. Nor anything that says she was in Trump’s government offices.
Much less that she was riffling through allegedly classified documents completely unsupervised.
You have assumed that there is an obvious contradiction between two statements when there was none.
“She has admitted that she does not have a security clearance.”
Where ? I did not read that. One of the problems we have with you left wing nuts is that so much of what you say is just made up.
Maybe she does, maybe she does not. I do not know, I do not beleive you know. And I do not beleive anything just because you say it.
“She has admitted that she looked through all of the documents in his office for purposes of finding relevant documents for a separate legal case.”
Correct, Personal office or government office ?
I have 5 separate offices. There is no reason for her to have entered the government offices.
“We know that Trump’s office had classified documents in it per the manifest provided to the court.”
Yes, in his government office.
“She could not search ALL of the documents in Trump’s office without coming across the classified documents that were mixed with others.”
She could if she was not searching the government office.
“Habba does not say that she searched Trump’s government office. She says she searched his personal office. Those are not the same.”
“Duh. It’s his personal office that I was referring to. His personal office at MaL had classified documents in it per the manifest. Why at this late date do you know already know this?”
Because it is not true. You constantly make assumptions.
““I do not know if Habba has a security clearance.”
She said that she did not. That YOU do not know it is irrelevant. SHE said so.”
So YOU say. So far you say lots of things that are false assumptions.
This is trivial. Quit making assumptions. This will go a whole lots easier, but it will not lead where you wish.
Mar-a-Lago is a private club. It is gated on an island, you can not get there unless you are a member or invited guest.
Before Trump was president the secutity was likely better than most federal buildings.
The residence is separate from the club with even more security.
The residence has 52 bedrooms, and 3 bomb shelters.
It is the 2nd largest mansion in FL and the 24th largest in the US.
And you think there is only one Office in the place ?
And you think people wander around unescorted all the time.
I do not know that you are absolutely wrong in everything that you post.
I do know that you are careless, make lots of obviously false assumptions, and do not know what you are talking about.
Maybe Habba has a clearance – maybe she does not – but I would not trust YOU for that.
Maybe she searched Trump’s government office – maybe not – but there is no reason to trust YOU for that.
More than 50% of the country beleive the FBI is being used politically by Biden – that is really bad.
Ordinary people how no reason to Trust YOU, to Trust Biden, to trust DOJ, to Trust FBI, to trust the media.
You all did that too yourselves.
It is not Trump’s fault that you lie constantly, and are wrong even more.
It is not Trump’s fault that you do not know what you are talking about.
There is an aphorism – do not attribute to malice what can be explained as incompetence.
A broader version would be innocence is far more likely than guilt when you do not even know you have a crime.
These are generalizations – they are not always true.
But it is always true that those that always violate them will be wrong nearly all of the time.
It is also always true that explanations of incompetence only go so far.
The Biden admin the FBI and DOJ are certainly incompetent, but we are well past were incompetence alone explains their conduct.
We have had to deal with 4 years of Trump – where even though Republicans controlled the whitehouse and one or both changers of congress – Democrats STILL were weaponizing government against Republicans – and had been since Obama was president. 2 years of Biden and it is far worse.
Every single conservative or libertarian in the US with an online presence can assume that the federal govenrment is spying on them in one way or another.
Every parent unhappy with their school district can assume they are being spied on.
This administration has just persuaded payment processing companies to specially code gun and weapons purchases.
We have fought for decades to prevent the government from a national gun registry.
How is a private scheme that government can access at will better ?
This is the fascist nonsense of those like YOU.
And you wonder why you are not trusted.
We know the administration was directing social media censorship since 2021 – that is unconstitutional.
But as the Carter Page lawsuit demonstrates – citizens have no remedy for the unconstitutional conduct of government.
Look arround – it is self evident that your ideas of governance, of law, of pretty much anything do not work.
Does everyone need to wait for everything to degenerate to anarchy before you admit failure ?
The affidavit states,
“ Commencing in January 2022, my office undertook significant, diligent, and comprehensive search efforts in response to the Subpoena.”
The fact that the FBI found 11,000 more documents including more than 100 classified documents including TS/SCI in Trump’s office does not show that they did a significant, diligent, and comprehensive search. They had weeks to fine more. The FBI found more within hours.
Not knowing if Habba routed thru classified documents because clearly she didn’t have a security clearance is the problem.
The whole idea of the government needing to keep track of who accesses, when, and why is to maintain the security of the secrets they wish to keep secret. When it comes to national defense these kinds of measures have an obvious importance.
The lawyers were indeed obligated to conduct the search because the subpoena required them to. They had documents that were government property. Keeping them in violation of the PRA constitutes theft. That’s why they were obligated to diligently search for them. After stating that they did a comprehensive search and diligently looked and the FBI finding more documents within hours makes it a lie in the legal sense. The FBI requested surveillance footage showing who accessed documents and if any were removed. Habba was responsible for making sure all documents requested in the subpoena were turned over to NARA and that included classified documents.
Keep in mind that Habba was not just a lawyer she was also the custodian of records for Trump. That obligated her to conduct the search for documents.
“The affidavit states,
“ Commencing in January 2022, my office undertook significant, diligent, and comprehensive search efforts in response to the Subpoena.””
Actually it states a great deal more than that – try readin it.
I linked to it.
“The fact that the FBI found 11,000 more documents including more than 100 classified documents including TS/SCI in Trump’s office does not show that they did a significant, diligent, and comprehensive search. They had weeks to fine more. The FBI found more within hours.”
Habba was not searching for govenrment documents, She was searching for very specific things responsive to a very specific subpeona in a lawsuit involving the Trump organization that has absolutely nothing to do with the DOJ/FBI or classified documents.
“Not knowing if Habba routed thru classified documents because clearly she didn’t have a security clearance is the problem.”
Nope, that is not how the law works.
I do not get to presume that you might have murdered your neighbor just because I do not know that you did not.
“The whole idea of the government needing to keep track of who accesses, when, and why is to maintain the security of the secrets they wish to keep secret. When it comes to national defense these kinds of measures have an obvious importance.”
Again you are entirely clueless about classified information. Not only that but your argument is OBVIOUSLY self contradicatory.
If the government goes to the trouble you say is required to trace and secure classified documents – then either there are none at MAL or the GOVERNMENT failed.
Todate there is no evidence and no claim that Trump scaled the fence at the WH on Jan 21, 2021 and stole classified documents.
That means everything at MAL got there through a legitimate process of somekind.
If that process was as tight as you claim – Government has always known exactly what was there.
If it is not – then your argument is self refuting.
“The lawyers were indeed obligated to conduct the search because the subpoena required them to.”
Nope, that is not how subpeona’s work.
You are also clearly conflating two different things.
Habba was clearing a court order for non-compliance in a completely independent case that had nothing to do with classified documents. She did so by PROVING compliance. and that was ALL she had to do.
Regardless, she was dealing with more than a subpeona.
She was not litterally required to do all the things in her affadavit – that was overkill.
“They had documents that were government property.”
Still no an established fact.
“Keeping them in violation of the PRA constitutes theft.”
Just plain FALSE.
“That’s why they were obligated to diligently search for them.”
They actually were not.
That is not how subpeona’s work.
You do not seem to grasp that subpeonas are not issued by courts, they are issued by attorney’s.
“After stating that they did a comprehensive search and diligently looked and the FBI finding more documents within hours makes it a lie in the legal sense.”
You are falsely conflating two separate cases.
And no, the FBI finding something in a search of hundreds of boxes of documents does not make a statement to the countrary a lie. Nor have we established what the FBI found.
Marked classified and Classified are not inherently the same.
“The FBI requested surveillance footage showing who accessed documents and if any were removed.”
And they received it.
“Habba was responsible for making sure all documents requested in the subpoena were turned over to NARA and that included classified documents.”
Wrong on the case, wrong on the lawyer and wrong on the law.
When you make assumptions – you make an ass of yourself.
“Keep in mind that Habba was not just a lawyer she was also the custodian of records for Trump. That obligated her to conduct the search for documents.”
Again wrong case, wrong lawyer, and wrong on the law.
Habba is Trump’s lawyer for a stupid claim against the Trump organization filed by NY AG James, that is going to hell for James.
She has nothing to do with the DOJ./FBI/NARA case – except that she has appeared on the news to discuss it. ‘
Her affadavit is about clearing a bogus contempt charge from an NY charge – by demonstrating that the Trump organization HAD complied with James subpeona.
Given that you left wing nuts want to go after everything vaguely Trump related in 10,000 different ways it is YOUR responsibility to keep track of cases.
Just as no one pays you to edit your comments, no one pays me to wade through your word vomits. I’m simply not going to read multiple long comments posted in reply to a single comment of mine. If you have questions, they’ll remain unanswered. If you post false or ignorant claims, they’ll remain uncorrected.
Bye.
ATS, the truth is that you are being proven wrong, point by point by John Say, and you can’t handle it. Of course, his posts are long. A lie can be written in a single short sentence, but to prove something a lie can require paragraphs. You lie a lot, so John responds with long posts detailing your errors and correcting your lies.
So ?
Absolutely correct, you are not obligated to reply to anyone.
You are not obligated to read anyone.
Though that begs the question of why you are here ?
Do you post just to see your own remarks in writing ?
Do you post seeking accolades only from those who agree ?
I would suggest some advice on why we discuss things, why we listen to people we disagree with from John Stuat Mill, On liberty
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
Habba does not say that she searched Trump’s government office. She says she searched his personal office.
Those are not the same.
I do not know if Habba has a security clearance. Most lawyers do not, but it would not be uncommon for lawyers working for Ex-Presidents to have security clearances – Clinton’s attorney’s did, and they – not the FBI searched Clinton’s documents.
You have several problems – all of which you ignore away.
You do not know that Habba does not have clearance.
You do not know that she searched Trump’s govenrment rather than personal office,
You do not know whether she was accompanied by someone with a clearance.
precluding her from accessing any government documents – classified or otherwise that were obviously not responsive to the subpeona.
You do not know that she improperly access classified documents as a result of this search.
Merely seeing the jacket of a classified document is not a violation of the espionage act.
Nor would the subpeona Habba was responding to have required her to check government documents, much less classified documents.
Finally, this isa case that is actually going to h311 for the NYAG as her office has leaked Tax returns to the media.
It is not Habba that has a credibility problem right now it is AG james.
Trump had foreign nationals in AN office at MAL concurrently with himself, and secret service.
Do you think that Nial Farrage was rummaging through Melania’s intimates looking for Classified documents ?
No, that was the FBI, Oops.
From what I can tell so far the FBI found classified material in the desk in Trump Government office, as well as the secure closet that is part of the government office.
That does not help you.
“From what I can tell so far the FBI found classified material in the desk in Trump Government office”
NO.
IF you are going to discuss this, THEN pay attention to what the manifest submitted to the court about the search at MaL says about what was found in Trump’s personal office at MaL.
You keep assuming that anyone would trust you.
Let me make this clear – there is absolutely no factual assertion that YOU make that I will accept at face value.
Absent your clear TDS, that is an automatic consequence of posting anonymously – which you keep ducking.
Each post is new, it comes without credibility or reputation. You must prove every single assertion you make.
Which you never do.
You have not earned credibility and you ca not posting as anonymous.
I am paying far more attention than you are.
And I have no reason to trust you.
I have no reason to trust DOJ or FBI.
As the judge noted when appointing a special master – the DOJ has already made false representations several times.
Distrust of our institutions is at an all time low – because those institutions have destroyed our trust.
Outside the Trump Derangement bubble, when anything even touches on political, you have far more than the ordinary burden of proof – because you, the left, democrats our institutions have burned there credibility and our trust.
Your article says these people were at MAL – which is huge. Trump’s resident at MAL is huge and only a small part of MAL, The Trumps government offices at MAL are a small part of the residence, Your article does not specifically demonstrate anyone was anywhere they could not be, unaccompanied.
Not that that would matter.
Before I had my Top secret Clearance I was allowed into rooms in which classified documents were kept.
I was just not allowed access to those documents.
Do you have photos of Bonsaro alone in Trump’s office rifling through his desk ?
Do you know that classified documents were in unlocked desk drawers ever ? Much less when others were in the room.
As is typical of those on the left, you want to read into things – particularly in a criminal context, what is not there.
You are trying to use the Habba Affadavit to prove that either she lied or that she riffled through classified documents.
Yet, it proves neither. She is not required to say – I searched MAL – but not inside classified binders, or safes that only contained classified information. Frankly she is not required to say anything, and what she says is going to be read very narrowly with respect to allegations of misconduct, no matter how broadly it was written.
Lawyers who failed to provide documents I subpeoned that both I and they know were in their posession, responded with similar language, and then later used documents they should have provided as exhibits in later filings. And the court ignored that.
The article shows them in his office, which is what I claimed.
This claim, like your claims about Obama’s EO, is meaningless. A bridge starts at one bank, travels over the river, and lands on the other bank. You keep building portions of a bridge but are unable to finish it. Therefore one cannot get from one side to the other.
Thanks for ceding the point again.
ATS, your stupid answer doesn’t deflect from my answer provided. My answer might sting, but the point I made is on target.
The article shows them in An office at best. My home is tiny compared to MAL and I have multiple offices.
You article shows nothing of consequence.
Nial Farage met the president in the Oval Office of the Whitehouse. Did everyone clear the entire Oval of anything classified before Nial cam in ? Are you sure there was not a classified binder in the Resolute desk ?
You have a limited number of people who were escorted, with secret service present. Who were never allowed to rifle through locked safes, drawers, closets or even open ones, who you can not even with certainty place within 100ft of something that might have been classifed. Much less in the room alone with a spy camera taking pictures.
Do you left wing nuts THINK before you post ?
Do you left wing nuts grasp the differences ?
Petreaus shared top secret information with his paramour who was writing his biography.
Who also appears to have been cyber stalking another woman using information she obtained from Petreaus’s documents.
And Petraus got a slap on the wrist.
Clinton took classified material from the SoS SCIF – aparently directing staff to gather it for her, remove classification markings and provided it to people without clearances who used it to make money on consulting gigs in the mideast.
She also on multipleoccasions destroyed the evidence of this as well as instructing others to do so.
We are fighting over a special master right now.
Clinton was allowed to create a “filter team” from her own lawyers to decide what the FBI could and could not get.
And she did not even have to go to court to get that.
People are not stupid. They may not remember the details, but they remember broad strokes.
And they can be reminded.
Clinton actually violated the law – egregiously – more so than Petreaus, more so than Deutch, more so than Sandy Berger.
Further she involved others – she conspired to violate the law, she conspired to coverup that violation. She did so for personal advantage for cronies. People who continue to do her bidding even today.
Worse still she put all this up on the internet where the least capable hackers could get at it. And likely did.
You can not even get to the point where Trump’s access is not authorized.
And yet you want him in prison for decades.
It is self evident that you are incapable of overcoming political biases.
This is not just about Clinton and Trump.
It is about YOU – should you be trusted – about anything.
It is possible even easy to argue that Clinton should be in Jail, but not Trump.
It is not possible to argue that Trump should be in jail but not clinton – without massive cognative dissonance.
Huge TDS.
Just about all this has done is expose the DOJ/FBI/NARA/WH as even more corrupt.
And you as all in the tank for them.
John B. Say,
You’re missing the point. Trump had TS?SCI documents in his office. The security of those documents and access to them is so restricted that when it’s in the government’s possession
EVERY movement regarding those documents is recorded and kept locked behind multiple barriers requiring multiple forms of identification such as fingerprint, facial recognition, badge etc. Everything that keeps track of who, what, when and why those documents were viewed. At MAL there was none of that which is a very serous problem. Just as you said we don’t know who was in Trump’s office or who accessed the documents. Even if trumps lawyer supposedly just looked at the cover sheet there is absolutely no proof that she didn’t look inside those documents. She could have taken pictures, made copies, or just learned about something she was not supposed to know.
The government keeps those secrets in such secure conditions for a very specific reason. Trump’s office was not secure and there is no way to know who accessed them, when, or why.
The government will want to know how those documents got there, who packed them and who looked at them.
“You’re missing the point.”
“Trump had TS?SCI documents in his office.”
Nope, What is established is that there were documents MARKED TS/SCI at a few places at MAL.
That is not the same as what you claim.
“The security of those documents and access to them is so restricted that when it’s in the government’s possession
EVERY movement regarding those documents is recorded and kept locked behind multiple barriers requiring multiple forms of identification such as fingerprint, facial recognition, badge etc. Everything that keeps track of who, what, when and why those documents were viewed.”
All you are doing is building a case that Trump did NOT have TS/SCI documents at MAL. If he did, then all that record keeping you claim MUST occur would have shown exactly where those documents were at all times.
Regardless, while your remarks are partly accurate – TS/SCI documents are fairly carefully tracked – it is NOT as you describe,
BTW AGAIN I held a TS/SCI clearance for several years. When I entered a SCIF where there were TS/SCI documents – and often times a SCIF was entire buildings, I surrendered my drivers license and cell phone on entry, and had it returned on exit.
I was even permitted to take my laptop in with me, but not plug into any networks (officially).
While in a SCIF in Pentagon City I needed internet access to DL something from my office and with a wink and a nod I was told that I should look for unsecured WiFi access points that were not actually there. I connected to one and DL’s materials I needed from my office.
The WH – as well as presidents non-WH residence are both concurrently more and less secure.
They are large and things are moved arround inside with little accountabiltity.
But getting things in and out is difficult.
“At MAL there was none of that which is a very serous problem.”
At MAL was a SCIF and an official office of the Ex-president – just as at every single other ex-presidents.
These are government offices, govenrment paid for, and responsibility for security within them rests with the government.
As noted – I worked for a government contractor. We dealt with LOTS of TS/SCI information. One of my projects involved AEGIS,
I needed a TS/SCI clearance just to get into the control center of an AEGIS cruiser. Another overlapping project involved military communications. There are atleast 60 different military communications links and protocols that our systems and software could interconnect – all of which were classified, most of which were very highly classifed.
We had a SCIF in our office space. It was a room with a locked door, that only the FSO had the key for.
It did not have biometric ID, it did not have a fancy lock. It was an ordinary room with an ordinary lock that contained classified material.
“Just as you said we don’t know who was in Trump’s office or who accessed the documents.”
I have not said that. You said that.
What I have said is that you do not know that someone who was not allowed to accessed those documents.
In fact you can not even say that it was possible for someone not allowed to to access those documents.
Government does secure TS/SCI documents. But the most critical form of security has always been human.
Bradly manning has access to classified documents and he was able to share those with Wikileaks.
Snowden had access to some of the most classified documents in the government and he was able to share those.
Daniel Elsberg shared possibly the highest classified documents ever leaked with the Washington post.
“Even if trumps lawyer supposedly just looked at the cover sheet there is absolutely no proof that she didn’t look inside those documents. She could have taken pictures, made copies, or just learned about something she was not supposed to know.”
Assumes lots of facts not known. First Habba is a very high profile lawyer working on cases for clients that have classified information. It is entirely possible she has a security clearance. Next it is unlikely she was unaccompanied through MAL.
Next we do not actually know she went into Trump’s govenrment office.
She was complying with a subpeona for Trump Organization documents – not Government documents, not personal documents.
She had to reason to search the SCIF at MAL or Trump’s government office.
Next she had no reason to look into classified binders, she had no reason to photograph their contents.
The FBI clearly photographed Classified binders and mad that photo public.
As you are clueless – the binder of a classified document is either not classified – or the FBI just violated the espionage act.
Trump could show poll guests at MAL an entire stack of Classified binders without violating the law.
“The government keeps those secrets in such secure conditions for a very specific reason.”
Generally correct – but it is well known that 90% of what is classifed should not be.
I would suggest that you consider something else.
Why would Trump keep classified documents ? And what classified documents would he keep ?
“Trump’s office was not secure and there is no way to know who accessed them, when, or why.”
Ludicrously false. MAL is gated, you can not stay they, play golf there without signing in an out.
Trump’s residence is much more secure. It has always been, but even if it was not,
Just as with all other ex-presidents homes access is carefuly controlled by the SS.
Obama has several city blocks in Oak PArk locked down with Fence and gates and controlled access.
You can not get near an ex-president or their home ever without signing in and out, and probably being vetted by FBI,
Further you or someone else linked photos. Do you think anyone gets near Trump without photo’s being taken ?
If you asked me I can tell you every single person that has been to my home in the past 2 years. And my home is not MAL.
I would guess you can do the same for yours.
Do you know who has been in your locked closets or locked desk drawers ?
Do you think that the SS allows random strangers anywhere near ANY ex president ?
“The government will want to know how those documents got there, who packed them and who looked at them.”
And if government security worked as you claim it does – they already know all of that.
But it does not, which is why they do not know.
Though the actual truth is likely in the middle. It is near certain that the Government knows how anything TS/SCI got to MAL,
if indeed actually classified TS/SCI documents are present. Further it is near certain that government has KNOWN exactly which TS/SCI documents are at MAL since forever.
You are incorrect in many of your claims regarding classified documents – serious document control does not start until we hit highly classified documents. It is unlikely government has a clue where the hundreds of millions of merely classified documents in government posession are. Conversely top security documents are numbered an traced and the government knows or can quickly figure out the last person to posess them at any time.
Pretty much the only way Trump could have documents marked TS/SCI without government knowing that in 2021, would be if they were declassified.
The higher the classification marks of documents at MAL the less likely they are still classified.
Obviously – nothing in government is perfect, and the WH isparticularly lax – Clinton lost the nuclear codes for several months.
And could no produce subpeona’d documents for years.
Finally, government can want to know all kinds of things. It is not the duty of the rest of us to satisfy the curiosity of government.
“ Trump had TS?SCI documents in his office.”
Nope, What is established is that there were documents MARKED TS/SCI at a few places at MAL.
That is not the same as what you claim.”
No, the FBI FOUND documents marked TS/SCI in Trump’s office. They literally say that in their motion in court. The pictures taken of those documents are in of those in his office. Trump even admitted in one of his rants on Truth social.
“ All you are doing is building a case that Trump did NOT have TS/SCI documents at MAL. If he did, then all that record keeping you claim MUST occur would have shown exactly where those documents were at all times.”
Trump obviously didn’t keep any records of the whereabouts of those documents. Otherwise his lawyers would have immediately found them and turned them over to the FBI. Trump had them in his office. He no longer had clearance to have such documents. Much less let anyone in the same room when those documents were there.
Since Trump didn’t keep any records of where they were he is already in violation of the espionage act.
“ She was complying with a subpeona for Trump Organization documents – not Government documents, not personal documents.
She had to reason to search the SCIF at MAL or Trump’s government office.
Next she had no reason to look into classified binders, she had no reason to photograph their contents.”
False. The subpoena was about government documents. The whole reason behind the subpoena was because NARA was not getting anything from Trump that they KNEW he was not supposed to have. The PRA is very specific about what is and is not considered government records. They ARE the legal owners of such documents, not Trump.
The SCIF at MAL was no longer active the moment Trump ceased to be president. She stated they diligently and comprehensively searched for those government documents. Obviously they didn’t.
“ Trump could show poll guests at MAL an entire stack of Classified binders without violating the law.”
No he couldn’t do that. He no longer had the authority to do so. He is no longer the president. Since his access to national security briefings was revoked by Biden it’s not implausible that his security clearance is revoked too. There’s absolutely no reason why Trump should have classified documents when he had his national security briefing privilege revoked. If he showed a stack of classified documents that contained TS/SCI marked folders he would be directly in violation of the espionage act. It would be a crime.
“ Trump’s office was not secure and there is no way to know who accessed them, when, or why.”
Ludicrously false. MAL is gated, you can not stay they, play golf there without signing in an out.
Trump’s residence is much more secure. It has always been, but even if it was not,
Just as with all other ex-presidents homes access is carefuly controlled by the SS.”
That doesn’t matter. People still enter his office without any records of who was in there why and of Trump showed those TS/SCI documents to brag about it. Do you honestly believe that the SS checks everyone for cameras, phones, etc? Who was keeping track of who was accessing the storage room or his office. You claim you have had TS/SCI access before, which I don’t buy, you would know that nobody, NOBODY, would be allowed anywhere near the ROOM with a phone camera or even a security clearance. Trump’s office did NOT have the level of security required by law to have those documents in his office. That’s not even debatable.
“ Pretty much the only way Trump could have documents marked TS/SCI without government knowing that in 2021, would be if they were declassified.”
FALSE. Even as president Trump didn’t have authority to declassify that level of classified documents. The amount of paperwork and records needed to declassify those kinds of documents requires much more than a mere declaration. That’s why everyone in the intelligence community including those who directly deal with such documents says. Trump’s lawyers have never asserted in court motions that all those documents were declassified. Trump is simply lying.
“ If you asked me I can tell you every single person that has been to my home in the past 2 years. And my home is not MAL.
I would guess you can do the same for yours.
Do you know who has been in your locked closets or locked desk drawers ?
Do you think that the SS allows random strangers anywhere near ANY ex president ?”
But you don’t keep any specific records, official records, showing who was at your house and why because your ability to “remember” won’t be enough in court or enough to convince anyone of your honesty. That’s why there’s records required by law.
Do you have video cameras in every room? Microphones? Sensitive alarms ? No. Neither did Trump. The SS is there to provide security for Trump. They don’t restrict access to the building if Trump allows guests in certain areas or staff. Their job is protecting Trump not classified documents.
“ The higher the classification marks of documents at MAL the less likely they are still classified.”
That’s an ignorant assumption devoid of fact. Trump never declassified anything. It’s far more certain he lied.
“the FBI FOUND documents marked TS/SCI in Trump’s office. They literally say that in their motion in court.”
Finally, you are being somewhat accurate. Marked does not establish classified.
“Trump obviously didn’t keep any records of the whereabouts of those documents.”
Did these documents magically go from tightly controlled to Trump ?
You keep avoiding that.
“He no longer had clearance to have such documents.”
False.
“Much less let anyone in the same room when those documents were there.”
Not how classified documents work.
“Since Trump didn’t keep any records of where they were he is already in violation of the espionage act.”
If that were true the govenrment would have had to violate the espionage act for Trump to get control.
“She had to reason to search the SCIF at MAL or Trump’s government office.”
Nope, she barely had reason to search Trump’s personal space.
That was done more as a choice to clear the bogus contempt citation.
“False. The subpoena was about government documents. ”
Those of you on the left have opened multiple cases – it i sYOUR job to keep them straight.
Habba is involved in NY AG James idiotic attack on the Trump organization.
It has absolutely nothing to do with classified or govenrment documents.
If Habba;s search hit government documents – she was done, they were not her business at all.
“The whole reason behind the subpoena was because NARA”
Wrong Case.
Habba was responding to a court order, not a subpeona.
Remember you get those when you do not think subpeona’s are being complied with.
“The SCIF at MAL was no longer active the moment Trump ceased to be president.”
Nope, all ex-presidents have SCIF’s that are used by them as needed.
All ex-presidents maintain their security clearance.
“She stated they diligently and comprehensively searched for those government documents. Obviously they didn’t.”
Read her affadavit – that is not what she stated.
She was not looking for government socuments.
““ Trump could show poll guests at MAL an entire stack of Classified binders without violating the law.”
No he couldn’t do that. He no longer had the authority to do so.”
Its not about authority.
Looking at binders is not a violation of the Espionage act – OBVIOUSLY – as the FBI showed all of us photos of Bindres.
“He is no longer the president. Since his access to national security briefings was revoked by Biden it’s not implausible that his security clearance is revoked too.”
Speculation – regardless, you can not make Trump’s possesion of classified information illegal without telling him that you have revoked his clearance.
And had Biden done that he could have expected several Bad news cycles.
“There’s absolutely no reason why Trump should have classified documents”
And yet according to you – he did, therefore he must have had a reason.
People do not act without reasons.
“when he had his national security briefing privilege revoked. ”
All that changes is whether he gets the daily PDB.
“If he showed a stack of classified documents that contained TS/SCI marked folders he would be directly in violation of the espionage act. It would be a crime.”
Then the FBI just committed a crime – because they should lots of classified document folders – some with TS/SCI markings.
Is it possible for you to engage in critical thinking ?
“That doesn’t matter. People still enter his office without any records of who was in there why”
And you know that how ? You can not get into MAL without providing ID.
You really think you can get into Trump’s residence ? His office ?
So you think the Secret Service is just a bunch of Bozo’s ?
“Trump showed those TS/SCI documents to brag about it.”
Trump did not show them FBI did,
Keep up.
And yes they were trying to brag.
“Do you honestly believe that the SS checks everyone for cameras, phones, etc?”
Yes,
“You claim you have had TS/SCI access before, which I don’t buy,”
Buy it don;t. why should I care.
“you would know that nobody, NOBODY, would be allowed anywhere near the ROOM with a phone camera or even a security clearance.”
And yet I was in a top Secret Meeting in Pentagon City inside a SCIF – I had to turn in my drivers license, but I had my Cell and my laptop and I even connected to unsecured WiFi and DL’d documents onto my laptop fromt he office while there.
“Trump’s office did NOT have the level of security required by law to have those documents in his office. That’s not even debatable.”
That is correct – it is not debatable that you are wrong.
The office and the SCIF are GOVERNMENT SPACE, Every ex-president has them.
They are rented by the government for the ex president and the responsibility of the government.
If the space was not secure enough that would be a GOVERNMENT problem.
This issue like many are unique to presidents and ex-presidents.
But still real.
“FALSE. Even as president Trump didn’t have authority to declassify that level of classified documents.”
This is a stupid argument. It has been killed off repeatedly.
The courts have already ruled that Trump can declassify by Tweet if he wants.
“The amount of paperwork and records needed to declassify those kinds of documents requires much more than a mere declaration. That’s why everyone in the intelligence community including those who directly deal with such documents says.”
No it is what theleft wing nuts you listen to who make up the law as they go and are drowning in TDS say.
From WaPo
“A federal judge rebuked the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office on Friday for dismissing without explanation President Trump’s “emphatic and unambiguous” tweets ordering the declassification of all documents in the government’s probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.”
“Trump’s lawyers have never asserted in court motions that all those documents were declassified. Trump is simply lying.”
the burden of proof is on the govenrment. ALWAYS. Trump’s lawyers are not going to committ to anything in court that they do not have to as it limits their options later. That is normal.
“But you don’t keep any specific records, official records, showing who was at your house and why because your ability to “remember” won’t be enough in court or enough to convince anyone of your honesty.”
Of course it will. Absent evidence that I am lying, only my testimony will be admitted.
You do not seem to grasp that in court you can argue someone is lying. but you can not prove a relevant element of a crime by merely saying the defendant is lying.
“That’s why there’s records required by law.”
Please cite the law.
Separately – if these records are required – then why aren’t there records that say exactly how these documents got to MAL ?
The fact that they are there and DOJ has not produced records strongly suggests they are not classified.
Because as YOU claim all handling of classified documents requires meticulous record keeping.
“Do you have video cameras in every room? Microphones? Sensitive alarms ? No. Neither did Trump.”
Actually Trump does, and the FBI ordered it turned off, But Trump’s staff did not comply, so there is video of the FBI searching Trump’s house.
“The SS is there to provide security for Trump. They don’t restrict access to the building if Trump allows guests in certain areas or staff. Their job is protecting Trump not classified documents.”
Very losely that is correct. But their security requirements strongly overlap with those for Classified documents.
Records are kept of who visits. No one is allowed to just wander arround. People are searched.
““ The higher the classification marks of documents at MAL the less likely they are still classified.”
That’s an ignorant assumption devoid of fact. Trump never declassified anything. It’s far more certain he lied.”
That argument is based on YOUR arguments.
You are not correct about the record keeping of Classified documents generally, but you mostly are regardin highly classified documents. there is no way that currently highly classified documents could have gotten to MAL with records of their going to MAL. Your the one arguing meticulous record keeping.
Here is ONE of many examples of Trump declassifying large amounts of information.
So can you stop the idiotic claim that Trump never declassified anything ?
It just wastes time and makes you look stupid.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/trump-doj-declassify-russia-probe-documents-460511
I have no idea what exchanges we have had.
You continue posting as anonymous, so your posts are each standalone, without history.
No one is obligated to try to guess what other posts by anonymous are yours or someone else.
Regardless, numerous “leaks” have been reported in the media.
Several here – including anonymous posters that could be you have ranted nonsense about nuclear documents at MAL.
For someone with the slightest ability to engage in critical thinking it is not particularly difficult to determine whether an anonymous leak is likely to be true.
But critical thinking is just not the forte of those on the left.
The collusion dellusion was obviously highly improbable from the start. Anyone with the slightest ability to think critically would have demanded significant proof before taking it seriously that either Trump or Putin would do anything with such a high risk, and no reward, that was also not in either’s interest. Putin did not want Trump as president – because Trump’s policies hurt Russia.
Clinton’s like Biden’s have helped Russia.
We are likely all agreed right now that Trump has lots of records from his presidency at MAL.
There are some complexities – because it is likely that a significant portion of what is there is the result of GSA boxing things up and delivering them to MAL – NOT Trump determiningwhat he wanted.
But if we are to consider what Trump would INTENTIONALLY bring to MAL – something you left wing nuts never think about.
What reason would Trump have for bringing classified documents to MAL ?
There are reasons, even good reasons, and the reasons that Trump would intentionally bring classified documents to MAL tell you what those documents probably are – as well as telling you they are probably not classified.
Clinton did not have random classified documents on here basement bathroom email server. The classified information that she shared with people who were not authorized, was information regarding the mideast, and it was to outside of government freinds and cronies who were able to benenefit from it. Clinton did not have nuclear launch codes in her bathroom server, she had information on our Drone targets, that was shared with Sydney Blumenthal a close Clinton crony – who Obama told Clinton she could NOT bring into his administration, who then used it to get huge consulting fees in the mideast.
Those on the left constantly assume that everyone they do not like is an idiot. When it is the opposite that is true.
Never assume intelligence on the part of ranters from the left.
Regardless, Trump is obviously not an idiot. Despite decades of investigations predating his presidency. Despite the most investigated presidency ever, you still have no actually caught him at anything. That should tall you several things.
Either he is not stupid enough to engage in criminal conduct, or he is incredibly good at it and leaves no fingerprints.
Most if not all the left wing nuts attacks on Trump have not been on actual criminal or malfeasant behavior, but on legitimate conduct the left can try to paint as criminal.
Regardless, AGAIN – try to pretend for a moment you are Trump – and you are going to bring documents from the WH back to MAL with you. What would you bring ?
John, comments are threaded on this website.
YOU can — and should — know what comments are in a thread that YOU have chosen to participate in. I made comment (A). YOU posted comment (B) in reply to (A), and in (B), YOU asked for sources for the claims in (A). In comment (C), I gave you the sources YOU asked for in (B). It’s irrelevant whether you consider (A) and (C) to be stand-alone or not: (C) gave you the sources that YOU asked for in (B), which YOU posted in reply to (A).
A-B-C are threaded, whether or not you can admit it, and whether or not you are willing to pay attention to the threading.
“John, comments are threaded on this website.”
And that is relevant how ?
There is no magic tracker ID that allows us to tell one anonymous poster from the next ?
You choose to post as anonymous – which you are free to do.
But when you make that choice you surrender any identity.
It is not someone else’s duty to sort out which comments are one anonymous vs. another.
In face each anonymous comment must stand alone. There is no means to know that any two anonymous posts are from the same source.
You wish to have credibility – you can not have that posting anonymously.
You wish to have history – you do not have that posting anonymously.
Your remarks about threads are a pointless aside.
They do not establish what you claim they do.
“YOU can — and should — know what comments are in a thread that YOU have chosen to participate in. I made comment (A). YOU posted comment (B) in reply to (A), and in (B), YOU asked for sources for the claims in (A). In comment (C), I gave you the sources YOU asked for in (B). It’s irrelevant whether you consider (A) and (C) to be stand-alone or not: (C) gave you the sources that YOU asked for in (B), which YOU posted in reply to (A).”
None of this is true – meaning there is no possible way for me or anyone else to know that what you are saying is true.
Maybe it is maybe it is not.
You are trying to impose on me a DUTY to accept as fact something that is not knowable.
Only you can know what anonymous posts are yours. And even then your claims can not be trusted.
You surrender trust and credibility when you post anonymously.
That is the price for completely anonymous postings.
If you do not like that – post under you own name or a pseudonym.
I do not care how you post. You are free to post as you wish.
But you are not free to impose impossible duties on others because your choices.
Typical left wing nut – all responsibility belongs to someone else.
“A-B-C are threaded, whether or not you can admit it, and whether or not you are willing to pay attention to the threading.”
Correct, I am not paying attention to threading with anonymous posters. Because it does not mean anything.
It is not trustworthy or credible.
Because you post anonymously you are free to disown any post except the one you are typing at the moment.
You can deny ownership of any post on this site – threaded or not.
Yet, you want to impose a duty on the rest of us to sort out which posts are yours – even though that is not possible to d.
AGAIN:
It’s irrelevant whether you consider (A) and (C) to be stand-alone or not: (C) gave you the sources that YOU asked for in (B), which YOU posted in reply to (A).
If one posts anonymously it is Much Ado About Nothing
AGAIN
So long as you continue to post anonymously all this nonsense you are saying about threading is pointlessly irrelevant.
There is absolutely no means for anyone to be certain that any two posts from anonymous are from the same person.
Why are you stupidly continuing to argue this ?
That is literally how anonymous posting works.
It is a flaw – if you want an identity.
It is a feature if you do not.
No one is telling you how to post.
Only that the choices you make have consequences.
When you post anonymously:
Each post stands alone.
You start from word one with ZERO credibility,
With ZERO identity.
When you end a post – it is done.
Each is standalone.
You the person can never earn credit for whatever is good about what you post – because there is no identity to hold that credit.
You the person can never lose credibility – because there is no identity to hold that.
Why do I have to keep explaining this too you ?
If you post as anonymous – I am going to expect that every single assertion you make is proven inside that post.
Especially claims that no one has proven before.
If you post anything that I do not know as a fact – the assumption is that what you claim is not to be trusted.
That is the price of anonymity.
Like typical left wing nuts – you want things to magically work different than they do.
You have very shallow understanding of things and you expect to be trusted.
You aren’t.
You want credibility – earn it, you can not do that as anonymous.
As to sources – no you did not. You give personally selected excerpts.
We have dealt with this out of context nonsense from the left for years.
You really do not understand the extent to which you are not trusted by large portions of the country.
That is the consequence of lying to and slandering them all the time.
“all this nonsense you are saying about threading is pointlessly irrelevant.”
It isn’t. If comment B replies to comment A asking for sources for A, and comment C replies to comment B providing the sources for A, it doesn’t actually matter whether the person who wrote A is the same as the person who wrote C.
Either you can follow a threaded exchange or you cannot. So far, you’re showing that you either cannot or will not.
“it doesn’t actually matter whether the person who wrote A is the same as the person who wrote C.”
Correct, nor does it matter whether that exchange is threaded.
That said if you post anonymously – the burden to prove your assertions is on you – for most every post, for any assertions that have not been near universally accepted.
That is a cost of posting anonymously.
“Either you can follow a threaded exchange or you cannot. So far, you’re showing that you either cannot or will not.”
In your example you conclude threading does not matter.
And you end with the non-sequitur that it does ?
Do not post as anonymous if you want others to attribute posts you claim are yours to you.
This is relatively trivial and the problems you constantly rant about are of your own making.
Once again, I am not going to do additional work to guess at an identity for you.
Post anonymously and you surrender all history – even that of threads,
an each and every post starts with zero credibility.
That is the cost of posting anonymously.
Each and everyone of us is free to post however we please, under our real name, under a pen name, or anonymously.
Or combinations.
You will note I avoid this stuff about trying to guess how many different names other named posters are using.
It is pointless.
You are free to post anonymously, under a pen name, under many pen names, under your own name,
however you wish.
You are not free to burden others with the impossible task of creating an identity for you when you post anonymously.
So that you clear.
So long as you post anonymously
I will chose when and if I treat other anonymous posts are also yours.
I may do so randomly,
not at all.
or even incorrectly.
And that is YOUR problem. Not mine.
That is the cost of posting anonymously.
I do not even have the tiniest interest in your lectures, on how to guess which anonymous post is yours.
By posting anoymously you surrender all credibility,
and while I may link past posts to you or not as I please.
You can d nothing about it but rant.
It is not possible or my duty to sort out which anonymous posts are yours.
It is also not possible to prove error should I chose to do so badly.
That is the price of posting anonymously.
“ What reason would Trump have for bringing classified documents to MAL ?
There are reasons, even good reasons, and the reasons that Trump would intentionally bring classified documents to MAL tell you what those documents probably are – as well as telling you they are probably not classified.”
There are no good reasons. None. Zero. Classified documents were not his to take period. That’s the problem. Trump wrongly believed he had a right to those documents. By refusing to turn them over after being subpoenaed he was effectively committing theft. By refusing to let FBI agents look into boxes before the search warrant was executed he effectively hid evidence of stolen documents. When a reliable tip showed Trump to still be in possession of classified documents including TS/SCI a search warrant was not only necessary, but imperative given the nature of Trump recklessly keeping them mixed up with other personal effects.
The fact that more documents were found during the search after Trump’s lawyers asserted they sent everything back justified the need for expediency and provided proof that Trump was not complying.
Trump’s claims of executive privilege do not apply because he cannot assert executive privilege against the president executive branch. Only Biden can make such an assertion.
“There are no good reasons. None. Zero.”
Good, then there is no good reason to beleive that he did.
It is possible that at your level of existance people do stupid things all the time.
But for most of us, we do not.
Most people are not criminals.
Not merely because we are afraid of getting arrested,
But because for most of us committing crimes does not make sense.
In general the more affluent someone is the less likely they are to do something that does not make sense.
Elon Musk is incredibly unlikely to shoplift. As an example.
Donald Trump was incredibly unlikely to collude with Russia because,
getting caught would be fatal.
Even succeeding would be far more expensive than just buying what he needed.
What is it you think That Putin could give Trump that Trump could not get easier and cheaper by giving cambridge analytica a bit more money ?
Whatever Trump had at MAL – classified or not, he had for a reason.
And you do not seem to grasp that.
Criminals rarely commit crimes for no reason. Though some do you for bad reasons.
But you never consider this.
“Classified documents were not his to take period.”
After Jan 20, 2021 that is correct, Before it is not.
“That’s the problem.”
No the problem is your shallow thinking.
“Trump wrongly believed he had a right to those documents.”
As president he had the right to them
Do you have evidence that he aquired them AFTER he was president ?
“By refusing to turn them over after being subpoenaed he was effectively committing theft.”
Nope, that is not how the law works.
“By refusing to let FBI agents look into boxes before the search warrant was executed he effectively hid evidence of stolen documents.”
That is both false and not what happened. Even DOJ/FBI have not made that claim.
“When a reliable tip showed Trump to still be in possession of classified documents including TS/SCI a search warrant was not only necessary,”
We do not have evidence of such a tip, we do not even have a documented claim of such a tip.
We have leaks – like the stupid nuclear documents leak, that are certain to be false because if they were true the leak itself would be a crime.
The Affadavit did expose that Kash Patel was threatening to make public – documents regarding the collusion delusion that Trump had PUBLICLY declassified multiple times – including by Executive order.
That actually makes things WORSE for FBI/DOJ/Biden.
“The fact that more documents were found during the search”
Again we still do not know what was found during the search.
Even FBI is only claiming “marked” documents, not classified documents.
These are not the same.
” after Trump’s lawyers asserted they sent everything back justified the need for expediency and provided proof that Trump was not complying.”
False in so many ways. Even if all your facts were correct and proven you would still be wrong. you can not justify a warrant by what you discovered, that is circular.
Judge – give us a warrant – then when we get it we will tell you why we want it.
“Trump’s claims of executive privilege do not apply because he cannot assert executive privilege against the president executive branch. Only Biden can make such an assertion.”
That is quite litterally not established. There are two cases given Cert before SCOTUS right now regarding precisely that issue.
If DOJ wanted to win those cases – this was a huge mistake.
There are many complex issues,
Ownership,
Executive priviledge,
authorization.
That contra those of you on the left are NOT clearly resolved – either with respect to facts or the law.
It is GENERALLY true that the current administration can go to court to obtain SOME of the records of the past administration.
And it usually wins. That is not the same as always wins, or can skip going to court.
We have been seeing this nonsense that executive privilege claims can be waived without going to court.
Even Trump defended the executive privildge claims that Obama had made.
I do not think there has ever been an instance before where a president did not defend the executive privilege claims of a predecessor.
Personally I think executive privildge is very narrow – but the courts have already accepted it as broader. the scope is up to the courts – not you or I and I doubt this will change that.
But the court ordering the Special Master has already asserted that claims of executive priviledge are NOT moot.
That DOJ can not run roughshod over Trump’s claims of executive priviledge.
And she appears to be asserting that the current administration does not have unilateral authority to wave privildge on the prior administration.
There are cases where the courts have found that claims of executive priviledge were not sufficient to thwart a prior administrations need to access prior records. But that is far from a blanket right of prior administrations.
on Even the PRA does not give the current president access to the prior presidents records.
I suspect DOJ can defeat claims of executive priveldge on a case by case basis.
But they will not win on theirown ability to waive or on limitless access.
Consider stop picking nits, and get to the real issue which is the security of confidential information.
The man who fears no truth has nothing to fear from lies.”
~Thomas Jefferson
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
He later, after his “is is” answer, admitted that he had “an inappropriate physical relationship”
Ya think?
He could have sincerely admitted it, did a Mia Copa and the world would have forgiven and forgot, in time. He should have known better, But, we are all sinners. I think most people understand that.
It was sad to watch. I think Bill was one of the most intellectually gifted Presidents in recent history.
What has happened to the press is a tragedy. The consumer is like a person putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Partial truth here, untruth there….
“Partial truth can be truth as long as it is not taken as whole truth. Partial truth taken as whole truth is untruth.”
The Clintons have long thrived in the gray area between “technical” and actual truth. From Hillary’s claim to being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to Bill Clinton parsing of the word “is.” Yet, that ability to shape truth to their immediate needs is only possible with assistance of an endlessly enabling media.
Christopher Hitchens would agree with Professor Turley. Hitchens was one of the most vociferous critics, as an avowed atheist and leftist, of Clinton Inc. Trump merely took Clinton’s grifting talent to the next level.
Christopher Hitchens:
Instead, the polling business gives the patricians an idea of what the mob is thinking, and of how that thinking might be changed or, shall we say, “shaped.” It is the essential weapon in the mastery of populism by the elite.
In the 1992 election, Mr. Clinton raised discrete fortunes from a gorgeous mosaic of diversity and correctness. From David Mixner and the gays he wrung immense sums on the promise of lifting the ban on homosexual service in “the military”—a promise he betrayed with his repellent “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. From a variety of feminist circles he took even larger totals for what was dubbed “The Year of the Woman,” while he and his wife applauded Anita Hill for her bravery in “speaking out” about funny business behind the file cabinets.
One feels almost laughably heavy-footed in pointing out that Mrs. Clinton’s prim little book, It Takes a Village, proposes sexual abstinence for the young, and that the president was earnestly seconding this very proposal while using an impressionable intern as the physical rather than moral equivalent of a blow-up doll.
The Clinton administration always had its banana republic side. For all the talk about historic presidential “philandering,” it is hard to recall any other White House which has had to maintain a quasi-governmental or para-state division devoted exclusively to the bullying and defamation of women.
― Christopher Hitchens, No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton
https://www.amazon.com/One-Left-Lie-Triangulations-Jefferson/dp/1859847366
NB: Darren, please delete my duplicate comment below “Sammy”. It should have been a new comment in reply to Professor Turley, not “Sammy”. mea culpa
The Clintons have done more harm to this country than any other single actor. By forfeiting the potential for a lasting peace after the break-up of the USSR, and expanding and weaponizing NATO, Bill Clinton led the world down the deadly path it now finds itself on. Hillary, ever the warmonger, is responsible for pushing the bombing of Yugoslavia and Libya, the US invasion of Syria, and the 2014 coup in the Ukraine. And that’s not even getting into their crooked dealings in Haiti and other places. Let’s hope this diabolical couple gets treated accurately by future historians.
Ask the Gold Star families who did more harm: Clinton or GW Bush.
@Anon
Clinton. Rather than dealing w Osama bin Laden… he just sent a single cruise missile in to a terrorist training camp that did damage by iirc didn’t kill anyone.
That opened the door to the Towers and 9/11.
Now fast forward to Biden. Afghanistan withdraw led to deaths. His mixed messages to Putin? Definitely more deaths and counting.
But who’s counting?
-G
More American service members lost their lives during Trump’s first 2 years than Biden’s.
Because Trump spent 4 years getting us out of Afghanistan, Syria, ……
Biden inherited a world in which the US had the least military committements to hostile locations in my lifetime.
Biden has already increased the number of conflicts US soldiers are in, just as Obama did.
Typical ATS spin that required correction performed by John Say. This is ATS trying to create disagreements that should never have occurred in the first place. That is his nature. It is not good.
The Secretary of State who would be President was the topic of Water Closet that disseminated classified information for leverage and profit to domestic and foreign special and peculiar interests.
“The Clintons have long thrived in the gray area between “technical” and actual truth. ”
So why is JT so intent on going after the Clintons after all these years? He is acting just like trump, sure I had hundreds of top secret material scattered all around mar a logo, but look out for those emails 10 years ago.
Come on JT, get over it. If the Clintons skirt the truth and twist the meaning of words, what is trump doing. The man (can I call him that?) hasn’t uttered a truthful statement in years. The FBI. planted it, I declassified them, drink bleach to kill COVID (which several people did and killed themselves, I guess they also killed COVID as well so it worked, ok partial truth on that one). trump had highly classified documents unsecured in his house. Is there any doubt about that? Or are we still looking for fraud in the 2020 election? Reality Winner went to jail for a far lessor offense.
Why can’t you stay focused on what the article says and not go off on the tired, “But look what Trump did!” rant. JT is responding to a CURRENT Washington Post article. He is intellectually honest to write about Trump when that story plays out.
He is Baby Trump, a “baby” that has none of the abilities of Trump.
S. Meyer: you are correct: a baby doesn’t have the narcissistic ability to constantly lie, nor the need for endless attention, affirmation and hunger for power at any costs because of an innate weakness of character. Babies are better than Trump.
“a baby doesn’t have the narcissistic ability to constantly lie, nor the need for endless attention, affirmation and hunger for power at any costs because of an innate weakness of character. “
Then why do you wish to kill them?
“ Why can’t you stay focused on what the article says and not go off on the tired, “But look what Trump did!” rant.”
Because the whole point of Turley’s column is to deflect from Trump’s bigger and more serious problems. Hillary’s emails was 10 years ago. It’s the worst kind of “whataboutism” there is.
The Washington Post is doing the same thing. Which is what gives Turley the opportunity to join in on the deflection.
Trump is committing crimes today, not 10 years ago. He’s doing something much worse and has a much bigger chance to be indicted with multiple felonies.
Turley is engaging in, “ but look what Hillary did”. Trump is today. Not 10 years ago.
Though long overdue, and as Prof. Turley has often pointed out we are living in the age of rage, an analysis of the hatred permeating politics and politicians would be welcomed by many. The hatred diminishes us as human beings.The culprit? Certainly the availability on a wide-spread basis of the Information Superhighway, now known as the internet, is a major factor.
But does not explain why the rage, why the hatred……and so one can hate ‘the Clintons’ or just hate Hillary, and one can hate Donald Trump and his family, and hate Melania, and hate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, but why the hatred?
The Post’s author’s name is Glenn Kessler, not David.
Are we going to get the same analysis of whether Trump was in illegal possession of documents with classified markings and whether he properly secured them?
Hillary Clinton is focusing on whether the emails were marked classified as opposed to whether they contained classified information.
vs Trump that has documents marked Classified but are no longer classified.
You don’t know whether they’re classified. You just pretend to know. We may know soon enough, depending on whether Cannon makes it a factor in which documents get reviewed by the Special Master.
I know the judge has no power to claim they are classified
Iowan, since the former President keeps his security clearance and the rules and regulations permit the former President access, why should the discussion be over classification? I don’t think it makes a difference if the documents secured at MAL were classified or not.
S.Meyer
Then we are into the PRA.
It is vital to get agreement of the power to declassify. So far the leftist narrative is ALL classified and threat to security.
We also need to iron out the fact, that these documents are not source documents, but copies.
The status of NDI information is an apparition. It retains the shape of what ever the prosecution desires. It demands to be treated as classified, but does not live in the classified environment, nor adheres to any rules hard rules of DoD. The President as CIC, can make the ultimate decision…because there is no overruling office, or person.
The DoJ is ignoring all of these questions. Just like all good leftists, argues from their conclusion, ignoring the facts concerning the above.
That’s why I find it hard to believe the DoJ wants this in a court room. and be forced to defend their position. The Obstruction Charge the left wanted out of Mueller(Wiesmann) never happened, because the elements of obstruction were missing.
This, like Mueller(Wiesmann), is nothing but theater, presenting fiction for entertainment.
“ The status of NDI information is an apparition. It retains the shape of what ever the prosecution desires. It demands to be treated as classified, but does not live in the classified environment, nor adheres to any rules hard rules of DoD. The President as CIC, can make the ultimate decision…because there is no overruling office, or person.” Trump is NOT the CIC. Biden is. That’s why Trump’s claims don’t apply. That’s why the DOJ can pursue charges for obstruction and violating the espionage act.
Iowan, the PRA left things murky. That can be good or bad, but it permits people to argue on all sides. That means it belongs in civil court and nowhere else. ATS can make arguments, prosecutors can indict, and we can stay on this merry-go-round forever or until the courts adjudicate the situation. In the end, based on what we know, there was no criminal act.
What ATS is doing is pretending. If A, then B, but he cannot prove A exists. It will happen or not in the civil court system.
ATS is radical, or at least his thinking is. His game is to obscure facts like he generally does, and when things are worked out and forgotten about, he never has to pay for his errors. We have seen that with almost every significant issue involving Trump. He should be ignored. That will not happen, so we debate, pass insults back and forth, etc., in a meaningless fashion that, at the very best, exercises our brains.
Some might think he adds something tangible, but generally, he adds nothing except hate and discontent. That is his desire.
The PRA is unconstitutional, if it takes from the president the power to control executive branch records while president.
It is that simple.
Fundimentally it MUST work just as classification does – congress can dictate whatever it wishes, any power it grants to anyone in the executive it also grants to the president.
I would note on reading the PRA it directly addresses most of the cases the left fixates on.
The EX-President – By Law, not the current president, according to the PRA controls access to Presidential Records.
Whether NARA can confiscate records from Trump or not, they can not share them with DOJ or anyone else without the ex-presidents permission – without going to court.
All the instances the left cites are instances in which DOJ or some other part of the current executive went to court to gain access to the ex-presidents papers.
These are NOT proof that the govenrmnent owns them – or controls them.
Only that the courts ca override – given a strong enough basis, the ex-presidents control.
“The EX-President – By Law, not the current president, according to the PRA controls access to Presidential Records.”
This is my understanding and makes most of what ATS says junk.
I think the incumbent President can change things, but he must make it known to the former President. Biden hasn’t done that.
The incumbent president can not change access to the ex-presidents documents.
That is specifically why we have all the court cases that the left cites without understanding.
It is very commonplace for the courts to grant the current executive access to ex-presidents records,
but they have to go to court to do so, and the court nearly always says that whatever interests the executive claims is sufficient to overcome the ex-presidents rights. But it is ALWAYS done through the courts – because by default the ex-president controls the records. NARA can not even give the current president personal access to ex-presidents records without going to court.
I beleive there are specific exceptions to this that are covered in the PRA for matters that involve the whitehouse and are ongoing at the time of changes of administrations.
John, access to and possession of are two different things. The incumbent President cannot change access to documents created before becoming President.
The court system is the primary method of access when negotiations do not work.
They’re not the former President’s documents. They’re the government’s documents.
ATS, so you say, but are your wording and meaning proper? Your lack of a fundamental understanding behind the passage of the laws we are discussing is distressing. You need to figure out ownership and the difference between a custodian (storage) and an owner.
Unfortunately, you are in the dark flopping around, too impressed with yourself to understand these concepts.
“ Iowan, since the former President keeps his security clearance and the rules and regulations permit the former President access, why should the discussion be over classification?”
Trump’s security clearance does not give him the authority to keep classified documents at his home. It just allows him to review classified materials that are in the government’s possession as in national security briefings. It permits ACCESS not OWNERSHIP of the documents as he’s claiming.
He’s illegally in possession of government documents which is legally defined as theft.
Biden can revoke Trump’s security clearance. Did you know that? Biden revoked Trump’s ability to get national security briefings because he was too erratic. Biden likely revoked his security clearance and any classified documents he has would be illegal in his possession.
The President doesn’t have a security clearance. He has access to all classified documents by virtue of his position, and that ends when he leaves office:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/25/trump-classified-legal/
Because he doesn’t have a security clearance, he cannot “keep” something he doesn’t have. The next President can give permission for former Presidents to continue viewing classified docs, but Biden did not do that for Trump. Trump no longer gets national security briefings.
So WaPo trump’s Obama’s executive order ?
WaPo is correct that the President does not have a security clearance – he has unlimited access and power over everything by virtue of his office.
It is also correct that completely unlimited access and control vanishes the moment another president is sworn in.
Among the limitless powers over government documents – secret and not, is the power of the president to give access to whoever they please.
Clinton, Bush and Obama through executive orders – Obama’s still in effect, gave the highest clearance in existance to ex-presidents and vice presidents.
That EO has not been modified or rescinded. Trump, Obama, Clinton and Bush have access to all govenrment documnents of any kind classified or not, and can not be denied by anyone other than the current President.
That is the current state of things.
Absent a public communication from Biden, or a private one from Biden to Trump
Trump retains limitless – no one can say no, access to government information. As does all living former presidents and vice presidents.
Biden is free to change the executive order – or to publicly or privately rescind or limit Trump’s access.
But he has not done so.
What Obama EO are you talking about?
Link to it.
From what I read, Biden already did rescind Trump’s access to classified info.
ATS is not credible or a good reader, so he has to prove it.
Biden can rescind Trump or anyone else’s access to classified information. He can do so formally, or informally – just be telling subordinates – do not give Trump this, that or anything.
I am not aware that Biden has done so formally – if you have reporting to that effect please link to it.
I have heard – and suspect it is true that Biden has depriverd Trump of access tot he PDB which is traditionally provided to ex-presidents.
There was a big stink over Brennan’s continued classified access while he was at CNN, with lots of people demanding his access be rescinded. Ultimately I do not think it was. While that is in the presidents power – it looks bad.
I doubt that Biden has done something to rescind Trump’s access that has been made public.
But I could be wrong as the press fawns over and praises democrats and accuses republicans of being fascists for doing exactly the same acts.
Regardless, Biden reducing Trump’s access does not effect Trump and the documents in his possession until he is officially informed.
Biden can not make it illegal for Trump to posses something he is already legally in possession of.
For those of you on the left I would also suggest reviewing the Pentagon papers, the court cases that went all the way to the supreme court, and the court progeny.
The supreme court of the united states denied the government the power to recover unpublished portions of the pentagon papers .
We are dealing with a very complex area of law.
I do not believe the courts have EVER allowed the prosecution of a journalist under the espionage act.
And there are very very few prosecutions of anyone who was not either a member of government or a government contractor at the time of the violation.
It isn’t a matter of “rescinding.” As discussed in the Post article I linked to, everyone BUT the President must obtain a clearance to view classified materials, and that clearance begins and ends in a formal way with paperwork. The current President does not need a classified clearance and there is no paperwork for it. The current president has access simply by virtue of being President, and that access starts on the day he’s inaugurated and ends on the day he leaves office UNLESS the President who replaces him explicitly chooses to extend continued access. Otherwise the end of the access occurs automatically, as soon as he leaves office. Biden has not granted Trump continued access, so Trump’s access is over. Biden also specifically stated that unlike other former Presidents, Trump would not receive classified intelligence briefings. (He said that on Feb. 6, 2021, in a CBS News interview, and it was widely reported at the time.)
For example, if you’re referring to Executive Order 13526, it makes few references to former Presidents:
3.5(b) “the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former Presidents and Vice Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203.”
4.4(a) “The requirement in section 4.1(a)(3) of this order that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need to-know the information may be waived for persons who: … (3) served as President or Vice President.” — MAY be waived, not WILL be waived
Why do you think the archivist section is relevant ?
The archivist has ONLY declassification authority, and even that has proven quite limited in practice.
Regardless, the role of the National Archives – its purpose fo existing is to make the records of the government available to the PUBLIC.
Not to hide them. Presidential records – including classified documents end up in private presidential libraries open to the PUBLIC.
Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump actively sought to declassify more documents, The Clinton, Bush and Obama EO’s have many provisions on declassification that were supposed to expedite the process.
And yet the backlog of documents awaiting declassification at the National Archives has been growing by leaps and bounds every year.
Declassification is almost automatic based on age – but not quite, agencies can delay the process indefintily and they unifromly do.
Regardless, the national archives is delegated declassification authority and has been for decades.
They do not have classification authotity.
Please read the Obama executive order on Classified information – which is really a modification of the Bush order which is a modification of the Clinton order.
Ex-Presidents and vice presidents have unlimited access to all govenrment information without a need to know.
Does it have to be this way ? Nope. That is just the way EO’s from Clinton, Bush, and Obama left it.
Trump could have changed that – he did not.
Biden could have changed that – he did not.
the EO explicitly grants the current president and ONLY the current president the power to limit the access of ex-presidents.
That
provision of the EO is redundant and the constitution gives the current president to do whatever he pleases regarding access to classified documents.
Biden can order government – publicly, privately even secretly, to rescind Trump’s access.
Biden can even deny trump access to documents currently in Trump’s posession – without notifying Trump.
But you an only have a crime if Trump KNOWS he does not have access.
I would further note that at this time we have no reason to beleive that Biden has done anything beyond stop Trump from getting the PDB.
Trump has an all access pass to everything within the government courtesy of Obama’s Executive order.
You will NEVER get passed the “unauthorized” part of the statute.
“Ex-Presidents and vice presidents have unlimited access to all govenrment information without a need to know.”
No, Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information doesn’t say that. It says “The requirement in section 4.1(a)(3) of this order that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need to-know the information may be waived for persons who: … (3) served as President or Vice President.”
It does not say that it WILL be waived. It’s up to the current President to decide to waive it or not.
Read it:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
Read the whole EO.
It is more than a single clause.
You should read the whole thing for many reasons.
It refutes most of the claims made by left wing nuts like yourself.
Its mere existance as well as parts of the text refutes the claim that the president can not do whatever he pleases.
I’ve read the whole thing and it doesn’t say what you claim, which is why YOU are unable to quote support for your claim.
You cannot substantiate your claim.
You also cannot bring yourself to admit that you cannot substantiate your claim.
How many times are you going to reverse yourself on this issue?
When one is as ignorant as Svelaz, they are forced to make things up. There is no use correcting each error of Svelaz. If one isn’t sure if Svelaz is correct, one can guess he is wrong and will be right most of the time.
“ I know the judge has no power to claim they are classified”
No, but Trump’s lawyers do. And they are not claiming the documents are declassified. If they are declassified the special master will not require a security clearance. If they are then the SM will require the highest possible security clearance.
Will will find out soon.
Why do you and Karen S keep repeating the lie that the stolen documents were declassified–they weren’t according to Bill Barr and John Bolton and the lack of any paper trail, which is created when documents are declassified. But, even if they were, the papers belong to the United States of America, not the one you worship and adore. Trump stole them after being told by the NARA and 2 lawyers that he couldn’t take them. Then, he returned some, but not most, and lied about returning them. Documents pertaining to nuclear capabilities can never be declassifed.
“Why do you and Karen S keep repeating the lie that the stolen documents were declassified–they weren’t according to Bill Barr and John Bolton and the lack of any paper trail, which is created when documents are declassified. ”
Why do you keep calling the documents stolen – when there is no such allegation ?
Why do you keep insulting people who question whether these documents are classified – when we KNOW Trump declassified tens of thousands of documents, and they only thing we MAYBE know about these is that they still include classified markings ?
Why do you keep puttin words into Bolton’s and Barr’s mouth ? The media has reported Barr’s personal involvement with Trump ordered declassification. I do not know what Bolton or Barr have actually said, but it is clear that if the said what you claim they said they would be lying – and I highly doubt that is true.
“But, even if they were, the papers belong to the United States of America,”
Again you keep asserting things that are not established.
That is not the case law.
Even the cases most favorable to you so far only preclude ex-presidents from depriving the current government of access to documents they might need. They do not grant government – and particularly NARA the power to take owenership.
In fact the most recent case says the exact opposite – that NARA can not confiscate tapes of an interview conducted in the oval office if an ex-president refuses to provide them.
“not the one you worship and adore.”
Where is this from ? I do not know about Karen, but I have never voted for Trump.
My oppinion of him is not all that high. It i just that all the other presidents in the 21st century have been so much WORSE by far.
Biden is giving James Buchanon a run for worst president ever.
“Trump stole them after being told by the NARA and 2 lawyers that he couldn’t take them.”
Again all kinds of loaded words.
The documents were not “stolen” there is no allegation of that – why do we keep having to address with you such obvious falsehoods ?
You are now ambiguously refering to 2 lawters you will not identify, nor will you quote what they said.
These things actually matter.
Because like the claims regarding Barr and Bolton – you have not established that what you say happened actually happened.
Name and quote the lawyers.
Next – SO WHAT ? Dozen’s of lawyers claimed that Trump could not request a spacial master, He did, and he is going to get one.
Worse still the judges decision notes multiple serious problems for DOJ – including the fact that they appear to have lied to the court. They said the investigative team did not have access to material that might be priviledged, and yet the record demonstrates that they did. DOJ is not merely risking the wrath of the judge, they are risking the loss of part or all of their investigative team, as well as sanctions, and possibly their entire case – before they get started.
“Then, he returned some, but not most, and lied about returning them. Documents pertaining to nuclear capabilities can never be declassifed.”
If you do no wish to be called nutacha – quit making stupid claims
Obama declassified several documents related to nuclear capabilities – including the numbers of warheads and our knowledge of Israel’s nuclear program.
This has been addressed before, but if your memory is not that good – google is your friend
Regardless the OBVIOUS fact is that you continuously make claims that the slightest checking would prove FALSE.
Sometimes defending the truth is tedious but it needs to be done. Rewriting history is what politicians and other do in order to build their fantasies that they then try to foist on the public so they can achieve and keep power. If they are not stricken down then the fantasy just builds to bigger but not better things. “Dead Broke” rises to “None were marked classified” to the “Lost Cause” of unreconstructed post civil war confederates to “the stab in the back” that the National Socialists (Nazi’s) of interwar Germany used (among many others) to build their party and ultimately grab power and on and on. Truth is always worth the effort otherwise we forget what it is and and can no longer recognize it when it is right in front of our face. Both parties and almost all nations do it but it is still wrong.
Uncover what has previously been covered no matter how embarrassing personally or collectively it might be.
“…the FBI cut deals with her aides to secure their cooperation….” This is how the DOJ and FBI aided a Democrat as compared to how they burned down the Republican house in order to chase Trump.
Working your way up a chain is a normal prosecutorial method to get the big fish, by avoiding that step the FBI allowed Clinton to escape prosecution.
She is a crook, Biden is a crook, Bill Clinton is a crook, and they all skated. Trump has been chased by every two cent prosecutor from the NY AG to Mueller all the while going after anyone that ever said hello to him…and they have as of yet found anything.
Yes, years of going after Trump has found nothing, other then hundreds of classified documents he stole.
Sammy the Liberal is a strong advocate of guilty until proven innocent. Reply to my point Mr. Liberal, reply to my point.
“ Sammy the Liberal is a strong advocate of guilty until proven innocent. Reply to my point Mr. Liberal, reply to my point.”
Hillary was deemed guilty before she was investigated or questioned about her actions. She was not given the luxury of being presumed innocent. She was never charged so she’s innocent of all accusations, right?
You want Trump to be deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But you deemed Hillary guilty and a criminal before any charges or court determined her guilty or innocence. So Trump, using thr standard republicans Oder with Hillary is guilty. No?
Comey, your guy, said that Hillary was guilty but that he wasn’t going to prosecute. Forgetting that it wasn’t his decision to make, please tell us how innocent she was.
They cut deals with Trump’s aides to secure their cooperation too, and they’ll do it again if any are willing to cooperate.
“it demeans you to get in the middle of it” And if he didn’t, he lose his job at FOX and lose three-quarters of his blog readers.
Lawrence Tribe is that you?
Is there such a thing as a “serious journalist” any more”
Again, ad nauseum, if a regular federal employee, such as I was in that period, had done what Hillary had done, he/she would have, at best, been suspended and reprimanded, and at worst terminated, possibly even jailed. There is a significant double standard
Why isn’t Clinton’s behavior not a “lock her up “ act? After all, she knew that putting confidential classified emails on her personal server was unlawful. So didn’t she have intent? Additionally they were breached by foreign actors
Mr. Kessler is not a “serious” journalist
He is anointed as WaPo’s fact checker precisely because he is so adept at splitting hairs while ignoring the truth.
Where politics is concerned is the Washington Post reliable and truthful? No.
Professor, this is all becoming real tedious. It demeans you to get in the middle of it
Dennis, what is real tedious is people like you defending the indefensible. WHen Clinton set up her private server we all knew it was to avoid FOIA requests in order to hide her FOUNDATION criminality and therefore we have two crimes in one. “Accidentally” disseminating classified material because she wanted to frustrate the ability to discover her financial crimes.
You sir, are a fool.
JT’s reputation is already trash. He is a well known Trump apologist.
Christopher Hitchens would agree, one the most vociferous critics, as an avowed atheist and leftist, of Clinton Inc. Trump took Clinton’s grifting ability to the next level.
Instead, the polling business gives the patricians an idea of what the mob is thinking, and of how that thinking might be changed or, shall we say, “shaped.” It is the essential weapon in the mastery of populism by the elite.
In the 1992 election, Mr. Clinton raised discrete fortunes from a gorgeous mosaic of diversity and correctness. From David Mixner and the gays he wrung immense sums on the promise of lifting the ban on homosexual service in “the military”—a promise he betrayed with his repellent “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. From a variety of feminist circles he took even larger totals for what was dubbed “The Year of the Woman,” while he and his wife applauded Anita Hill for her bravery in “speaking out” about funny business behind the file cabinets.
One feels almost laughably heavy-footed in pointing out that Mrs. Clinton’s prim little book, It Takes a Village, proposes sexual abstinence for the young, and that the president was earnestly seconding this very proposal while using an impressionable intern as the physical rather than moral equivalent of a blow-up doll.
The Clinton administration always had its banana republic side. For all the talk about historic presidential “philandering,” it is hard to recall any other White House which has had to maintain a quasi-governmental or para-state division devoted exclusively to the bullying and defamation of women.
― Christopher Hitchens, No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton
https://www.amazon.com/One-Left-Lie-Triangulations-Jefferson/dp/1859847366
Estovir, if Trump is grifting, he is doing a lousy job because estimates of his wealth show a decline. People point to a lot of little things, but most of the time don’t amount to anything when one looks a bit deeper or cleans their glasses.
You sound as if you will support Biden despite the lack of faith, honor, and destruction he has caused. That is your choice, but then one wonders what moral principles you follow.
See Sack on Defamation, Section 2.8.
To be clear, the reference to the Sack treatise was intended to be responsive to a previous post that said: “JT’s reputation is already trash.”