Eleventh Circuit Rules for DOJ on Classified Documents As Trump Claims the Right to Declassify with a Thought

 

447 thoughts on “Eleventh Circuit Rules for DOJ on Classified Documents As Trump Claims the Right to Declassify with a Thought”

  1. You claim my post is full of falsehoods.

    Please Identify each of them.

    When you claim someone else has lied, you are obligated to demonstrate that.

    You have ranted about being censored – presuming you are that anonymous.

    There is enormous difference between:
    Insulting an argument
    Insulting a person.
    Defaming a person.
    Accusing a person of immoral acts.

    Each of these is progressively worse.

    I do not know that Daren is censoring you.
    But calling another person a liar without proving it is pretty heinous.
    Far worse than calling an argument stupid after proving it.

  2. Trading economics lists full time employment on 1/20/2021 as the same as on 1/20/2017.

    And as you mention Trump had a pandemic in his last 9 months.

    You note how horribly Trump handled the Pandemic.
    Can you cite some specific measure by which Trump did worse than Biden ?
    About 300K people died during the 11 months of Pandemic under Trump.
    Over 700K people died during the 22 months of Pandemic under Biden.
    Biden has just declared the Pandemic over – yet almost 13,000 people died of Covid in the past month.

    The fact is nobody handled the Pandemic well. That was not possible. No one has ever stopped a highly contagious respiratory virus. We still have little ability to do anything about the Flu – which is far less contagious, and sometimes we have working vaccines.

  3. It is very bizzare when a poster attack the grammar of another poster, in a post with obvious problems.

    It would be “make america great again trumpers” not “make america great trumpers”

    Finally I would repeat my original argument.

    This is not about Trump.

  4. If you are posting anonymous as some means of avoiding censorship – something that I do not believe you have established.

    Then take this as my plea to Darren to allow you to post under a name.

    While everyone who wishes has the right to post anonymously.

    Unidentified posts harm the quality of the blog.

    I would greatly prefer you post under a name and earn the reputation that your posts deserve.

    1. …The complaint of censorship of ATS based on political views is, at the very least, due to his using a banned email account while knowing the response will likely be deleted. Recently he posted under Jonathan and wasn’t deleted. He posted under green anonymous, and those responses weren’t deleted either.

      There is a pattern to his censored posts. This permitted me to predict which of his responses would most likely be banned.

      I posted this series of explanations before, along with the proof. The emails are both above and below the following link.

      https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/10/the-vaccine-mandates-the-supreme-court-considers-a-trip-to-major-questions-land/comment-page-1/#comment-2150052

      1. I have posted what my understanding of “the rules” regarding posts that will be deleted are.
        I have that understanding based on private emails from Darren when a few of my posts were “quarantined”

        I have since followed those rules and never had a problem.

        I would not personally have the same rules – though obviously spam and copyrighted content should be filtered.

        But the existing rules do not involve viewpoint censorship.

        If anonymous is being censored for expressing a viewpoint, then I will defend his right to express that viewpoint – no matter how stupid or obnoxious or hateful that posts are.

        Contra the left – hate speech is free speech.

        But defending his right to spray foul noxious content is not the same as defending the content.
        Nor is it any expression of sympathy or support.

        Frankly if he is being censored while defending him, I can still take pleasure in the fact that the left is being hoist by its own petard.

        This would be an example where “Turn about is fair play” – is a warning not a threat.

        I would not censor anyone.
        I will support those that are censored.
        But that does not mean I can not take pleasure in their censorship.

        If I argue not to censor anonymous – if that is actually occuring. That is not because of any merit on his part.
        It is not even because of his rights.
        It is because all of us are worse off when we allow censorship – even of the stupid.

      1. I provided my email.
        You or anyone else can share with me a post you think should not have been deleted.

        I understand the problem proving that a post that has been deleted should not have been.

        Those not on the left face that problem constantly.

        You MIGHT get my support that a post should not have been censored.
        You will NOT get my sympathy.

        I will fight against the censorship of NAZI’s and I will fight against the censorship of you.
        But that does not mean I do not think you deserve what you get.

        It only means that the most rights the most despicable are allowed are the least rights the rest of us can be assured of.

        1. In my 2:24pm comment, I already gave you an example of a comment that was removed for the sole reason that Elvis Bug was the author.

          If you didn’t look carefully at the URL, that’s an Internet Archive URL, which archived a snapshot of the page with the comment on it before the comment was removed, and you can look at the current version of the page to confirm that it was removed.

          I’m not going to email you.

          I’m not asking for your support or sympathy, simply giving you evidence.

          1. I tried, your link did not take me to any comment at all.

            I am not offering you sympathy.
            I honestly do not give a schiff about you or care in the personal sense that anyone on the left is being censored.

            But I do care greatly if JT is engaged in viewpoint censorship.

            readers do not need protection from the viewpoints of the left.

            If you are behaving stupidly – I prefer that to be highlighted, rather than supressed.

            Regardless, whether I like it or not real censorship of you
            undermines my right to free speech.

            Regardless, the burden of prof is on you.
            I am prepared to compare links if that is what you wish.
            But what you provided did not go to a comment,
            and I am not going to spend hours comparing an archived page to the current page.

            If you do not want the support of others – why bother posting the archived link ?

            1. “your link did not take me to any comment at all.”

              Duh. It takes you a snapshot of a *page* with comments, and I gave you the timestamp for the comment. A simple text search on the timestamp, 11:11, will take you to the comment. Do you not understand how to carry out text searches? If you know how but are unwilling to do it, OK. If you don’t know how, you should learn how, using your browser’s “Find” tool, typically control-F.

              1. Elvis Bug has been here under numerous names and I believe was banned numerous times and I think one of his comments stated that he was permanently banned. If that is the case, his responses would be removed from the blog because he is banned. The reason for the ban appears to focus mostly on his continuous use of foul language.

                This makes everything you say on this subject meaningless.

              2. You have said you do not want my help. That ends it.

                But if you did, you do not get to dictate how others must help you.
                I am not getting paid to do research for you.

      2. I would note that there appears to be one other criteria that I think I have seen that results in censorship.

        That is personal attacks on Turley particularly defamatory claims regarding Turley.

        While those are protected by the first amendment, I do not have a problem with Darren silencing personal attacks on Turley on Turley’s blog.

  5. “Not only do I believe trump was under the influence of foreign influences, so does John Kelly, former chief of staff for him…”
    I do not care what you beleive.

    We have been through this nonsense before. There is zero evidence of foreign influence on Trump.
    There is substantial evidence of foreign influence on Biden.

    Anyone trying to argue that Trump was some foreign puppet who is concurrently pretending that there is none on Biden is without any credibility.

    “Please learn how to spell people’s names.”
    NO! Been through this. Do not give a schiff.

    ” What you’ve put forth is an epic and borderline insane understanding of military strategy. Breathtaking, actually.”
    Then you would be able to address those issues clearly.
    Yet, whenever you actually try to make arguments using facts, logic, reason, you lose.

    “Sidebar for Darren:
    Your continued censoring of me for reasons of personality rather than principle”
    Provide an example ?
    my email is jbsay at thebrokenwindow dot net

    I will be happy to defend the most absolutely moronic speech from others.

    We are all aware of several things that result in a post being blocked.
    Running afoul of WP’s word filter.
    Running afoul of the spam filter.
    More than two links in a post
    And violating copyright.

    I am dubious about your claims of censorship, because there are several specific posters here that would have been censored based on the grounds you claim to have been censored.

    “My answering John’s post, where he referred to me as idiot several times”
    If I have ACTUALLY called you and idiot – I apologize. That is an error on my part.
    While free speech allows that it is not my intention to ever call specific posters here names.
    Though I will note that as you continue to post anonymously, you can not be defamed.
    There is no YOU to call names.

    What I recall posting is that specific arguments are idiotic – particularly arguments that have been roundly overcome by multiple means including facts.

    The assertion keeps getting made by you and others here that Nuclear Classifications are outside the reach of the president. That is FALSE. There are many many many court cases that reafirm that all executive power belongs to the president. The most recent I recall was invalidating the portions of the CFPIB law that prevented Trump from replacing the resigning head. Aside from the law, there is the fact that a quick google will find Obama declassifying nuclear secrets atleast TWICE

    Other similarly idiotic assertions are
    Trump did not declassify anything.
    It is not established that Trump did or did not declassify the documents at MAL.
    It is absolutely established that Trump declassified thousands, probably tens of thousands of documents while president.

    None of those FALSE assertions are reasons for censorship.

    But they are good reason for others here to get incensed at you and to insult you.
    Again if I have directly insulted you, rather than your arguments – I apologize.

    But I do not apologize for calling your arguments stupid – AFTER proving them blatantly wrong.

    I do not care that you are passionate. I do not care that you are on the left.

    I wish you were passionate, on the left, and made actually good arguments.

    He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.
    John Stuart Mill

  6. “National security is the exclusive domain of the president.”
    Still completely true.

    “Nuclear and high level intelligence classification issues are handled by the agency generating the information.”
    By executive order. Otherwise that would be unconstitutional.

    BTW Obama declassified nuclear secrets atleast twice.
    Can we quit this stupid nonsense.

    “Presidents are NOT able to have a fever dream and remove this classification, or to remove it telepathically,”
    Correct.
    “or to basically say ‘it’s mine because I moved it to the beach club’.””
    Inaccurate, they are absle to say that it is declassified if they ACT in any way to declassify it – as president.
    Giving classified information to a foreign diplomat declassifies it.
    That is a move to an insecure location.

    “There really is no use to converse with you on this if there is not recognition of this basic fact because your denial is the equivalent of your insisting the sun comes up in the west.”

    Look in the mirror. You have been demonstrably wrong about pretty close to EVERYTHING.

    I have demonstrated UNEQUIVOCALLY that you are incorrect on point after point.
    Usually multiple ways.
    You are wrong logically.
    You are wrong because it is not possible to make a system actually work as you claim.
    You are wrong because your claims are obviously unconstitutional,
    You are wrong because what you claim is improper, illegal or impossible has happened before – and not just under Trump.

    Trump is incorrect in claims that the president can declassify something by thought.
    Trump is absolutely right that the president can declassify ANYTHING.
    And that he can do so either by ACT or by ORDER.
    He can not do so by thought, or by merely wishing it was so.

    We addressed this when Biden was asked if Trump should retain security clearances, and Biden responded that he did not think so. That was not an order. Trump saying “I do not think these documents should be declassified” is not an order either.

    I will note something else.
    The documents at MAL remain classified IF they were moved from the WH to secured locations at MAL and they were not otherwise declassified during Trump’s presidency.
    But if the above conditions are met – there is no crime.
    Alternatively IF you claim MAL is not a secure location – then they were defacto declassified if they were moved there while Trump was president.
    And there is no crime.

  7. Ok I’ll stand in a precipice…..none the ses….the deep state who run out nation….via process…ever have Carter or Clinton access to ufo files. Yet Obama’s “process” let them be giving by mere time alone….quite arbitrary. What was the process? For Carter and Clinton it was need to know…and they never got told bc they never a need to know…..hey by mere time a president said 50 years is enough now we have disclosure…despite need to know. What gives. Why does Obama have authority by so to do a “process” to declassify….But the next president can’t have his process? And we all know if it was that classified…he wouldn’t have been told in the first instance….re: neither Carter or Clinton got told about ufos….But apparently it’s now a big deal. Really what could have Donald seem that is so cladsified? And if he saw that….then how often do the protectors chAnge duress codes? He has nothing that can compromise the usa. The only ppl who compromise the usa are hunters la p top. Everything g else trump got was “declassifi ed” already by the ptb. He didn’t even need to think it.

    1. Think about it….the pt b only told him what they were willing to reclassify in the first instance. So nun it was reallly classified ever or from the get go. Id tell the judge that lie. That the fb i lies….on one hand they follow a process by obama…But then there is need to know that was denied Carter and Clinton st al. The pt b know how to protect info…yet they failed to when trump was president? Conviently. they thought he had the power to declassify….they ride the fence….seriosly? What needs debated here? The president has the power…..I’m sure they don’t like that for many reasons…..But her trump will point out Martha’s death and Kyle tulenchikx….and point out how the libs kill people….by shutting up neighbors. Fjb…..I am really afraid of als….But my Mike wide area doesn’t get studied. Despite berths and kyle…and my tongue. Fjb

    2. I am done turley. I used to be afraid. Colo bar 38292. I don’t care any more. I hope my 737 from chicago to Charlotte crashes. And relieves me. I can’t even go to my doctor without threat of being kidnapped over blood pressure. Withou t loo sing my freedom over their blood pressure scores! I’m sick of it all – i do look forward to being on a 737 maxx. Do especially to gelb! I loved him Give it love to Br yce canyon..where apparently ones blood pressure scores dont trumps one ‘s liberty. I solved it gelb? We are run by commies. Xo me. Let me solve the great mystery! Myself without intervention!

  8. Mr. Turley, you are FOS sir, we have a ruling by an Obama Judge (Jackson, FEMALE) who ruled that anything that Bill Clinton took with him was deemed to be his and thus declassified by his actions of raking them with him, this was a case brought against them by Judicial Watch. How in the hell do you not know this? I can’t believe you do not know about this. Secondly, the Presidential Record Act does not trump the Constitution which gives Trump te absolute right to declassify anything he wishes. The facts are we have a Deep State (you know this) who SPIED on candidate Trump and he declassified THEIR DAMNED CRIMES. Why don’t you call out these THUGS instead of always trying to backhand Trump, the only damned honest man that been in our Presidency since Reagan.

      1. Regarding the Clinton classified tapes: “NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.” “Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” _Judge Jackson

        ATS will nitpick the words but, take note, he provides no answers. He is an obstructionist along with being deceptive and not truthful.

        1. Nowhere does that suggest “thus declassified,” nor are the records subject to the PRA “anything,” since many records are instead subject to the FRA, nor does the fact that NARA can’t seize disputed items in a civil case brought by a private entity that alleges no crime imply that the FBI can’t seize records with classified markings with a warrant signed by a judge based on an affidavit alleging several crimes.

          You are the person you complain about.

          1. There we go with the nitpicking and fragmentation of arguments.

            “NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them”
            the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” _Judge Jackson

            You have provided a word salad adding a lot of words while confusing yourself. The alternatives are you are deceptive and lying.

            “instead subject to the FRA

            What does this have to do with “the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” _Judge Jackson

            Why don’t you try and explain away Judge Jackson’s ruling? You can’t. That is why you deflect.

  9. Two sets of Laws in America.
    One for Democrats and a different one for Republicans.
    If youre obama or clinton…well well well …no worries about classified material, you can keep it in your sock drawer.

  10. Professor Turley, did I miss your article on the 30,000 or more Classified Documents stored in an unguarded furniture warehouse by Barack Obama as reported on in several news outlets this week?

      1. Better off not believing ATS

        Letter Reveals Obama Foundation Is Keeping Classified Docs in Abandoned Furniture Warehouse

        The Obama Foundation stored classified documents in an abandoned furniture warehouse, according to a 2018 letter from the Obama Foundation to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

        The letter, available on the Obama Foundation website and dated Sept. 11, 2018, reveals that the Obama Foundation not only acknowledged possessing classified documents but also admitted that they kept them in a facility that did not meet NARA standards for the storage of those documents.

        The letter says: “The Obama Foundation agreés to transfer up to three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000) to the National Archives Trust Fund (NATF) to support the move of classified and unclassified Obama Presidential records and artifacts from Hoffman Estates to NARA-controlled facilities that conform to the agency’s archival storage standards for such records and artifacts, and for the modification of such spaces. The first transfer of $300,000 was already made on August 9, 2018. An additional interim transfer will be made within 180 days of that date. Subsequent payments are subject to the negotiation of terms of the digitization process and museum operations.”

        https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/09/22/letter-reveals-obama-foundation-is-keeping-classified-docs-in-abandoned-furniture-warehouse-n1631408

        1. “The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) administers the Barack Obama Presidential Library, located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. The library holds records from the Obama presidential administration and is leased, controlled, managed, and used exclusively by NARA. The Obama Foundation, an independent entity, has never had control over the records in Hoffman Estates. All records in that facility are stored and managed by NARA in accordance with archival storage standards, and all classified records were stored in an appropriately secured compartment within the facility. NARA moved these records at the end of the Obama administration to the Hoffman Estates facility under the assumption that former President Obama and his Foundation would be building and transferring to NARA a traditional, physical Presidential Library in the Chicago area. When former President Obama decided that he would not build a physical, NARA-operated Presidential Library, NARA transported the classified records back to secure locations in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The Obama Foundation provided NARA with funds to help convert the Hoffman Estates facility and to cover some of the expenses of moving the classified records, but the foundation has never had possession or control over the records.”
          https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001#september-23-2022

          1. As usual, ATS cannot digest the material and is forced to copy it. In the process, ATS doesn’t deal with my comment. ATS acts in his usual deceptive self without disputing what I wrote and copied.

            There is no doubt in my mind or the mind of most intelligent and knowledgeable people that Obama’s storage was not as secure as Trump’s at MAL. Little substance differentiates the two locations, except Trump’s records were more secure. Politics is being played.

            Everyone can access the complete letter, which contains what I copied above. As I have repeatedly said, with time, ATS’s arguments fade, become faulty, and eventually untrue. That is his nature.

            The letter is at: https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/BOF-NARA-LOI.pdf

            1. You want to be spoon fed like a toddler. I am not your nanny.

              The point is that PJ Media misrepresented the meaning of what was written in the 2018 letter. PJ Media’s claim that “the Obama Foundation not only acknowledged possessing classified documents but also admitted that they kept them in a facility that did not meet NARA standards for the storage of those documents” is FALSE.

              As NARA previously stated, “The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.

              No one at NARA GAF what you do or don’t “doubt in your mind.” They care about the facts, which contradict your article.

              Everyone can also access the NARA statements.

              Everyone can also access the rest of the Obama Foundation letters. Here’s another one: “The Records are owned by NARA and currently held at a NARA-controlled facility located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.”
              https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/NARA_Digitization_MOU-1.pdf
              You and PJ Media want to pretend that the Hoffman Estates facility was controlled by the Obama Foundation. It was not.

              1. You don’t know what you are talking about. You post links but can’t seem to read them or use critical thinking skills to interpret what they say. You also don’t bother with the dates of press releases because by not recognizing the dates, you think you can change history.

                Let me start by quoting from the beginning and the end.

                “Memorandum of Understanding Between
                The Barack Obama Foundation And
                National Archives and Records Administration Regarding the Digitization of Obama Presidential Records
                This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into on February 15, 2019,” …
                “is intended to be solely for the benefit of the Parties hereto and is not intended to confer any benefits upon, or create any rights in favor of, any person other than the Parties hereto.”

                The date is Feb15 2019. This is the more likely date of the *real* compliance three years after leaving office.
                The date of the Obama Foundation letter I posted was September 11, 2018, before the agreement you posted. The date of your press release was: August 12, 2022. You can figure out for yourself what all this means. If your glasses are removed, you will figure out what a contemptible person you are.

                One has to check everything ATS says because he doesn’t bother seeking the truth. He lies and deceives. Your way of presenting facts shows NARA rewriting history.

                You are a disgrace to this blog.

                1. The MOUs are the dates of the funding. NARA made a statement recently to clear up the lies that places like PJ Media recently made.

                  You are the person you endlessly complain about.

                  1. Your evidence is from August 2022. Stop the BS making things up. Start with valid proven evidence, not the political manure you spread over the blog.

                    You were caught. You didn’t include the date of your press release, 2022 and now you have to make things up so that your stupid statements can continue convincing those that know very little about what is going on.

                    Take note, I provided data from Obama with a date. The Obama Foundation letter was the earliest, 2018 presently under discussion.

    1. Something for all!

      A. If you want to prove that DOJ’s arguments are faulty, then you should discuss their arguments!
      As the validity of statements stands by it’s own, “To Quoque” mostly dismissed:
      Example: Barack, after his wive Michelle caught him by dressing up his resume, he said that others did that too: He is argueing that “To Quoque” is not a logical fallacy.

      But as politics is a dirty business, here is an enlighting episode aired on Jesse Watters FN “Primetime” show today:
      PRA controversy: How former Presidents did store their documents:
      https://www.onenewspage.com/video/20220923/14956099/Guess-Where-Obama-Clinton-and-Both-Bush-apos.htm

      B. How our Commander-in-Chief walking around:
      https://www.dailywire.com/news/video-why-does-biden-constantly-wander-around-aimlessly-after-speeches

  11. ATS, so far, the only places where you have been proven right are the smallest of issues where the sentiments are the opposite of what you claim.

    Whether it is green anonymous, Johnathan, ATS or any of the others I have not mentioned you can’t keep a name or a consistent thought. In fact your different aliases arguments conflict with one another. Sometimes you depend on the likelihood that your response will be deleted so no one can find it. In other words you are a miscreant, a waste product on the blog. You should not exist among civilized honest people.

  12. ATS writes: “Good selective editing. Maybe you’re not as clueless as you initially appear.” Self-deletion

    Thank you. What I did with my selective editing was what you do over time and numerous responses. I prefer to keep things simple, so I edited out words and placed your thoughts in a continuous sentence. Why don’t they make sense? Because they don’t. You are not interested in making sense or discussing truths. You prefer deception and lies.

    That is why you are not credible, and no one should listen to you.

      1. ATS, Bug, and you both post under anonymous and have banned accounts. That can lead to confusion, but both pretend knowledge and post ridiculous thoughts, later proven wrong. If I err based on a twelve-word phrase, a fraction of the time, so be it. I correctly identify you most of the time and occasionally misidentify you when the voices are in harmony. Both sing the wrong tune.

        Feel free to tell me when it is Bug, not you, though how do you know it is Bug and not some other person also singing in harmony?

        Your desire for anonymity. Your problem.

  13. re: standing

    At best, there may be a small fee charged for books/documents returned after a well-established return date. Do archivists still shred library cards?

  14. Does the government have standing in a court of law? Were the unclassified, perhaps sensitive, documents shared or otherwise redistributed to domestic or foreign parties? Who is the injured party and what did they suffer?

  15. Interesting that although Turley quotes courts and other critics of Trump’s actions, Turley, himself, never states his own opinion that would condemn or even criticize Trump or Trump’s action, himself.

    1. He only criticizes using his own opinion when it comes to democrats, Biden, Hunter Biden, or democrats as “against free speech” while ignoring republicans doing the same thing. He’s gotten to be quite the hypocrite on that front.

    2. Why would he? Trump did nothing wrong. The only crimes concerning the Mara Lago raid were those committed in criminal conspiracy between ordering (Garland), signing (Reinhart), and executing (the same old FBI thugs) the patently illegal and unconstitutional warrant.

  16. OT

    The Deep Deep State Swamp Stooge, The “Bumpkin From Bakersfield,” seeks power through ambiguous promises, fails to advocate the simple, profound freedom of the Constitution.

    The “Bumpkin From Bakersfield” has waited decades for power, a la Christopher Wray, and done nothing to crush the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

  17. Meanwhile, back at the ranch. The FBI raided the home of a former President of the United States with a giant vacuum. They used a magistrate who had previously recused himself due to bias on 22 June 2022 from another case involving the former President to get their warrant.

    They are in a hurry to get to the booty even though they waited a year and a half to act. What marvelous timing.

    Then a person has to ask, what is in it for a billionaire? If he had classified information that would hurt Biden or Hillary he could have simply taken notes or have them copied. That is not difficult. I doubt he even knew what was packed.

    If this is so important, and we will find out, then time will tell. If the motivation is not political then it can easily wait until after the midterms. The wheels of justice turn slowly…very very slowly when it comes to those who are in the right crowd, members of the good ol’ boys club.

    1. A grand jury subpoenaed all documents with classification markings. If the copies had classification markings, he was supposed to turn them over.

      1. Aninny usurps power and gives orders to the separate but equal executive branch.

        Where is that in the Constitution?

        It’s in the amendment section.

      2. Classified material is in the cognitive process of the former president.

        Does Aninny propose the president turn over his cognitive process also?

        Does Aninny propose the president place a “classified” label over it?

        Of course, classification, declassification and archiving are solely functions of the executive branch.

        Aninny provides no citation of the Constitution on the issue.

        Why?

        Because he makes it up as he goes along, being a good totalitarian communist (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

        If the legislative branch has unlimited power to usurp the power of the executive branch (it doesn’t) and write any law it chooses, there is no Constitution and there is no free American republic, there is only the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
        _____________________________________________

        “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

        – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

        1. Idiot George, if you’d bothered reading the subpoena, you wouldn’t be asking. Either that, or you’re even stupider than I’d realized, and you don’t understand the plain words “any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings.”

          1. According to ATS George and everyone else ” stupider than I’d realized.”

            When one visits an insane asylum, one might note the insane person saying that everyone else is insane

      3. WHY is no one talking about the “precedent” case from 2012, “Judicial Watch v. National Archives of Records Administration,” with Judge Amy Berman Jackson presiding? U.S. Presidents can even “destroy” classified documents if they feel there is “no public or intrinsic value of interest.”

        1. That’s not what ABJ ruled. The case did not involve classified records. The case did not involve the Federal Records Act, whereas Trump admitted that this case does.

          1. ATS, you have been proven incorrect as to what ABJ ruled numerous times by numerous people including ABJ herself. Is it your hope to establish a 0 batting average?

        2. Correct. In Navy vs Egan SCOTUS laid out that NO ONE – neither Congress nor SCOTUS themselves – has any power to limit, direct, control, nor criminalize the decisions of POTUS regarding national secrets. Constitutionally, national secrets are treated as the “personal property” of POTUS, and they are absolutely free to do whatever they want with them.

          If Congress is sufficiently upset with POTUS’ decisions,mtheir only legal recourse is Impeachment.

          1. While you cite Navy vs. Eagan, SCOTUS did not rule in a vacuum
            The very first line of Article II of the constitution – the section on the executive branch,
            states that all executive power is vested in the president.
            Even congress can not grant power to the executive branch without that power being presidential power.

      4. Nope. POTUS has the power to give any Executive Branch document to anyone, including themselves. It is Constitutionally presumed to have been declassified and the correct authorization to possess the document conveyed. Any other interpretation would have to make the fantastical assumption that an elected official exercising their powers granted directly from the Constitution could somehow “make a mistake“ in that role placing them in legal peril. Utter nonsense.

        1. Trump is no longer President. The classification status of the documents is irrelevant to the laws he allegedly violated.

          1. The fact that Trump is not currently president is irrelevant.

            Do you have an actual criminal ACT that has occurred while Trump was NOT president ?

            There is not even one DOJ has openly alleged thus far.

            Laws especially criminal laws are narrow not broad.
            Overbreadth violates the constitution, and it creates a society where everyone is a criminal.

              1. We have been over this before.

                Obstruction is an actual act – on that Trump has not committed.
                Barr did an excellent job of dismantling that with respect to Mueller.

                Regardless, forcing the government to go to court to get what it wants is not EVER obstruction.
                Further it is eitehr impossible or damn near impossible to obstruct unless there is an underlying crime.

                “Refusing to turn over subpoenaed NDI is an act.”
                So many errors, It is an Act, it is not a crime. Declassified material is not NDI

    2. EM: meanwhile back at the ranch, you make up facts. Trump isn’t a billionaire, according to Michael Wolff’s book “Rage and Fury”, based on interviews with people who know Trump’s finances. The FBI didn’t “wait for a year and a half to act”. NARA told him before he was put out of the WH not to take documents, at least 3 lawyers told him not to take documents, but he took them anyway. After politely asking and trying to work with him and getting nowhere, the NARA went to the DOJ, the government’s law firm, and it obtained a subpoena that yielded 15 boxes of papers, along with a perjured affidavit claiming all documents had been returned. They got a tip that Trump was still hiding papers all over the place at MAL, so they obtained a search warrant that yielded even more TS/SCI papers that were found all over the place in unsecure places. The DOJ was forced to do this. So now, your deeply-in-debt hero is raising money by whining about the FBI “raiding” his home–something he forced them to do. Because he’s not a declared candidate, the money is his to spend as he chooses. According to reports, Melania’s “dresser” gets $18K per month of Trump’s diehard fans’ money–many of these people are not well off financially. There’s unconfirmed information that there are even more documents stashed elsewhere, but the most-worrisome unconfirmed story is that there is evidence that he has flashed around some of the TS/SCI papers to others.

      So what does Trump do when he gets caught? The usual series of lies: the FBI “planted” TS/SCI papers; it wasn’t my fault–the GSA packed up the papers without my knowledge (which has been refuted by more-recent arguments that he mentally declassified the papers); they are my property; they were really looking for information and dirt I had on Hillary and Hunter—all lies that are ain insult to the intelligence of even you Trump fans. He STOLE classified documents after being told not to take them, he lied about returning them, and his motives are not altruistic. Nothing about Trump is altruistic. He is NOT entitled to the “benefit of the doubt” when it comes to this–there’s way too much proof to the contrary.

      The NARA exists to document US history and to preserve and protect documents related to our national security. Trump became a private citizen at noon on 1/20/21, and at that point had no more right to TS/SCI documents than any other citizen. He continues to live in his pretend world that he’s important, that he’s a “president”, that he can do as he pleases, and that no one can tell him what to do. If you are a patriot, you should be very worried about whether the information in these documents got into the wrong hands, plus the long-term fallout from even our allies, who, because of Trump, have to worry about whether the US can be trusted to properly maintain critical secret information.

      1. Frankly, Trump is an intentional distraction from all that matters for the country. We the people should be far more concerned with Joe Biden’s corrupt, sell-out, crime family “business” with China that is a clear national security threat right now, today. And for some reason, revealing the true extent of Biden family corruption in Ukraine and elsewhere, is being protected by the corrupt media. Biden continues to lie about all of it. The media refuse to even ask Biden the obvious questions.

        1. Frankly, you have it exactly backwards. It’s amazing to me how you Trumpsters fall for the projection tactics of pro-Trump media. You make a bald assertion that Joe Biden and his family are corrupt, that there’s a national security threat vis a vis China–based on what? The rantings of Hannity and Tucker? Oh, and the “media” are corrupt, too, and Biden is a liar. Trump is a proven chronic, habitual liar. He’s lying about declassification, just like he lied about Russia helping him cheat, just like he lied about the quid pro quo with Congressional aid to Ukraine, just like the Big Lie, and the TS/SCI theft is his latest lie. And, you disciples fall for it.

          Trump has admitted he took TS/SCI documents. That is not disputed. He has no right to possess them, and can’t come up with any proof or legal authority for his possession of the papers. He forced the government to compel him to turn over papers, and is now fundraising over his wrongful conduct. It appears he has been showing classified documents to people. And yet, you somehow believe we should all be worried about Joe Biden?

      2. “NARA told him before he was put out of the WH not to take documents, at least 3 lawyers told him not to take documents, but he took them anyway.”

        NARA has no “authority” to make demands & commands of the U.S. President, nor “how” he declassifies documents! When Trump walked out of the WH for the last time, he was STILL U.S. President, until January 20, 2021, at noon—-people tend to forget this! A U.S. President is the ONLY person who has the “authority” to classify and declassify ANY docs he wants. According to Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a President just by walking out of the WH with classified documents in his hands deems those docs “declassified.” Her ruling on this still stands, making it a “precedent” case.

        1. Your claim that “According to Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a President just by walking out of the WH with classified documents in his hands deems those docs ‘declassified'” is a lie. That’s not what she said, which is why you aren’t quoting her. In fact, the word “declassified” doesn’t even appear in her ruling.

          1. Who cares about classified or not?

            “Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” _Judge Jackson

              1. Is this your way of confusing the facts. If So, you are not doing a very good job.

                “the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” _Judge Jackson”

                The FRA has nothing to do with the President’s rights. You don’t get it. You are more confused than I previously thought.

                  1. Then you can specifically cite how.

                    The state of the law regarding what is a Personal record, a presidential record and a federal record are quite muddy.

                    That alone is a reason that they never should have been an allegation of a crime.

                    When the law is unclear or in conflict – we sort that out in the courts, not through politicized criminal prosecutions.

                    At this moment the state of the law is:

                    A presidents personal record is whatever that president claims is a personal record.
                    There is no clear law that says otherwise. Frankly the constitution does not allow anything else.
                    I would note that that broad determination by the president of what records are personal, does not have any exception for classified records.

                    A presidential record is anything generated by the whitehouse that is not personal.
                    The ultimate disposition of presidential records is the private library of that president.

                    Many court decisions give the current executive access to prior presidents records.
                    BY COURT ORDER – just as the courts would give law enforcement access to the private records of any individual BY COURT ORDER. Todate there is no instance previously where the executive just came in and by force took what they wanted.

                    Federal records are the records of government outside the whitehouse.

                    If you do not agree with the above – fine, that need not be how things are. Though for much of the above you would have to change the constitution.

                    Regardless, agree disagree, it does not matter. again one of the things the left does not grasp.

                    Government can not recklessly presume the broadest interpretation and them claim action inconsistent with that is criminal. That is the definition of totalitarianism.

                    The left keeps ranting that they are anti-fascist. Yet the definition of fascim is “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”

                    ,

                    1. Trump already admitted in his filings that some of the documents that were taken are subject to the FRA, not the PRA.

                    2. Then you can cite that specifically – because your word is not credible.

                      Though I am not sure how that would be the case.
                      Pretty much anything Trump touches as president is a presidential record.
                      If it is in the whitehouse – it is a presidential record.

                    3. If Trump touches an agency record that is subject to the Federal Records Act, his touch does not turn the record into a Presidential record. The PRA specifically excludes federal records: “The term “Presidential records” … does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency …”

                      As Trump himself noted in his 9/12 filing,
                      “All government records (classified or otherwise) fall into two basic categories, either under the PRA or the Federal Records Act (“FRA”). “The FRA defines a class of materials that are federal records subject to its provisions, and the PRA describes another, mutually exclusive set of materials that are subject to a different, less rigorous regime. In other words, no individual record can be subject to both statutes because their provisions are inconsistent.” Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 1 F. 3d 1274, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1993).”

                    4. “If Trump touches an agency record that is subject to the Federal Records Act, his touch does not turn the record into a Presidential record. “

                      Actually, it does or at least it is a question that needs to be answered.

                      Comparing the FRA to the PRA is nothing more than deflection or a lack of understanding about what you are saying.

                    5. A copy of an agency record is not an “official record”.

                      The copy problem is going to pose a problem for DOJ.

                      Armstrong was an FOIA request. As should be self evident, A FOIA request does nto require turning over originals of anything, nor does it require providing multiple copies of the same document – because the government posessed multiple copies of the same records.
                      Subpeona’s do not require providing originals.

                      If Trump has originals of Federal Agency records – which obviously he does not, Those could not properly be in his posession.
                      If he has originals of presidential records – that he has not deemed personal records, those could not properly be in his posession.

                      But as I have noted before – government employees can possess personal copies of government records that are not classified.

      3. You are sad. Seven frantic years desperately scouring the planet for any hint of a whiff of any actual crime committed by anyone named Trump, and only seven years of bitter abject failure to show for it.

        POTUS is the ultimate authority on national secrets and defense. His power comes directly from the Constitution, and so cannot be subject to any limits or criminalization by any other branch of government- and certainly not by petty bureaucrats. POTUS may literally give any document from the Executive branch (which includes all national secrets) to ANYONE – including himself – and it is legal.

        Read the SCOTUS ruling on Navy vs Egan, and have a good cry.

      4. NARA is not a criminal statute, and there are no criminal penalties associated with it. It cannot be used as a basis for an FBI warrant.

        As for classified information, read Navy vs Egan and have a good cry. POTUS may do whatever they want with any document possessed by the Executive (which includes all national secrets), and neither Congress nor SCOTUS has any power to criminalize his choices. So sad, no crime again.

        1. NARA is not a statute at all. It’s an Executive Branch agency.

          Trump has not been President since Jan of 2021, and he’s being investigated for actions he took after he left office.

          1. There is no evidence he took any actions since leaving office.

            Aside from those NARA has run off with – do you have evidence that any of these documents left MAL since Trump was president ?

            Then you have no ACTS, and no crime.

            If these documents are actually still classified.
            If they are incredibly dangerous to national security.
            If the current government has a legitimate right to retrieve them
            So long as they arrived at MAL legally. There still is not crime.

            Trump is entitled to legally resist turning them over to the government – even if he is completely wrong.
            Just as he is entitled to legally challenge an election – even if he is completely wrong.

            It is not obstruction or any other crime to force the govenrment to get the courts to order the confiscation of things not in their possession.

            This also highlights the problem with the Warrant.
            The GJ subpeona UNDERMINES the warrant.
            the US ADA in question could have trivially asked the court for an order to turn over documents.
            But such a request would have involved a hearing in which Trump’s lawyers would have been able to argue against that order.

            A Warrant request does not go before an actual judge or a court, and does nto require an adversarial hearing.

            Warrants are NOT legitimate means for government to take posession of what it beleives is its own property.
            They are solely the means to acquire evidence of a crime.
            But warrants are supposed to be specific and they are supposed to demonstrate probable cause that a crime has been committed.

            1. Of course Trump has taken actions since he left office. He returned some documents with classified markings to NARA in Feb. of this year, he was subpoenaed for and gave some documents with classified markings to the FBI in June, and he kept other documents with classified markings that had been subpoenaed, and these were instead taken by the FBI in the August search. There may well be other acts, such as moving documents that were supposed to have been properly secured in and out of the storage room.

              You can’t even bring yourself to admit that magistrate judges are judges.

              1. “Of course Trump has taken actions since he left office. He returned some documents with classified markings to NARA in Feb. of this year”
                Correct, not a crime.
                “he was subpoenaed for and gave some documents with classified markings to the FBI in June, and he kept other documents with classified markings that had been subpoenaed”
                According to YOUR records, his attorney was subpeoned, NOT Trump, The Subpeona was for Testimony,
                and the records part of that request was to support that testimony.
                Further subpeona’s are still demands not orders, and subpeona’s rarely (and not this one) require providing originals.
                Subpeona’s are demands for information not posession.
                Complying with the subpeona is a legal act.
                Not complying is NOT an illegal act.

                “and these were instead taken by the FBI in the August search.”
                An act by the FBI – not Trump.
                An unconstitutional one based on what we know.

                “There may well be other acts,”
                Trump also may have gone to the moon.
                Speculation is not evidence.

                “such as moving documents that were supposed to have been properly secured in and out of the storage room.”
                Possibly – but still speculation and not a criminal act. Do you have Evidence that Trump took documents and left them by the pool at MAL ?

                “You can’t even bring yourself to admit that magistrate judges are judges.”
                I am not arguing about titles. You do not seem to grasp that Reinhart is NOT a court.
                He has very limited powers.

                “In United States federal courts, magistrate judges are judges appointed to assist U.S. district court judges in the performance of their duties. Magistrate judges generally oversee first appearances of criminal defendants, set bail, and conduct other administrative duties.

                Although they serve on U.S. federal courts, magistrate judges are not considered “federal judges” in the strict sense of the term”
                According to the 11th Circuit Web site District Judge Cannon is paired with Magistrate judge Reinhart.
                I suspected as much. Trump did not go venue shopping. His lawsuit was filed right where it needed to be – with the court that was responsible for the Warrant in the first place. With the ACTUAL Federal Judge that Reinhart works for.

                You can give Reinhart whatever title you want. This is a real case now, and Reinhart has limited authority with respect to real cases. He does not generally have even the power of an ALJ.

                1. “The Subpeona was for Testimony,”

                  The subpoena literally said “Any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings, including but not limited to the following: Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, Top Secret/SI-G/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/SI-G/NOFORN, Top Secret/HCS-O/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/HCS–O/NOFORN, Top Secret/HCS-P/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/HCS-P/NOFORN, Top Secret/TK/NOFORN/ORCON, Top Secret/TK/NOFORN, 1- Secret/NOFORN, Confidential/NOFORN, TS, TS/SAP, TS/SI-G/NF/OC, TS/SI-G/NF, TS/HCS0/NF/OC, TS/HCS-0/NF, TS/HCS-P/NF/OC, TS/HCS-P/NF, TS/HCS-P/SI-G, TS/HCS-P/SI/TK, TS/TK/NF/OC, TS/TK/NF, S/NF, S/FRD, S/NATO, S/SI, C, and C/NF.”

                  Only you are capable of reading that and concluding that it’s about testimony, not documents.

                  “Not complying is NOT an illegal act.”

                  Refusing to comply with a subpoena is illegal. It often results in a contempt of court charge. In this case, due to the nature of the documents, refusing to return them is subject to 18 USC 793(e).

                  “An unconstitutional one based on what we know.”

                  Your opinion. Not that of any court.

                  1. “Refusing to comply with a subpoena is illegal. It often results in a contempt of court charge.”

                    You get your dates and times wrong.

                    You assume raid first then contempt of court charge rather than the charge first.

                  2. No the subpeona was for testimony READ IT.
                    The attorney was told to bring those documents to support her testimony.

                    YOU linked to the subpeona, you could atleast read it.

                    Quoting PART of the subpoena out of context, is deceit.

                    I would further note this subpeona was NOT to turn over documents, but to bring copies.
                    it is not a request for originals, nor is there a demand not to make copies.

                    A subpeona is nto the way you recover originals.
                    A court order would be.

                  3. Failing to comply with a subpeona does not result in a contempt of court charge.
                    It can not. Subpeona’s are issued by lawyers.

                    When a lawyer beleives their subpeona has not been complied with they ask the judge for an ORDER.
                    Failure to comply with that order can results in contempt.

                    Further Contempt is not typically a crime and is cleared by clearing the conduct considered contempt.

                    Trump was held in contempt for purportedly not providing documents in a NY law suit.
                    Trump’s attorney searched all the requisite places found no documents that should have been provided and the contempt was cleared.

                    A more common sanction for failure to comply with a subpeona is to not be able to use the information requested, and to have the other party entitled to presume that information would have been favorable.

                  4. “In this case, due to the nature of the documents, refusing to return them is subject to 18 USC 793(e).”
                    Nope, please read all the elements.
                    You can not meet ANY of them, you need to meet ALL of them.

                    Regardless, you are very confused about supeona’s.

                    I subpeona’d bank records in one case. Do you think the Bank provided me the originals ?
                    I subpeona’d tax returns in another – do you think I was provided originals ?

                  5. ““An unconstitutional one based on what we know.”
                    Your opinion. Not that of any court.”

                    Not an opinion. A qualified statement of FACT – the warrant is unconstitutional based on what we know.
                    It is unlikely but possible that the redacted portions of the Afadavit cure that.
                    No court so far has addressed the question.

        2. Even the PRA does not get her to the Civil disposition that the left wants.

          The Final results of the PRA are all presidential documents in the possession of the ex-president’s duly authorized private presidential library – that includes classified documents.

          If you had a civil contract that says the property of A is to be taken care of by B until A is prepared to do so themselves.

          The courts would 100% of the time decide that property always belonged to A, and that A could take all or some of it at any time.

          So long as the law directs NARA to turn over presidential materials to a presidential library, NARA is a custodian.

          I would note that there is not a single court ruling inconsistent with that.

          While there are many court rulings that require NARA or the expresident to comply with court orders to turn over documents to the current administration. Not one of those decisions has ever found that NARA or the current administration OWNS those documents, Not one of those decisions has ever found that NARA or the Executive had the power to take the documents of an ex-president without going to court to do so. Not one of these decisions suggested that the courts would in all cases grant the current administrations request.

          NARA and this administration have made lots of assumptions that are blatantly false and proceeded illegally and unconstitutionally.

  18. Contrary to the 11th Circuit’s unsupported claims, “The President has the power under the Constitution to protect national security secrets from unauthorized disclosure. This extends to defining what information constitutes a national security secret and to determining who may have access to that secret.” The DOJ wrote this in 2002, citing Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988) See, https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/dojleaks.html.

    President Trump had the constitutional authority to declassify anything he chose to and when he sent boxes from the White House to Mar a Lago, he declassified them. There was no formal process required and the 11th Circuit can’t cite any formal process because none exists.

    Of course, the current DOJ is walking back its own arguments provided above. The DOJ now effectively asserts that while Deep State-authorized Presidents may declassify documents as they chose, Trump may not, since he’s not a Deep State-approved President under our esteemed Two-Tier System of Justice.

    1. The 11th Circuit didn’t ignore Navy v Egan. The DOJ didn’t assert what you claim. You’re imagining things.

      1. You really love obfuscation and deploying red herrings, don’t you?

        I didn’t say that the 11th Circuit ignored Department of the Navy v. Egan. Rather, the evidence I provided shows that the 11th Circuit ignored the long-standing DOJ applications of Department of the Navy v. Egan. And I quoted the DOJ precisely from the DOJ’s own letter written in 2002. I even provided you with a link to the letter.

        However, I will distill the DOJ’s conclusions about Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988) so that the meaning is unmistakeable, even for slow learners:

        “The President has the power under the Constitution [] to defin[e] what information constitutes a national security secret and to determin[e] who may have access to that secret.”–DOJ Letter, October 15, 2002. https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/dojleaks.html

        If you’re still having trouble understanding what the DOJ wrote, read it five or six more times and maybe the meaning will sink in.

        Although I have omitted and modified certain words via elipses, I have retained the DOJ’s specific intent with respect to the issue of the DOJ’s determination of the President authority to declassify documents.

        1. You said “Contrary to the 11th Circuit’s unsupported claims” when your quote is NOT contrary to what the 11th Circuit wrote. You cannot quote anything from their ruling that you claim to be disputing.

          No one is disputing that “Trump had the constitutional authority to declassify anything he chose to” while he was President. But as long as the documents still had classified markings on them, they were subject to the subpoena that demanded “any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings,” even if Trump claims to have declassified them.

          And for the umpteenth time: none of the alleged crimes depend on the classification status of these docs.

          1. The position of the 11th Circuit is clearly contrary to the DOJ’s position in the DOJ’s 2002 letter. You can huff and puff and blow smoke all you want. But you can’t change that fact. As for the “classified markings,” show me evidence that the markings have to be changed to make them declassified. You can’t because, as I’ve already explained, the specific procedures that you pretend to claim exist don’t actually exist.

            1. And yet you’re unable to quote anything from the 11th Circuit’s ruling to substantiate your claim that “The position of the 11th Circuit is clearly contrary to the DOJ’s position in the DOJ’s 2002 letter.” You can’t. You hand wave about it because you can’t substantiate it.

              “As for the “classified markings,” show me evidence that the markings have to be changed to make them declassified.”

              I didn’t claim that the markings have to be changed to make them declassified. Why on earth would you demand that I show you evidence for something I didn’t claim??

              For goodness sake, pay attention to what I actually said and not your straw man. I said: as long as the documents still had classified markings on them, they were subject to the subpoena that demanded “any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings,” even if Trump claims to have declassified them (and even if they were declassified). It’s irrelevant whether they were or were not declassified. What matters **here** (in the subpoena and the court case) is that they had classification markings on them.

              1. “And yet you’re unable to quote anything from the 11th Circuit’s ruling to substantiate your claim that”

                Now ATS, losing his argument, appeals to the fragment of it, which is meaningless like ATS, Johnathan or his pretend friends. If his argument goes sour ATS deflects, and if he does not have one, he looks for fragments to argue. He does the same with his name changes and his anonymous friends.

                ATS has taken his argument, from Trump was criminal by possession of Classified documents to “even if they were declassified” and “It’s irrelevant “ to “What matters … they had classification markings on them.

                I know I excluded words, but this is how ATS obfuscates all arguments. He can’t provide the charge, the rationale, and the evidence in one place. Listening to ATS is like reading a Chinese Menu.

        2. Precisely. What is more, SCOTUS also made clear in NvE that Congress has absolutely no power to limit, control, nor criminalize POTUS’ choices regarding national secrets. Their only recourse is Impeachment.

                1. No public part of the Affadavit alleges an ACT. The parts of the afadavit made public strongly suggest that this is about DOJ/FBI trying to thwart making Crossfire Huricane documents that Trump declasified public.

                  After the numerous fiasco’s of the FBI/DOJ/SC etc. Why should we trust them ? After Crossfire Huricane and the Special counsel – why should we trust them.

                  Did the affadavit for the FISA warrant on Carter Page contain credible allegations of actual crimes ?

                  Purportedly the affadavit for the Warrant on Mike Lindell has been made public.
                  A swatt team terrorized his family over some identity theft crime that does not involve him and has a nebulous connection to his phone.

                  Until you have an actual ACT that is a crime – not interested and your arguments are not supported by what we know.

                  And no rational person is trusting those involved – including you.

                  “Trust me ”

                  No longer flies.

    2. I’ve read that DOJ letter many times. But I still can’t find anywhere that it claims the FORMER president has the same powers as the current president.

      If your response is, “Well he made the declassification order while President,” then he has to support that claim with EVIDENCE. Otherwise, there is nothing the court can rely on to back up that statement. Even if your interpretation were clear cut (and it is not – see, NYT v. CIA, a 2020 2nd Cir case: “Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures.”), the claim must be supported by factual evidence, because, you know, that is how litigation works.

      Imagine a world in which a plaintiff didn’t need evidence to prove a claim…

      Think about this hypothetical. Can Trump declassify a document that was created in 2022? If you say, “No, because he was not the President in 2022.” Then, ask yourself why he would have to prove he was president to claim declassification in one circumstance but not in another. Perhaps that makes it clear.

      1. But I still can’t find anywhere that it claims the FORMER president has the same powers as the current president.

        That is your claim. Nobody on Trumps team has ever made such a claim

    3. It All Goes Back to the Beginning: Russia, Russia, Russia!

      “Relying heavily” on Department of the Navy v. Egan” JFeldman sits in Professor Turley’s ship but he and the 11th Circuits Appeal Court decoded it in a different way. However, the opinion of the court – to grant (partial) stay pending appeal is comprehensible, if you choose this piece of cake

      “United States would suffer irreparable harm from the district court’s restrictions on its access to this narrow—and potentially critical—set of materials, as well as the court’s requirement that the United States submit the classified records to the special master for review.”

      as key sentence instead (page 27, one paragraph below Professor Turley citation).

      Consequently, he could also write:

      “The panel relied heavily on the declaration from Alan E. Kohler, Jr., the Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI. Kohler. He “explained that, as part of a classification review to assess the existence and extent of damage to the national-security interests of the United States from disclosure of the documents marked classified, the FBI needed to access evidence and disseminate it to other intelligence agencies to assess potential harm” (page 12).

      It goes without saying, that choosing this path is straight but as FISA Court came in play, Professor Turley needs to clarify how this secret, ex parte sitting Court rules.

      Some might remember heated discussions about Edward Snowden’s “top secret” leaks or “’16 presidential election controversy”: FISA court had granted a FBI request from “to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia” on 10/14/16 after an initial request was denied on 6/1/16 [1].

      In short: We mere mortals shouldn’t be worried about such complicated issues related to “national security”. Minority Leader McCarthy knows why he is calling on “China” as select committee instead of “DOJ bias” if GOP flips House after midterms.

      [1] For those who like to get involved in this matter: A search “mensch heat madison email clinton” is a good start.

      1. “to grant (partial) stay pending appeal is comprehensible, if you choose this piece of cake”

        When dealing with attorney-client privilege, very few things take precedence. That is demonstrated when a criminal is let go if the police and prosecutor used information that violated attorney-client privilege.

        Our #1 focus should be on attorney-client privilege.

        “the FBI needed to access evidence and disseminate it to other intelligence agencies to assess potential harm” (page 12).”

        First, the FBI requires a claim and can demonstrate dire circumstances. Since they accessed Trump’s privileged information illegally nothing from the fruit of the poisonous tree should be able to be used against Trump. Secondly, if that information is used by others politically those involved should be charged including the director of the FBI, who is there to prevent such occurrences.

        Illegal FISA papers and many other things demonstrate the intent of the FBI and those in charge.

  19. “And they’ll meet that burden.”
    At this level, likely. When the standard of proof rises and we learn more about the actual documents – almost certainly not.

    “What’s super hilarious, aside from classification not even being relevant to the search warrant, is that maintaining a president can just classify/declassify something in his mind without creating a paper trail in any way is that the whole notion nullifies the act of classification itself.”
    You are easily amused. Are you a cat ?

    “The act of classification requires protecting information from some other entity. That requires an information wall. Or many information walls depending on the level of classification. This requires material action to prove what level one has access to. Just the fact trump is maintaining he can sweep these walls away with a thought is ridiculous. Like cartoon ridiculous. Only trump a#$ eaters will ever buy that it’s possible.”
    Some parts of this are correct but irrelevant. Most of it is just a muddled mess.

    National security is the exclusive domain of the president.
    What is and is not classified is the decision of the current president. It always has been and always will be.
    To change that requires amending the constitution.

    The president can set standards,, he can define processes, And those standards and processes must be followed – by everyone else. Standards and processes can be carried from one president to the next.
    The rules and be clear and rigid and well defined and well understood and apply to every single person in the government – except the president. Trump is loosely correct that if he thinks something is not classified it is not.
    What he is wrong about is that his thoughts do not have any endurance beyond his own presidency unless ha ACTS on them. Either by ordering something declassified, or by acting such that that document or information is defacto declassified.
    Contrary to your claim – Trump can sweep away all your walls and process by a mere thought. But that does not survive his presidency without ACTing.

  20. Not this idiocy again ?

    We have had one president in my lifetime that might in some way be an agent of foreign powers.
    That would be the current one.

    Had Clinton been elected we would have had another.

    Trump is the one most certainly not.
    A person of average intelligence could have figured that out in 2016.

    After Crossfire Huricane, Horrowits. Muller and Durham if you still beleive Trump was a foreign agent you are a moron.

    Hundreds of thousands of people are dying in Ukraine because Biden is compromised and weak, and because now he has to prove he is not, by fighting Russia right down to the very last Ukrainian.
    When this war only happened because he was weak, compromised and weakened national and global security and stupidly provoked Putin.

    Just about everything that idiots like you beleived about Trump has proven true regarding Biden.

Leave a Reply