Below is a slightly modified version of my NY Post column on the discovery of the second batch of classified documents in areas previously used by President Joe Biden. A number of questions remain unanswered by the perplexing response of President Biden that he will not even ask about the identity of these documents on advice of counsel. However, with the discovery of a second batch of classified documents at a different location, the President’s “surprise” could grow exponentially in the days to come. You might want to find a chair . . . the forthcoming spin from the press and pundits could produce global vertigo.
Here is the column:
There is an old story attributed to Noah Webster of being caught in a closet with a paramour. His wife cried out, “Noah! I am surprised!” Webster responded with a grammatical correction that “It is I who am surprised. You are astonished.”
The Webster story came to mind this week when President Joe Biden broke days of silence over the discovery of highly classified documents in a closet. Biden declared that he was “surprised” by the discovery but then said that his lawyers advised him not to ask (or presumably answer) other questions.
Biden was grammatically correct, if legally confused, in only describing his first reaction rather than his prior actions.
Biden was indeed surprised by the discovery. The rest of us should be astonished.
After all, it was Biden who expressed revulsion at the very thought of his predecessor possessing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago: “How that could possibly happen, how one anyone could be that irresponsible.”
Biden is not the only one who appears hopelessly conflicted. With the reported discovery of a second batch of highly classified documents connected to President Biden, the decisions of Attorney General Merrick Garland are fast moving from the inexplicable to incomprehensible.
Garland was presumably briefed that classified documents were discovered in Joe Biden’s old office on Nov. 2. He also presumably knew about the Biden documents when he appointed a special counsel to investigate the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago 16 days later.
At the time of the appointment of Jack Smith, some of us noted the inexplicable refusal of Garland to appoint a special counsel to look into alleged Biden influence peddling and other crimes.
Garland continued to refuse an appointment for Biden even as he justified the appointment for Trump on the basis that Trump was running for the presidency. Joe Biden is the president. What is the difference?
President Biden, meanwhile, is feigning ignorance, simply saying he was “surprised” the documents were there.
By not discussing the content of the documents, Biden minimizes his vulnerability to charges of obstruction or false statements. He can simply declare “surprise,” knowing that many in the media will welcome his silence as they spin the scandal.
Despite the lack of information, the press and pundits have already declared there is no real national security danger and certainly no comparison to Mar-a-Lago. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, declared “There is no comparison. They were in a locked closet. They were not accessible.”
So that is the standard? A locked closet? The Mar-a-Lago storage room was locked and later the security was enhanced at the request of the FBI.
It is fair to note that Trump and his staff are accused of false statements and obstruction. However, that does not change the same alleged crime of unlawful removal and possession.
Biden is taking a page from the Hillary Clinton playbook. Recall the long-sought Whitewater documents. After the case was effectively over, they suddenly appeared. The New York Times called the documents “elusive,” as if they moved by free will.
Clinton was also “surprised” by the discovery of the documents . . . after they could not be used as part of the earlier investigation.
There are some obvious explanations for the documents being present in the office, particularly given Biden’s work on a book that discussed his work in some of the referenced countries like Ukraine. However, even that explanation raises more questions. For example, Biden left office as vice president in 2017 and had an office at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia after finishing his term until 2019. On February 8, 2018, the Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement says that it opened its doors in Washington, D.C.
So if these documents were removed when Biden left office, where were they in the prior year and were they moved repeatedly before they ended up in the Washington office? This does not appear a “one-and-done” mistake. Rather documents may have been at various locations over a five year period.
Otherwise, Biden would have had to request and receive classified information at some point in the five years outside of a secure location.
Now that we have a second batch of documents, there is an increasing concern that classified documents were distributed or divided among different offices. This also means that an even greater array of individuals may have had access to such documents at different locations over the five-year period.
None of this could be clarified with Biden simply expressing “surprise.”
The FBI has two immediate tasks: secure the highly classified documents and then determine whether they may have been compromised.
Consider that Biden did not categorically deny asking for the documents to be taken at the end of this term as vice president.
He also did not explain when he was briefed after they were found.
Democrats and the media are eager to wave this away and move on. But, as the statements of Garland and Biden show, there are many questions that need answering. The discovery of new classified documents only magnifies those unanswered questions.
That is why we were not “surprised” but we can all be legitimately (and grammatically) astonished by the discoveries in Joe Biden’s closet — and his silence about the contents.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Mishandling vs. Stolen
Biden “Mishandled” Classified Documents
AG Garland Appoints Special Prosecutor To Probe Biden’s Classified Docs Mishandling
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bidens-classified-records-headache-garlands-special-counsel-nightmare
Trump “Stole” Classified Documents
Trump Stole Secret Government Documents
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/08/trump-stole-classified-documents-mar-a-lago-the-big-question-is-why/
What complete Nonsense.
There is no world in which an ExVP can possess Classified Documents or any other WH Documents where an Ex President can not do the same.
But there are MANY instances in which an ex-President can possess Classified documents and other WH Documents that an ExVP can not.
Unless you have video of Trump crawling over the fence at the Whitehouse after Jan 20,2021, the “Stole” Claim is ludicrously stupid.
You have everything 180 degrees out of Whack.
The president can declassify documents.
The VP can not.
The president OWNS the documents of his WH – including Classified documents.
That has been true through US history and it is Reflected by the PRA – NARA is the “custodian” of WH Documents – not the owner.
It may not turn over such documents to the Government without a court order. But the ex-president or his designess can review them at anytime.
Eventually teh documents – including Classified ones end up in PRIVATE presidential libraries.
You can not sue NARA to get them to “recover” WH documents from the ex-president – because the Ex-President gets to decide what is Personal and what is not.
“ The president OWNS the documents of his WH – including Classified documents.”
Wrong. The president does not own those documents. No president does. That’s not what the PRA says.
All documents created by the president while in office are owned by the government. NARA is custodian of those documents which belong to the government, not the president. You seem very confused about what the PRA says.
Where are the documents from the Carter WH ? They are all – including classified documents in the Carter Library.
The Carter library is a PRIVATE entity, that was created and Funded by Ex-President Carter.
All his presidential papers – except those he chose to keep himself are there – including classified documents.
The operation of the Carter Library is almost entirely Private. NARA continues to control access to the classified documents.
Otherwise they have little role.
Change the above to Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and it is EXACTLY the same.
Change the name to Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and every president through Nixon and the only thing that changes is NARA has absolutely no role at all.
The PRA makes NARA Custodian – NOT Owner. Whether you like it or not through ALL US history WH Documents are presidential papers are the property of the Person who was President.
You are obviously Wrong. There is significant case law on this.
Or you could just go visit a presidential library.
“The Carter library is a PRIVATE entity, that was created and Funded by Ex-President Carter.
All his presidential papers – except those he chose to keep himself are there – including classified documents.
The operation of the Carter Library is almost entirely Private. NARA continues to control access to the classified documents.
Otherwise they have little role.”
Nope.
” Presidential Library is constructed with private or non-Federal funds donated to non-profit organizations established usually for the express purpose of building a Presidential Library and supporting its programs.
Some Libraries have also received construction and development funding from state and/or local governments.
The Library is then transferred to the Federal government and operated and maintained by NARA through its congressionally appropriated operating budget.”
THE LIBRARY IS THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY NARA THROUGH ITS CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED OPERATING BUDGET.
Meaning all the documents in the library are STILL government property. They do not belong to the president.
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/about/faqs.html
You did not cite law.
I have ZERO interest in FAQ’s when the core issue if LAW.
And again according to the PRA – NARA is CUSTODIAN. Not Owner.
You STILL remain WRONG.
Just to be clear – NARA has repeatedly presumed it has more power than the courts have ever granted it.
So No I do not accept what some FAQ says.
https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin
“Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against defendant National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Plaintiff asks the Court to declare audiotapes created by former President William Jefferson Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during the Clinton administration to be “Presidential records” under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f), and to order defendant “to assume custody and control” of them and deposit them in the Clinton Presidential Library. Plaintiff contends that defendant has acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by failing to exercise control over the audiotapes and by not making them available in response to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. Defendant has moved to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.”
Put simply NARA does not have the power or authority under the PRA to confiscate records in the posession of an Ex-President.
This case has been addressed before – Your ignorance of it is evidence of your own stupidity.
John B. Say, you are clearly confused or don’t understand what the Judicial watch case determined. It’s not what you think it is. The case involves tapes created by Clinton by enlisting historian Taylor Branch to create an oral history of his eight years in office. It does NOT involve classified documents and white house records. The APA describes presidential records as Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 291 (D.D.C. 2012) (“[D]ocumentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”).
Clinton just ‘being’ president does not make anything he does or creates presidential records. Which is what judicial watch was arguing. The tapes are not required by law or part of a constitutional requirement for a president. The tapes were NOT official records therefore NARA was not required to take custody of the documents. It was no different when trump sat down to be interviewed by Bob Woodward who recorded the conversation. That is NOT a presidential record.
The court dismissed the judicial watch’s complaint because NARA didn’t have the tapes in the first place and they were not presidential records NARA couldn’t designate them as such because they were not created as an official act according to the APA. Trump took records that were created in his official capacity as president, as in things that were part of his job. which NARA IS required by law to retain. and those records according to the PRA ARE government property. That doesn’t mean they are owned by NARA which is what you seem to be arguing they are owned by the GOVERNMENT. NARA is charged with maintaining custody of the documents which belong to the government. NOT the president.
Here’s where your confusion starts. You are arguing about Carter and Clinton’s presidential libraries getting documents. The law states that upon completion of said libraries, NARA is to work with said presidents’ on what they want to put in them. That does NOT mean the documents are owned by the presidents. They are available for the public to review and research.
“Put simply NARA does not have the power or authority under the PRA to confiscate records in the posession of an Ex-President.”
No. But the DOJ does. Because if those records ARE presidential records created due to his JOB as president NARA is required by law to retain them and have custody of them because those records are NOT owned by the president. Classified documents are NOT owned by the president. White House records are NOT owned by the president. If such documents are found to be in the possession of an ex-president or VP after they leave office NARA is required to get them back. When they are VOLUNTARILY returned as Biden did compare to trump who did NOT there is no issue.
This case you cite is not relevant to the argument. Nice try.
Svelaz, you are nuts.
Read the decision – I cited the relevant parts.
Your own past claims as well as YOUR read of the PRA make the Tapes Presidential Records.
If they are not – nothing is.
Reciting the facts does not change them.
Attempting to spin them – does not change them.
You argument is much like Weismans – it is not stealing if after 6 years you return what you took.
It is stealing if you deprive someone even partial use of their property for even a short time without their permission.
“Clinton just ‘being’ president does not make anything he does or creates presidential records.”
That is close but not quite correct.
The ACTUAL Ruling is:
1). NARA does not have the authority to demand records from ex-presidents PERIOD.
2). The presidents Article II constitutional powers allow the PRESIDENT to decide what constitutes personal property and what constitutes a WH record.
“The tapes are not required by law or part of a constitutional requirement for a president. ”
That is true of nearly all “presidential records”
The constitution does not require the president to keep a schedule. Nevertheless the schedule of the president is not merely a WH record, it is also highly classified.
“the tapes were NOT official records therefore NARA was not required to take custody of the documents.”
The tapes are in possession of President Clinton and they document his actions as president during the time period.
In one instance they are the only records of Clinton’s side of a telephone conversation with Warren Christopher.
It is even likely that some of what is on the tapes is classified – a presidents private conversation with his secretary of state is likely classified.
I will agree with you that if Pres. Clinton says they are personal property – they are.
Just as anything Trump claims is personal property.
“The court dismissed the judicial watch’s complaint because NARA didn’t have the tapes in the first place”
Correct Clinton did.
“and they were not presidential records”
Because Clinton said they were not.
” NARA couldn’t designate them as such because they were not created as an official act according to the APA.”
Your incredibly narrow reading of what is an official act would mean none of Trump’s records qualify either.
JW noted in its filing what is documented by those tapes – based on Taylor Branches own statements.
This was more than a 60 minutes interview. Branch was essentially an official historian documenting things as they happened.
The tapes go well beyond just interviews of Clinton, they document what was happening While Branch was present.
As noted with ONE example – the conversation between Clinton and Christopher was likely classified.
Many other things on the tapes are also likely classified.
Are you now arguing that something can be classified without being an APA official record ?
BTW that is likely true – in fact using YOUR definition of an official record – it is likely few if any of the Papers at MAL meet that definition.
“Read the decision – I cited the relevant parts.
Your own past claims as well as YOUR read of the PRA make the Tapes Presidential Records.”
I have read the decision. What YOU are not getting is the ruling made it clear that Clinton taping the conversation was NOT an official act pertaining to his job. This was for a book and a personal project that he thought was a good idea. It was not part of his job description. The PRA makes this quite clear. I might have made the claims before, clearly they were not correct upon reading what the PRA and the law says are the distinctions between personal and presidential records.
“You argument is much like Weismans – it is not stealing if after 6 years you return what you took.
It is stealing if you deprive someone even partial use of their property for even a short time without their permission.”
Weissman is correct. It’s stealing if you deprive someone even partial use of their property. Correct. HOWEVER. CHARGING someone with stealing is dependent on what the OWNER wants to do about it. Here the OWNER of the documents IS the government and if they CHOSE not to press charges they CAN do that just as YOU can if the person who stole your property returned it and decided not to press charges. It’s a different issue when you had no idea your property was missing in the first place and it was returned to you. It’s still theft technically, but when you didn’t report it or knew about it. The law does not recognize it as such when it’s not reported. Kind of like, it didn’t happen nobody knew it did kind of scenario. Keep in mind that there WAS permission to take the classified documents at the time in Biden’s case, but they were not returned and they didn’t know they were not.
““Clinton just ‘being’ president does not make anything he does or creates presidential records.”
That is close but not quite correct.
The ACTUAL Ruling is:
1). NARA does not have the authority to demand records from ex-presidents PERIOD.
2). The presidents Article II constitutional powers allow the PRESIDENT to decide what constitutes personal property and what constitutes a WH record.”
You are not understanding what you are reading. Those tapes were not official business being conducted in his capacity as president. They were not part of proposed legislation, policy, or executive functions. They were NOT part of his job. It was a personal project he wanted to do with a historian. The tapes were personal property according to the definition in the PRA.
Article II pertains to executive privilege. It’s NOT absolute as Trump liked to claim. The PRA addresses that issue. It clarifies what constitutes personal property and what constitutes WH records. All article II does is explain what the powers of the president are and like everything else in the constitution they are NOT absolute.
NARA cannot demand records that are clearly personal and are NOT WH records which the tapes were NOT.
“The constitution does not require the president to keep a schedule. Nevertheless, the schedule of the president is not merely a WH record, it is also highly classified.”
Not true, the entirety of the president’s schedule is NOT classified. Certain parts are known to the public when the white house makes them public. But all records of the schedules ARE WH records which ARE government property.
“The tapes are in possession of President Clinton and they document his actions as president during the time period”
They document his actions, BUT the tapes themselves were NOT official actions of his office. They were not part of his job. THAT’s the distinction you keep misunderstanding.
“I will agree with you that if Pres. Clinton says they are personal property – they are.
Just as anything Trump claims is personal property.”
No, no, no, you’re NOT getting it. MERELY saying they are his personal property DOES NOT make anything he claims as his personal property. The PRA explicitly defines what is personal property and what is NOT. Presidents HAVE to show why certain documents they consider personal MEET the definitions laid out in the PRA. Trump didn’t do that. Clinton did when he wanted to make these tapes NOT because it was part of his duty as president, but because he WANTED to not because he HAD to.
““The court dismissed the judicial watch’s complaint because NARA didn’t have the tapes in the first place”
Correct Clinton did.
“and they were not presidential records”
Because Clinton said they were not”
NARA didn’t have the tapes because NARA knew they were personal records according to what PRA defines as persona and they were not required to have them. Not because Clinton said so. This is where you keep misunderstanding. Just saying so is NOT enough to justify the claim. They have to prove or show WHY they are not. The court showed why they were not and why they couldn’t be demanded by NARA.
“Your incredibly narrow reading of what is an official act would mean none of Trump’s records qualify either.” That’s not according to me, that’s according to NARA. They literally spell it out, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 291 (D.D.C. 2012) (“The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records. ”)
The tapes were a sort of ‘diary’ and they were considered personal records according to the PRA. Clinton did have to claim they were when the plain interpretation of the law makes it clear they were.
“Branch was essentially an official historian documenting things as they happened.”
But he wasn’t there as an official historian. ‘Essentially’ does not make it official. It has to be on record that he acted in an official capacity and he was not. Wishing he was what you think he should have been doesn’t change the fact that he was NOT there in any official capacity. THAT is the distinction that sinks your argument.
“As noted with ONE example – the conversation between Clinton and Christopher was likely classified.
Many other things on the tapes are also likely classified.”
Likely does not mean they were. Remember the president can declassify what he wants, within limits of course. If he chose to divulge his conversation with Christopher it was his prerogative. But the tapes were not for official dissemination and if they included some details about phone conversations he could choose to share them.
“Are you now arguing that something can be classified without being an APA official record ?
BTW that is likely true – in fact using YOUR definition of an official record – it is likely few if any of the Papers at MAL meet that definition.”
That only applies if the president can show that what he claims to be personal records meet the definitions spelled out in the PRA. Trump failed to or refused to do that in court. He refused to provide NARA with the documents that were NOT his to keep to be able to determine if his claims were true. Trump could have contested certain records in court, but not while illegally withholding them from NARA. NARA knows what is personal and what is not according to set definitions in the law. Trump being ignorant of the law is no excuse.
Obviously YOU did not read the decision.
Branch is NOT a member of the Press, he was the official historian.
But more importantly he did not merely ask Clinton questions and record answers,
He recorded official conversations between Clinton and Cabinet officials.
There is a long list of what Branch has confirmed is on those tapes,
And most of what Branch says is on the tapes, meets the definition that you cite.
Contra your idiocy AMJ decided that the PRESIDENT decides what is a presidential record.
From the decision and previously quoted
“NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,”
NARA does not have the tapes in question,
and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. ”
The PRA claims are not reviewable under the APA because the PRA precludes judicial review;
Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, Office of Admin., 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C.Cir.1993
“Appellants argue that the APA does not provide a cause of action for judicial review of the President’s compliance with the PRA because the President is not an “agency” within the meaning of the APA. Furthermore, even if the APA applies to the President, appellants argue that the PRA precludes judicial review. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with both arguments and reverse the district court’s holdings to the contrary.”
In the event that is not clear to you.
The presidents decisions regarding presidential documents are NOT subject to judicial review.
i.e. No Court is permitted to 2nd guess the presidents decision as to whether a record is personal or official.
Or more simply for the simple minded.
If President Trump (or Clinton) says the records are personal, they are personal.
There is no “my defintion” – there is what numerous courts have said.
As you are having problems understanding JW vs NARA – I would suggest following the other cases ABJ cited.
Armstrong and Armstrong II.
“The PRA is not subject to Judicial Review.
i.e. The president can do as he pleases and the courts can not interveine
If the president says something is personal it is personal.
ONLY the president has that power.
The provision of the PRA limiting judicial review exists to preseve the constitutionality of the law.
NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin.
Appellants argue that the APA does not provide a cause of action for judicial review of the President’s compliance with the PRA because the President is not an “agency” within the meaning of the APA. Furthermore, even if the APA applies to the President, appellants argue that the PRA precludes judicial review. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with both arguments and reverse the district court’s holdings to the contrary.
Armstrong v. Bush
The PRA delineates those records over which the President may exercise “virtually complete control” during his term of office, id. at 290, and the courts may not restrict that control by reviewing the President’s recordkeeping practices and decisions. Id. at 291.
Armstrong v. Executive Office of President
Neither NARA nor DOJ even have the authority to Sue under the PRA.
They do not have the authority to decide what is and is not a Presidential record.
I have cited 3 Federal cases finding that.
The case law has only two instances in which the current government was able to go after the records of a prior president.
The first is when the prior president was claiming Other agency records as Presidential records.
The courts decided that the PRA does not extend outside the WH and the presidents authority to destroy or designate records as personal
Only applies to WH records – not those of NSC.
The 2nd is that the PRA does not preclude the existing administration from gaining Access to (Not posession) former presidents records,
For the purpose of criminal investigation, or other legitimate government purpose – BY GOING TO COURT.
The case cited is not only relevant – but your own argument is relevant.
You are not an especially smart person. You should be thankful that US attorney’s have more brains than you do.
Your argument of what constitutes an official record is so narrow that it is unlikely anything that is at MAL would meet it.
Branch is not a journalist, he is a historian. Cliton’s official historian.
I suspect that Woodward’s tapes of a presidential interview would be a WH record – if he left them with the President.
Further Branch did not “interview” clinton. He recorded Clinton going about his business as president.
JW Did not lose because of some details regarding Branch.
They lost because the PRA does not give NARA the authority to seize Records.
The lost because the PRA does not give NARA the power to decide what is an official record.
I would further note that neither APA nor the PRA apply to anything that is not a congressionally directed action of the president.
All presidential actions that rely on Constitutional authority are outside of Congresses power to legislate.
Put differently All article II powers of the president that are not subject to Article I congressional constraints are outside the
scope of the PRA or APA.
As an example – Presidential pardons are an article II power. Trump retained records of presidential pardons.
Those are Article II constitutional powers. Congress can not make law that constrains them.
Congress can not subject presidential pardons to either the APA or PRA.
To a very large extent the same is true of Foreign policy and national security.
I would also ask you to think about your own argument.
You say that Clinton talking to a reporter is not a presidential record.
What about him talking to a historian ?
And official historian ?
What about an official historian observing and recording the actions of the president ?
What about the records of the presidents secretary – who observes and records who he met with and when ?
Is it only conversations with reporters that are not official records ?
Or those with official historians ?
Is it any conversation with anyone that is not part of the federal government ?
Does that include State governors ? What about foreign leaders ?
What about say Kanye West ?
What about the presidents exchanges with secret service agents ?
What about those with the White House Chef ?
What about those with the Press secretary ?
The press secretary talks to reporters – are press conferences official records ?
What about when the president talks to the press secretary about the white house press conference ?
What about when the President talks to the press ?
What about when the President talks to advisors about talking to the press ?
What about when the president talks to his advisors about pardons ?
What about when the president talks to his advisors about foreign leaders ?
And on and on and on.
You have concocted a scheme regarding what is an is not a presidential record that
makes everything or nothing presidential records.
That ultimately makes it highly subjective.
And that is actually What Jackson decided. That to the extent congress has any actual power to define what is a presidential record,
The Article II problems are so large that ultimately what constitutes a presidential record is up to the president at the time.
Which BTW is the actual state of the law.
It is also constitutionally what MUST be the state of the law.
You can WANT the law to be different – though no one here beleives that you would want the law to be different if it was Pres. Obama caught with Classified Documents at Martha’s vineyard – which he certainly has.
What is the real point about you left wing nuts.
You make things up as you go to suit the outcome you want.
This left wing nut nonsense that Trump is guilty because he refused to cooperate is absolute nonsense.
The constitution guarantees absolutely everyone – including ex-presidents is permitted to refuse to cooperate with the efforts of law enforcement at every single step of an investigation, so long as they are within there constitutional rights.
Just as Biden is allowed to claim the documents he is dealing with “inadvertently” came into his posession, and inadvertently were moved to his chinese funded think tank. The fact that is highly likely to be false does not make him any more guilty than he actually is.
While Biden faces more legal jeophardy than Trump because:
The VP has no unilateral declassification authority.
The VP probably does not have the power to decide what is and is not personal.
It is substantially more difficult for a VP to gain an ownership interest in the documents of his tenure.
I did note that there was a reference in the PRA that you cited to Vice Presidential records.
Biden can hope that is defined broadly enough to save his bacon.
Because there is a legitimate argument that the records in VP biden’s posession were Vice _Presidential records, and therefor his posession was legal. And then his only issue is whether he continued to protect them – which he has a problem with.
Ultimately Biden’s greatest danger is that this is included as part of articles of impeachment. The odds of a Special Counsel trying to act are near zero.
But Biden has given Trump a HUGE gift. I doubt the SC will just drop everything, But Smith can not prosecute Trump without consequences that could shutdown the entire government.
Do you have the slightest doubt that if Smith now tries to prosecute Trump that the House will impeach Biden ? Garland ? Wray ?
And probably defund the DOJ.
Further Republicans now get to have a field day exploring the DOJ targeting of Trump.
All involvement of Biden becomes something that can be added to articles of impeachement.
House Republicans further get to investigate “what Biden knew, and when he knew it”
and by that I mean about his own Classified documents. Did anythign in those documents end up in Biden’s book ?
Merely proving that Biden knew he had classified documents in his posession as Ex-VP would make any involvement of Biden in going after Trump – and it is really well documented that Biden was roaming the WH halls ranting “Who will rid me of this meddlesome Trump?”
Expect lots of Becket Quotes.
Regardless, the ability of Republicans to more intimately investigate Joe Biden has been expanded enormously.
And Joe can not ever again utter the stupid statement he made about Trump and classified documents.
He is going to spend the next 2 years ducking questions about classified documents.
John B, Say, you’re not understanding what you are reading. Still. You keep changing the narrative.
“Branch is not a journalist, he is a historian. Cliton’s official historian. ”
Nobody is claiming he was a journalist. He was not there in the capacity of an official historian. YOU keep making that erroneous assumption to fit your argument. He was never there as an official historian for Clinton or the WH. Clinton sought his ‘assistance’ in creating an oral history. A project that Clinton wanted to do, not something he HAD to do as part of his official duty.
“According to plaintiff, President Clinton enlisted historian Taylor Branch to assist him in creating “an oral history of his eight years in office.” Compl. ¶ 8. In 2009, Branch published a book entitled, “The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President,” based upon extensive conversations with President Clinton during his tenure in the White House and the events Branch observed when he was in the President’s office.
“I suspect that Woodward’s tapes of a presidential interview would be a WH record – if he left them with the President.”
No, they wouldn’t, because the interview was NOT an official act of the president. It was NOT part of his job. If he left them with the president as a gift they might fall under the PRA. But obviously, they were not.
“Your argument of what constitutes an official record is so narrow that it is unlikely anything that is at MAL would meet it.”
The PRA and the APA narrowly define what is an official record. I’m going by what they say. The records met the definition since the majority of the documents were not personal. Obviously, the highly classified documents were not. Trump did not want to claim in court what was personal and what was not. It was his burden to prove in court that the documents were personal. He failed to do so.
“JW Did not lose because of some details regarding Branch.
They lost because the PRA does not give NARA the authority to seize Records.
The lost because the PRA does not give NARA the power to decide what is an official record.”
Wrong. Again. They lost because they wanted NARA to seize the records which were NOT presidential records. They were personal according to the definitions in the PRA. The PRA defines what is an official record and NARA goes by those definitions when they determine what to take custody of when presidents leave office.
“I would further note that neither APA nor the PRA apply to anything that is not a congressionally directed action of the president.”
The APA and the PRA are congressionally directed actions thru legislation created by…congress.
“All presidential actions that rely on Constitutional authority are outside of Congresses power to legislate.
Put differently All article II powers of the president that are not subject to Article I congressional constraints are outside the
scope of the PRA or APA. ”
As noted before article II is about executive powers and what the president can claim as executive privilege. It does NOT mean they are absolute. When Nixon sought to destroy documents pertaining to his crime. Congress had the constitutional authority to make laws against that by creating the PRA.
The PRA debate is over. Continuing it with you is pointless. You are incorrect on just about everything you have said.
But the most fundimental issue is the courts have REPEATEDLY settled this.
Within the scope of the WH a Presidential Record or a personal record is whatever the president says it is.
Neither NARA, nor the courts, nor the subsequent president has any authority to change that.
There is no authority to “recover “allegedly” Presidential records from prior presidents.
Neither NARA, nor DOJ, nor the Biden WH can even get in the front door of a courthouse without alleging that
The ex-president has kept records belonging to an agency of the federal government – rather than the WH.
Or that they need ACCESS – not POSSESSION for a legitimate purpose such as a criminal investigation.
The courts decided this not ONE time – But ATLEAST 3 times.
You rant about Trump not cooperating with NARA – the Courts have already ruled REPEATEDLY that he need not cooperate with NARA.
That Trump did not cooperate with DOJ – the Courts rules REPEATEDLY that ex presidents need not cooperate with DOJ or the current administration.
There ARE circumstances in which the Current government can gain ACCESS (not Posession) to prior presidents records.
These all require Court orders.
Contra your nonsense – it is DOJ that was required to go to court. It was NARA that was required to go to court.
THEY DID NOT.
And Finally – Subpeona’s are neither court orders, and they are for access, not possession.
John, OT,
What ever is up with me now doesn’t matter it’s everyone one’s problem, it’s blowing hard now.
.. On the flip flop later.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/must-see-ultra-maga-combines-blatant-lies-fauci-dc-elites-tgp-truths-no-question-mass-homicide-epic-video/
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=dr+luc+montagnier&ia=web
Gnite,
Home Podcast Live TV Interviews Audio Books
Search
Follow
Subscribe Shop
The US meat supply may soon be widely contaminated with mRNA proteins from biotech “vaccines”
Monday, January 16, 2023 by: Mike Adams
Tags: beef, biotech, bioweapons, Cattle, chicken, food news, food science, food supply, GMO, groceries, ground beef, ingredients, meat, mRNA, Pork, spike protein, swine, Vaccine injuries, vaccines, vegan, vegetarian
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-01-16-us-meat-supply-infected-with-mrna-proteins.html
***********
“As noted before article II is about executive powers and what the president can claim as executive privilege.”
It is about far more than that. Executive priviledge is a distant cousin of this despute.
The core issue is separation of powers.
“It does NOT mean they are absolute.”
Correct. but not an issue here.
Separation of powers IS absolute. Congress can not execute the laws, The courts can not legislate, and the President can not adjudicate.
“When Nixon sought to destroy documents pertaining to his crime. ”
That was already a violation of criminal law. Trump can not destroy documents in his posession for the purposes of covering up a crime.
Every case I have cited, while generally barring NARA, DOJ, from 2nd guessing the ex-presidents prior decisions regarding WH documents,
fully grants the current administration from ACCESSING ex-presidents records as part of a criminal investigation.
“Congress had the constitutional authority to make laws against that”
Correct, and the PRA is not one of those.
“I would also ask you to think about your own argument.
You say that Clinton talking to a reporter is not a presidential record.
What about him talking to a historian ?
And official historian ?
What about an official historian observing and recording the actions of the president ?”
Clinton talking to a reporter is not legally required. It’s not part of his job to talk to reporters nor there is a law requiring him to talk to a reporter. Talking to one is not an official act. It’s not part of creating policy or part of his official duty as president. The reporter is the one creating the record for HIS employer. Not the government.
Talking to a historian is no different if the president wanted to do a personal project that was NOT part of his official duty. There is no law or constitutional requirement for a president to talk to a historian. If there is an ‘official’ historian employed by the WH then that is a different issue altogether because it’s deemed an official function of the WH. This is the distinction you keep missing.
“What about the records of the presidents secretary – who observes and records who he met with and when ?”
The president’s secretary is a WH official. She’s literally a government official employed by the WH. Everything she does IS official government business which falls under the PRA.
“Is it only conversations with reporters that are not official records ?
Or those with official historians ?”
Reporters are NOT employed by the WH. Official historians are. Branch was NOT an official historian. Hence the term ‘official’.
“Is it any conversation with anyone that is not part of the federal government ?
Does that include State governors ? What about foreign leaders ?”
When those conversations involve another government official such as a state governor in the context of discussing policy or
or memos, or any official communications are part of his job. Same with foreign leaders, but they can claim executive privilege according to article II.
Private conversations with reporters and historians on personal projects are not official government business. Not when they don’t involve policy decisions and executive actions that are part of a president’s job.
“The Article II problems are so large that ultimately what constitutes a presidential record is up to the president at the time.
Which BTW is the actual state of the law.
It is also constitutionally what MUST be the state of the law. ”
The problems were addressed by congress when they created the PRA. It means the president does NOT have absolute power to declare what is and is not personal records. Congress did and as is with all constitutional amendments they all have limits. The PRA is not in violation of the constitution. The supreme court has not made any decision on it and Trump never challenged the PRA’s constitutionality. He only made claims that he could do whatever he wanted according to article II which is certainly not true.
“You can WANT the law to be different – though no one here beleives that you would want the law to be different if it was Pres. Obama caught with Classified Documents at Martha’s vineyard – which he certainly has.”
You are the one who wants the law to be different so that it supports your flawed arguments. You’re projecting your own flaws as mine.
“talking to a reporter is not legally required”
There is almost nothing a president does that is “legally required”
You have a major problem – you are trying to make up arguments, to get to the ends you wish to.
You are not using actual logic.
You are not really referencing the law – nor the case law.
As a result you will ALWAYS end up with a mess.
it will ALWAYS be possible to find myriads of problems.
Throughout this debate you conflate ACCESS with POSSESSION.
I would note that While Biden has wisely chosen – or more accurately had it chosen for him, to allow the government to take posession of the documents he had. He was NOT obligated to do so.
This is again one of YOUR and the LEFTS bizzare attempts to manufacture a crime where there is none.
Biden is/was in posession of these documents. The legal presumption is that what you are in posession of is YOURS.
When you posess something and another claims it is NOT yours – they must go to court and get a court to order that you give it back to them.
And the court will decide whetehr THEIR argumnts that the thing is theirs and not yours are valid.
In Biden’s case he was inarguably going to lose. But he is STILL lawfully entitled to insist that a court order him to turn over the documents.
Trump has a far better argument that he is allowed to POSSES these documents and other items. That they are HIS personal property.
But his argument that government may ACCESS those documents is poorer – though a court order is still required.
Even actual guilty criminals in our system have the right to protest their innocence and force the government at every step of the way to dot their i’s and cross their t’s.
Except when those of you on the left are agrevied.
“ Throughout this debate you conflate ACCESS with POSSESSION.”
No John, YOU are the one conflating access with possession. You keep changing your argument. This only means you have no argument.
“YOU are the one conflating access with possession.”
Access – subpeona’s give you ACCESS.
A warrant gives you posession.
A court order may give you either.
“You keep changing your argument. ”
Nope, I have pretty consistently made the same argument from the start.
The messy complexity is all the consequence of the Biden admin trying to game the system.
NARA can not go to court – they will lose.
DOJ can get ACCESS to responsive documents in Trump’s possession, but not possession.
All of this gamesmanship was to get to a warrant. Which gives posession without having to establish ownership or classification status.
YOU are the one Arguing Cannon was out of line – for What ? trying to establish whether this is Trump property or whether it is declassified ?
You are going to have to address that eventually.
Except of course if the case dies, which is most likely.
No What the law is, has been established by the courts.
You just keep pretending it has not.
I have no problem with changing the law and the constitution to fit your model.
But that is not how things are.
There is actually a reason it is as it is – because you would have a nonfunctional mess otherwise.
But that is an entirely different argument.
We can create a constitution and Government that are dysfunctional, or non-functional.
I would prefer otherwise.
I often make arguments – such as about freedom, free speech, censorship that are MORAL arguments, rather than LEGAL arguments.
You are as an example correct that as a private entity Twitter can legally censor. You are however incorrect that they can do so as they please.
Even you fixate on their TOS – without bothering to understand that it is a contract and BOTH parties have rights, and that it is a contract of adhession – which means it always must be interpreted AGAINST the drafting party – twitter.
Regardless, you fail to grasp that just because twitter CAN legally do something does not mean they SHOULD.
Legal censorship is usually bad, and usually immoral.
Regardless, you are constantly wrong about the constituion.
Wrong abut the law and wrong about morality.
Given that we have already established that you are immoral.
Why should that surprise ?
I do not think you are redeemable.
But you can serve as an example of failure to the world.
Do I want some laws to be different – sure.
That is not the same as being confused – as you are about what they are.
I have argued here repeatedly that the courts are wrong about something, or that the law is wrong, or that a constitutional interpretation is wrong. or that the constitution itself is wrong.
But Unlikely you I am perfectly able to know what the law says, what the courts say the law says, …
You cite SOME of the words of the PRA as an example.
But you ignore the FACT that Someone must apply those words and make decisions.
The PRA says the president at the time the records are created makes the decision – NOT NARA.
The PRA implies and the courts have decided those decisions are not judicially reviewable.
The PRA makes NARA the custodian. Custodians are not owners. You can fight over whether the government owns the documents,
except that NARA is the government and AGAIN Custodian is not owner.
The PRA makes clear NARA is a custodian.
It also makes clear NARA is responsible to protect what it has – NOT to go out and gather what it does not have.
You can argue if you wish that Armstong, Armstrong II and JW were wrongly decided – go ahead, take them to SCOTUS.
But unless you do, and you must do so in court as the PLANTIF, the CHALLENGER, with the burden of proof on you.
Then you are stuck with those decisions.
It is also obvious from those decisions, why NARA did not go to court against Trump – they would have lost. Why DOJ did not go to court against Trump – the would have lost. Why they chose to get a Warrant – not because Trump was uncooperative, But because by making this a criminal matter – which it is not, they stood the best chance of winning in court. It is ONLY criminal claims that the Government has EVER won against ex-presidents records.
It is also more evident why the 11th cir ct. of appeals was WRONG – because they claimed the President was not Different – and By Law and Constitution the president IS different, and as a practical matter MUST be different.
And as we now know Ex-presidents and vp’s routinely handle classified information. They are just expected to comply with the espionage act and the Obama EO when they do. Trump did. Biden did not. A garage and a chinese funded think tank are not appropirate places to store classified material. A SCIF in an ex-presidential office guarded by the secret service is.
“You cite SOME of the words of the PRA as an example.
But you ignore the FACT that Someone must apply those words and make decisions.
The PRA says the president at the time the records are created makes the decision – NOT NARA.
The PRA implies and the courts have decided those decisions are not judicially reviewable.”
False, I cite all of the words that are relevant. YOU don’t cite anything that the PRA says that backs up YOUR claims. You say the PRA says the president at the time the records are created makes the decision-NOT NARA, yet you FAIL to cite the specific clause that backs up your claim. The PRA does not imply nor the courts have decided those decisions are not judicially reviewable. The PRA is very specific about what it means and I have posted the exact wording multiple times. You’re the one who always claims the law should be interpreted as it’s written. Here you’re saying what it implies without showing anything from the PRA backing that claim.
This is from YOUR “case law” ‘evidence’,
“C]ourts are accorded the power to review guidelines outlining, what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record’ under the terms of the PRA. The PRA does not bestow on the President the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review.
Id. at 1290. The court stated that Armstrong I only barred judicial review of “creation, management, and disposal decisions” of the President and not “the initial classification of existing materials.” Id. at 1294. ”
The term “creation” does not mean the president designating what is personal and what is presidential record. The court is talking about the creation of documents NOT the designation of documents. You’re clearly confusing ‘creation’ with ‘designation’.
“The PRA makes NARA the custodian. Custodians are not owners. You can fight over whether the government owns the documents,
except that NARA is the government and AGAIN Custodian is not owner.
The PRA makes clear NARA is a custodian.
It also makes clear NARA is responsible to protect what it has – NOT to go out and gather what it does not have.”
Nobody is arguing that NARA is the owner of the documents, YOU are. There is no ‘fight’ to have. The government IS the owner of the documents. That’’s not a debate.
“g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.”
“You can argue if you wish that Armstong, Armstrong II and JW were wrongly decided – go ahead, take them to SCOTUS.”
They weren’t wrongly decided. YOU are misinterpreting what they are saying so it fits your assumptions.
“It is also obvious from those decisions, why NARA did not go to court against Trump – they would have lost. Why DOJ did not go to court against Trump – the would have lost. Why they chose to get a Warrant – not because Trump was uncooperative, But because by making this a criminal matter – which it is not, they stood the best chance of winning in court. It is ONLY criminal claims that the Government has EVER won against ex-presidents records.”
NARA did take trump to court. His lawyers went to court to argue that NARA didn’t have a right to the documents they were requesting. Trump’s lawyers lost. The warrant was issued because he LIED about turning over all documents after attesting that he did. Lying to the FBI is a crime. NARA spent almost two years giving Trump multiple opportunities to settle the issue quietly. Trump kept being stupid.
“It is also more evident why the 11th cir ct. of appeals was WRONG – because they claimed the President was not Different – and By Law and Constitution the president IS different, and as a practical matter MUST be different.”
He is not different. Just because he’s president doesn’t make him above the law. Trump as an ex-president IS a private citizen. He has no special privilege or is excluded from the law simply because of his former title. No single law says he is immune from prosecution. You cite no law that says because he is different he must be treated differently. Trump is no longer president, he’s no different than any other citizen subject to the laws of the nation.
“They are just expected to comply with the espionage act and the Obama EO when they do. Trump did.”
NO he didn’t. That’s why he’s in trouble right now. There is already plenty of evidence that he violated the espionage act. Trump didn’t have a security clearance when he was in possession of the documents and when they were found. Biden revoked Trump’s security clearance. He had no right to those documents per the espionage act.
“False, I cite all of the words that are relevant.”
So your response to the courts disagree that your words are irrelevant is to repeat those words ?
“YOU don’t cite anything that the PRA says that backs up YOUR claims. ”
I do not need to 3+ courts have already done that 4 me.
“You say the PRA says the president at the time the records are created makes the decision-NOT NARA,”
No, The courts say that the law and the constitution dictate that.
“The PRA does not imply nor the courts have decided those decisions are not judicially reviewable. ”
Again I did not say that, Armstrong, Armstrong II, and JW say that.
“The PRA is very specific about what it means and I have posted the exact wording multiple times.”
You miss three Fundimental problems.
No matter what PRA says – SOMEONE must make a decision. The PRA makes the final Decision the presidents.
The courts have claimed the PRA says that decision is unreviewable.
It would be a very good guess they did so because otherwise the PRA would be unconstitutional.
“You’re the one who always claims the law should be interpreted as it’s written. Here you’re saying what it implies without showing anything from the PRA backing that claim.”
Laws should be read as written. The constitution should be read as written.
If the constitution delegates a power exclusively to the President, and congress writes a law regarding that power – what are the courts to do ?
The rules of statutory interpretation require if possible for the courts to try to save the law, by ignoring the parts of the law that are unconstitutional. The alternative is to strike the law entirely.
Which do you want ? A PRA devoid of unconstitutional provisions, or with those provisions interpreted by the court to comply with the constitution, or NO PRA at all ?
“Courts are accorded the power to review guidelines outlining, what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record’ under the terms of the PRA. The PRA does not bestow on the President the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review.
Id. at 1290. The court stated that Armstrong I only barred judicial review of “creation, management, and disposal decisions” of the President and not “the initial classification of existing materials.” Id. at 1294. ”
How does that pose a problem here. The president decides creation management and disposal – without review, that means he gets to decide if the documents is a presidential document or a personal one.
Are you trying to harp on “the initial classification of existing materials” ? That gets you nowhere.
That does not change the fact that the president can declassify anything – per the constitution, and that has never been judicially reviewable.
“Create, manage, dispose” – does not matter – EACH of those include saying – This is a presidential record, this is mine/
“You’re clearly confusing ‘creation’ with ‘designation’.”
You are the only one confused.
You are also relying on the body of a decision NOT the holding.
While the body is somewhat relevant as dicta. It is the holding that is determinative.
“Nobody is arguing that NARA is the owner of the documents,”
NARA is the government.
“The government IS the owner of the documents.”
Not if the president says otherwise.
I would note that while Armstrong, and Armstrong II are about “Disposal” – and litterally about the destruction of documents.
And more specifically destruction of documents that are subject to the FRA as well as PRA,
Disposal can mean destruction. It can also mean giving to someone else.
“g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.”
Correct – that is everything the PRESIDENT has decided they are to take control of.
“They weren’t wrongly decided.”
Then the argument is over and you lost.
“YOU are misinterpreting what they are saying so it fits your assumptions.”
No I have cited the HOLDING repeatedly to you
“NARA did take trump to court.”
Then you can cite the court case.
No one but you is making this claim.
You appear to be confusing a subpeona – which is a demand by a DOJ lawyer to produce evidence to be presented to a GJ,
It is not an order of posession and there was never an argument in court.
“The warrant was issued because he LIED about turning over all documents after attesting that he did.”
That is not in the unredacted portion of the Affadavit of probable cause.
Regardless, you continue to misundersand what a lie is.
Trump beleives – with a very strong basis, that the documents are both declassified and HIS.
A lie requires both being Wrong, which he is not, and KNOWING that you are wrong.
“Lying to the FBI is a crime.”
Niether a lie nor one to the FBI. Affadavits are to the courts – not FBI, and the determination as to whether they are truthful belongs to THAT court.
And once again we have FBI/DOJ court shopping. Instead of going to the court where the affadavit was filed and asking the Judge for a court order – where they would face the near certainty of having the burden of proof as to whether the documents were classified or Trump’s,
They jumped to another Court. Asking for a Warrant, which is reviewed ex-parte – i.e. the defendant gets no oportunity to respond.
“NARA spent almost two years giving Trump multiple opportunities to settle the issue quietly. Trump kept being stupid.”
Trump continues to claim the documents are not classified and they are his.
No one has proven otherwise. Armstrong, Armstrong II, and JW v. NARA are the controling law – especially in the 5th circuit – again a reason for jumping courts.
” Just because he’s president doesn’t make him above the law.”
It means that as president he has the powers that the constitution grants him.
As an example the president can not violate the espionage act. It is not possible. Because constitutionally the power to decide what is an is not NDI is ultimately the presidents.
If you do not like this – amend the constitution.
As we argue this more, it is my view that the way things are is likely the only arrangement that will work. I.E. That the president is the ultimate word on what is an is not classified and what is and is not a presidential record.
Some authority must be. That really can not be either the courts or congress. Those solutions are not practical.
It might be arguable that Presidential records decisions are reviewable. But that is not currently the case.
I do not see how decisions regarding what is classified – and particular what is declassified can ever be reviewable.
But you are free to try to amend the constitution to structure things differently.
As we are learning from the Hunter Biden Saga – pretty much everything in government is publicly accessible in Sweden.
Hence every embarrassing detail of Hunters Rental of the “swedish house” on the potomic is publicly available, confirming the Hunter Biden Laptop as well as Guiliani.
I personally favor as open a government as possible.
But regardless of what the law and constitution OUGHT to be.
The rule of law REQUIRES that we adhere to what they ARE, or that we work to change them.
The Decision in JW vs. NARA was
“The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because:
plaintiff’s claim is not redressable.
NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,”
NARA does not have the tapes in question,
and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.
In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.”
Trump is ENTITLED to rely on that.
Even if he should subsequently lose a court fight and a later court reject the holding in JW v NARA entirely,
Trump was legally free to beleive it was correct and to act according right up until the moment that a Court decides differently.
You say Trump “Lied” – Judge Jackson says Otherwise.
A future court can decide that Jackson was WRONG, But NOT that Trump relying on JW v NARA made his actions criminal.
YOU CAN NOT WIN THIS.
Not without destroying the rule of law.
You do not seem to grasp this
“Trump as an ex-president IS a private citizen. He has no special privilege”
Correct, but not what is relevant.
What matters is what powers Trump had at the time he sent these documents to MAL.
“is excluded from the law simply because of his former title.”
President is not a title, it is a collection of powers.
“No single law says he is immune from prosecution.”
For anything anywhere anytime – no.
But the president while president can not violate the espionage act.
And the president has numerous powers that ordinary people do not have.
For the most part the check on those powers in impeachment. Not prosecution.
I would hope that even you are not stupid enough to grasp that the powers of the presidency can not be vested in the people as a whole, or even a committee.
We can debate whether Trump DID declassify these documents, but there is no debate he had the power to do so.
No, he can not do so telepathically, But yes, he can do so by giving them to someone without the clearance to have them.
He can do so by executive order, by verbal order, and by action.
And while you do not like this – the actual burdern of proof that he did not is on the DOJ not him.
Nor arguably does it matter if the documents are classified. Portions of the Branch tapes were classified.
You can pretend that he can not give himself ownership – but JW v NARA says that he can.
And I have cited law – JW V. NARA is caselaw.
“There is already plenty of evidence that he violated the espionage act.”
Then you would have that evidence.
“Trump didn’t have a security clearance when he was in possession of the documents and when they were found.”
Incorrect.
“Biden revoked Trump’s security clearance.”
Nope, he directed that he no longer be provided with the PDB.
That is not the same as revoking a security clearance.
Nor would it matter.
You assume CONSTANTLY, that
The documents are not Trump’s
When case law says they are.
That they are still classified, when there is strong evidence they are not.
“He had no right to those documents per the espionage act.”
The espionage act does not grant rights.
It makes specific acts crimes.
Which Act are you claiming is a crime ?
It is near certain that the documents arrived at MAL lawfully, pretty much no matter how they arrived.
The storage room at MAL was a SCIF and is no less secure than it was.
Ex-Presidents retain security clearance – and Biden did not revoke his, regardless of your claims otherwise.
Though even if he did the documents can sit in the storage room at MAL legally for decades.
Todate there is no evidence that Trump moved documents that may or may not have been classified to a chinese funded think tank, or his garage.
There is no evidence Trump moved any of these documents from the ex-presidents office at MAL.
So what is your evidence Trump violated 18 US 793 ?
You can not establish the documents are classified.
Or that they were improperly moved.
“This left wing nut nonsense that Trump is guilty because he refused to cooperate is absolute nonsense.
The constitution guarantees absolutely everyone – including ex-presidents is permitted to refuse to cooperate with the efforts of law enforcement at every single step of an investigation, so long as they are within there constitutional rights.”
He’s not guilty. Yet. Refusing to cooperate because he is clearly in possession of documents that do not belong to him by law which is theft Theft is a crime, but the PRA does not have any punishment defined. However the espionage act does and the president is not immune from charges, especially when he is no longer president when he still refused to hand over classified documents and kept them illegally in an unsecured manner.
Trump was illegally holding documents that were not his property. He didn’t have a right to them in the first place. He does NOT have a constitutional right to have government property as per the PRA.
“Just as Biden is allowed to claim the documents he is dealing with “inadvertently” came into his posession, and inadvertently were moved to his chinese funded think tank. The fact that is highly likely to be false does not make him any more guilty than he actually is.”
You have no basis to claim that is ‘highly likely to be false’. You only say so because you want it to be. We don’t know who brought the documents to the center. It’s more likely they were authorized at the time and someone simply forgot. That is not a crime and as it has been pointed out numerous times when they were found, not ‘caught’, they were promptly reported and given back to the proper authorities. Trump didn’t do that. He falsely claimed all of the documents he was hoarding were his. Including the highly classified documents found in his office.
“While Biden faces more legal jeophardy than Trump because:
The VP has no unilateral declassification authority.
The VP probably does not have the power to decide what is and is not personal.
It is substantially more difficult for a VP to gain an ownership interest in the documents of his tenure.
I did note that there was a reference in the PRA that you cited to Vice Presidential records.”
Biden can declassify documents HE created.
Biden does have the power to decide what is and is not personal according the PRA. He is subject to the same definitions it applies to presidents. There is no ‘probably’. He does have that power.
“Biden can hope that is defined broadly enough to save his bacon.
Because there is a legitimate argument that the records in VP biden’s posession were Vice _Presidential records, and therefor his posession was legal. And then his only issue is whether he continued to protect them – which he has a problem with.”
The rules that apply to the president apply to the VP and they are clearly defined. His possession of the records was not legal if he was not in office. However, the issue is whether the keeping of those documents was intentional. In Trump’s case, it was intentional. Biden was not.
“But Biden has given Trump a HUGE gift. I doubt the SC will just drop everything, But Smith can not prosecute Trump without consequences that could shutdown the entire government.
Do you have the slightest doubt that if Smith now tries to prosecute Trump that the House will impeach Biden ? Garland ? Wray ?
And probably defund the DOJ. ”
This wouldn’t stop smith from prosecuting Trump if he chose to. The charges against Trump relate to violating the espionage act as a former president. Biden would be immune as president.
The house can try to impeach, but the problem is the house would have to prove that the negligence was deliberate and intentional. The Senate will never prosecute based on flimsy evidence.
The government would not shut down because Smith chooses to prosecute. Trump is a private citizen subject to the law as any other citizen. Being a former president is not protection from that fact.
“Further Republicans now get to have a field day exploring the DOJ targeting of Trump.
All involvement of Biden becomes something that can be added to articles of impeachement.
House Republicans further get to investigate “what Biden knew, and when he knew it”
and by that I mean about his own Classified documents. Did anythign in those documents end up in Biden’s book ?”
They certainly can do that. However, they will waste a lot of time and energy chasing conspiracy theories and assumptions a la Benghazi. Will democrats ignore congressional subpoenas as republicans did? Will they throw obstacles by filing court cases against certain claims? As republicans proved they certainly can.
Trump still hasn’t fully cooperated in the investigation of his case. Will that be the excuse democrats use? I can be. Remember republicans were fine with that approach.
“And Joe can not ever again utter the stupid statement he made about Trump and classified documents.
He is going to spend the next 2 years ducking questions about classified documents.”
That is certainly true. Joe has egg on his face. BUT that doesn’t detract from the fact that Trump is not off the hook.
massively long and error filled post.
I have explained your errors – often with citations to the law or court decisions.
Which you keep ignoring, repeatedly in the past.
I have also pointed out that your claims just plain do not work.
Further they are not consistent with the constitution.
I know it pains you to accept this – But Donald Trump was president of the United States for 4 years.
And during that time he had all the same powers as any other president.
You continue to make arguments that ignore that.
You say the documents were not his. The courts have multiple times said they are if he says they are.
You say they are classified. But again – if the president said they were not – or acted so that they were not – then they aren’t.
You ignore this in every argument you make.
I honestly do not care if the rules were different – presuming they actually worked.
But the rules and law are not different – because they can not be different.
It should be crystal clear that the head of state must be able to provide classified information – whatever that means to whoever he pleases, under some circumstances.
Reagan decided to unilaterally tell Russia and the world about Stealth at a press conference.
Absent the presidents unlimited power to classify and declassify on a whim as he pleases.
Reagan inarguably violated the espionage act.
We know that Obama was using an AOL account to exchange classified information – with Sec State Clinton – while she was in Russia,
where it with certainty was being intercepted. Almost no one argued that Obama had violated the espionage act – because the president can not.
Trump provided the Russians with classified information regarding terroism to enlist their aide in the fight against terrorism in the mideast.
While a few muttered about the espionage act – most including even WaPo and NYT noted that was within the presidents powers.
There are several other instances in which Trump as president either granted a person in the room with him a temporary security clearance to allow them to participate in a highly classified disussion, or on the fly declassified information.
Several ranking members of the Trump WH have Confirmed that occured on several occasions.
It did not happen because Trump does not care about the rules, or law.
It happened because the final decision as to whether it is beneficial to the US to share specific information with other people MUST be with the president. The check on that is NOT the espionage act – Contra to what I hope is a typo on your part – the Espionage act does not and can not apply to the president. The check on a presidents decisions or recklessness with classified information is impeachment.
I would note that is also how the courts have understood the PRA. Only the president can make final decisions as to what is and is not a personal document.
You clearly have a problem with that. The espionage act has a long but not exclusive list of things that maybe NDI material, and yet we KNOW that the president is not constrained in his actions to that list.
Are you going to claim that Reagan was NOT permitted to make public Stealth technology ?
Clearly the espionage act says that he can’t – if the espionage act applies to the president.
What if a president finds it necessary to share classified information with a foreign country to save someone’s life ? To stop a nuclear war ?
Is he free to do so ? The espionage act – if it applies to the president says no.
Why does the Obama EO on classified material exist ? If classified material is the legitimate domain of congress – why can’t congress write laws regarding how to set up the classification system and what the processes are ?
Ultimately the courts have treated the PRA exactly the same as the Espionage act.
They have found that the decision as to what is classified and what is not, and when it can be shared and with who, is ultimately the presidents, and that decision is not constrainable by congress and not reviewable by the courts.
And they have found the same thing regarding the PRA – that the decision as to what is personal and what is a WH document ultimately is the presidents, and that it is not constrainable by congress or reviewable by the courts.
And your entire argument regarding Trump is on the wrong side of BOTH of those.
There is no doubt that Reagan. Obama, Trump and probably every other president has violated the espionage act while president.
No one has even tried to claim that the espionage act applies to presidents.
But they have tried to claim that the PRA applies to presidents – and they have failed.
The courts have decided repeatedly that with respect to WH Documents the current president can decide what is and is not a presidential record,
and that no law can constrain that decision, and that the decision is not reviewable.
If you want differently – you are going to have to change the constitution – or change the courts reading of the constitution.
And then you are going to have the problem that it is unlikely that government can work any other way.
Whether Trump is off the hook depends on Whether the SC decides to prosecute.
It is near certain that the MAL case would have to be tried in the 11th circuit and that Cannon would be the judge as she already had the first case. The Jury would be a FL Jury not a DC jury. Put differently it would not be a politically biased collection of morons.
The SC has a separate problem – and that is the SC for Biden is NOT going after Biden. He can’t, that is congresses job. There is the small possibility of prosecuting others. But barring Hunter Selling the Corvette docs to the chinese it is unlikely that anyone else will be prosecuted.
The Trump SC is not bound by the Biden SC’s decision. But the majority of americans WILL expect them to be dealt with similarly.
Failure to do so could have innumerable dire consequences. I think the odds of the SC prosecuting Trump over MAL are very near zero.
There is a very small possiblity of trying your “obstruction” argument – but legal obstruction has a very specific meaning and asserting ownership, innocencense, declassification, or allegedly failing to fully comply with a subpeona are NOT among those.
Even Mueller did not actually try to claim that, he just mused about things like that – which Barr correctly disposed of in a few sentences.
I think Garland has been an absolute disaster. But I also think that he KNOWS he has been ill used by Biden and that he has an out of control FBI and DOJ and that he is already being remembered as the man that thank god did not become a supreme court justice.
I may be reading too deeply, But though I am glad Garland is not a justice, I do not think he is the idiot that holder was – he has more been duped and played by the children at the WH.
The point is that I do not think that Garland is going to gamble at being the AG that indicted a former president on very shaky grounds.
Nor want to risk the potentially enormous consequences of that.
But you are free to beleive otherwise.
Nor do I think that the SC will procede with anything J6 related – that too is far to dangerous – even though atleast it would be tried in DC courts.
Regardless, republicans will shortly begin a real J6 investigation. I am hoping as Gaetz claims that all the video will be released – it probably will not and can not be all – but still most. I am hopeful that CP records regarding Pelosi’s office are released. And who knows maybe Republicans will subpeona Pelosi’s phone calls – what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
That combined with the Church II investigation of Government political interferance in elections should make proceeding in any way against Trump very dangerous.
But you are free to beleive otherwise.
“Whether Trump is off the hook depends on Whether the SC decides to prosecute.
It is near certain that the MAL case would have to be tried in the 11th circuit and that Cannon would be the judge as she already had the first case.”
Nope. It’s a federal criminal case and it’s more likely to be tried in Washington D.C. first.
The 11th circuit already has experience with Trump’s BS claims that wouldn’t be good for Trump. Cannon has already proved to be biased towards Trump. That’s why the 11th circuit admonished her in the last case she took, a case she had no jurisdiction to preside on.
Cannon didn’t have the ‘first’ case. That was Judge Reinhardt.
“The Trump SC is not bound by the Biden SC’s decision. But the majority of americans WILL expect them to be dealt with similarly.”
No, because their cases differ substantially. The only common denominator is that they both mishandled classified documents. Trump is a private citizen and will be charged as a private citizen. He’s circumstances are so different that any comparison to Biden’s problem is comical. Trump deliberately obstructed law enforcement from obtaining government property that did not belong to Trump. It’s already been established that he took documents that did not belong to him and that includes classified documents he had no business possessing as a private citizen. Trump’s security clearance was revoked by Biden.
“There is a very small possiblity of trying your “obstruction” argument – but legal obstruction has a very specific meaning and asserting ownership, innocencense, declassification, or allegedly failing to fully comply with a subpeona are NOT among those.”
The obstruction charge is actually quite strong. Trump has already provided ample evidence when he kept shooting his mouth off and deliberately obstructed law endorsement from looking into boxes that turned out to have government property. Trump spend 18 moths resisting requests to hand over government documents that were not his to keep. LYING about handing over all of it is considered obstruction. Trump personally handled the documents proving he knew where they were and what he had. Constantly telling NARA and the DOJ it was his knowing he couldn’t’ prove it is obstruction. Hiding documents is also considered obstruction. Trump is in much deeper legal trouble than you would like to admit.
Garland hasn’t finished investigating since he now has total control of all the documents that trump tried to keep from being used as evidence.
The documents were at MAL, the search was at MAL. The alleged Crime was at MAL.
The prosecution will be at the 11th, and Cannon will likely get the case.
If there is ever a prosecution – do not hold your breath.
I think we are now up to 5 different locations that Biden Classified Docs have been found – not a single one being his ex-vp offices.
Federal does not mean DC – the entire US is federal.
If there was a prosecution of Biden it would likely be 3rd circuit – as that is where his Delaware homes are.
Though the BidenCenter is in DC.
That you can attack Cannon is evidence of how nuts you are.
The FBI raided MAL. They took something like 150 BOXES of documents – not merely the few purportedly classified documents.
You have to be brain dead to beleive that they are entitled to that.
We are in the midst of a worse mess With Biden – and it appears that Biden lawyers are doing the searching – Not FBI agents. Lawyers without security clearances. Other WH documents adjacent to the Classified material are not being taken. Nothing else is beling taken.
FBI was voluntarial provided security footage at MAL PRIOR to the raid. We do not know if there is security footage at Biden’s various documents dumps – and why isn’t there ? Who has been to these places – There is a record of everyone who went to MAL, everyone who goes to Trump’s home. and everyone who goes to Trump’s office. Now we find out that Hunter Biden was “renting” atleast one of these locations – for either 50K/month – 7 times the comparable rent – can you spell money laundering, or 19K/month – over 2times the comparable rent – if you beleive Joe Rather than Hunters Documents. Regardless Hunter had all kinds of scurilous characters arround him all the time.
If you doubt that – please go read the emails from the Swedish Govenrment for the 1 years he rented the Swedish house on the potomac.
He was a disasterous tenant violating all the rules, leting drug dealers and possibly homeless people in the back door. making keys to his apartment for his chinese business associates/Chinese security affiliates. Many of these documents were about china, others about Iran, and Russia, and Ukraine – and why do we actually know what the Biden documents were about and not the Trump documents ?
Biden is getting the benefit of every doubt – despite the fact that he is far more reckless. By Law enforcement and some of the press.
And you think Cannon was Biased because she accepted a valid 4th amendment civil rights lawsuit for the recovery of anything Trump could prove was his ?
All that does is demonstrate how NUTS you are.
People are not stupid:
Clinton thousands of documents – clearly stolen, they had to be removed from the state department without permission, converted to electronic form – outside of govenrment processes and then emailed over the internet and kept on a mail server in the basement of her home.
Atleast 30,000 government documents mixed with about 3000 classified documents, with about 300 atleast Top secret.
And multipole Backup copies on Huma Abedin’s laptop which ended up with Anthony Weiner.
Much of these shared deliberately with people without security clearances.
How did we find out ? Some guy spilled the beans in the 4th Bengahzi hearings – this was otherwise completely hidden. Nobody knew.
And how is this handled ? Does the FBI Raid clinton ? Does she let the FBI go through her emails and sort between personal and government ?
NO a bunch of Clinton attorneys – many of whom were involved with the massive abuse of classified documents in the first place, get to review and decide what gets returned to the governement and what does not.
Trump we have NARA taking what they want from MAL several times. FBI taking what they want atleast once. Being provided with security footage.
Documents stored in a locked SCIF in Trump’s official ex-presidential offices – additional security added – more than he needed when he was president at FBI recomedation.
And this is when we get an FBI SWAT TEAM RAID in the early hours of the morning ? Confiscating thousands of documents far beyond anything classified – Because they can ? And no one is allowed in the fascility during the FBI raid to oversee FBI AGents – many of which are associated with the RussiaGate mess where evidence was manufactured.
The FBI KowTowed to Clinton – because god forbid someone at the FBI should she Chelsea’s wedding plans.
But For Trump you are going to confiscate about 1000 of his documents for every government document.
Then we have Biden – Again like Clinton – Documents stored where there is no argument they could possibly be legitimately. Not in a SCIF – many not even in an Ex-VP residence, But moved to a chinese funded think tank. And who gets to look through things and decide what the government gets ? Again Private Biden attorney’s. And we end up with a Collusion Delusion Conspiracy theorist appointed as SC to look into Biden – because he is obviously non-partisan just because he is a republican never Trumper ?
Regardless, why is it that when Democrats have a scandal they are treated by the media, by the government, by DOJ with kid gloves ?
While Trump who in all probability can legally possess everything he had gets raided by an FBI SWAT teams that goes through Melania’s intimates ?
And YOU think Cannon was wrong to think that there might be a 4th or 5th amendment issue ?
What kind of idiot are you ?
What we have is ONCE AGAIN Democrats controlling EVERYTHING – and STILL looking WORSE.
BTW Breaking news Last night – even more top secret documents found in some Biden Home where they are not supposed to be.
I have lost Track, but I think we are now at 3 different homes + the Biden center, and 7 different locations total.
And not a single document inside a SCIF or an ex-presidential office.
You do not know what Obstruction is.
It is NEVER obstruction to tell Law Enforcement to get a warrant.
It is NEVER obstruction to make public statements.
But if you want to look at stupid public statements I would suggest Biden.
Both JT and Andrew MacCarthy have said that Biden’s public statements on this are a very serious problem – they are ADMISSIONS.
They are admissible in court. As is Biden’s prior remarks about Trump which are also damning.
Inadvertly is both NOT a defense against 18 US 793(f) and problematic because Classified documents do not show up scatter all over the place “inadvertantly”. Biden’s remarks about Trump are EVIDENCE that Biden KNOWS that Classified documents must be handled with care.
That is DAMNING. By attacking Trump, he not only made himself into a huge hypocrit, but he admitted to KNOWING
that his own conduct was criminal.
And we once again have DOJ/FBI meddling in an election. And Democrats engaged in a coverup.
The first Docs were found 6 days before the election, the DOJ was involved 4 days before (why the delay) ? Or doesn’t NARA take classified docs seriously ? Yet this did not get out until it was LEAKED to the media in early january. It is pretty clear that neither DOJ nor FBI nor the WH intended anyone to EVER know about this.
And Why is it that Documents continue to be found going on 3 months AFTER the original discovery ?
You have lost Adam Schiff, Ilhan Omar, and large parts of the left wing nut media.
Regardless, Cannon is not the problem – it is DOJ/FBI the Biden admin, NARA and the 11th Cirt court of appeals that are OBVIOUSLY Biased.
Bias is self evident from hypocracy and double standards.
This is an obviously partisan Hit peice. But it is quite useful because so far it is the best single short source I have found with nearly all the Facts.
As an example early in the video is a 3D model showing where at MAL the documents were found – Hint NOT in a garage, But in a very large very secure room with a single locked entrance that was only accessible from Trump’s ex presidential offices.
There is nothing wrong with constantly telling NARA/DOJ these were his.
That is the state of the law. You still do not seem to get that.
In your BEST Case scenario – the Docs were moved “inadvertantly” – and therefore still classified,
They are Still Trump’s – just like the Branch Tapes were Clinton’s.
You keep pretending – but there is no difference.
First as Jackson makes clear – there is no government authority to take possession of the documents – this is why they alleged a crime and used a warrant, they had to manufacture government authority because the PRA does not give it to them.
Next, even being classified does not matter – portions of the Branch tapes are classified.
And again per Jackson and SEVERAL other cases – the President and ONLY the president gets to UNREVIEWABLY decide what is a personal and what is a presidential document. That is both the PRA and the Constitution. The APA BTW is completely irrelevant. It does not apply to much of what occurs in the WH. It does not apply to Executive orders. It does not apply to exclusively Article II powers of the president.
If that was not Trump – Presidents would have to follow the APA to pardon someone, or even to meet with a foreign ambassador.
The APA applies to agencies created by Congress – not the constitution, and only engaged in tasks created by congress, not the constitution.
That is right Garland has total control of I beleive 100K documents – which is precisely why Cannon was correct, and the 11th circt appeals in error.
Documents that are not by Law the Governments.
Regardless, it is increasingly evident by the day – the MAL investigation of Trump is DEAD.
The Big Winner here is Trump, The Big loser Biden.
When the GOP took over the house it was an open question whether they would be getting Behind Trump.
While there was no doubt they would investigate the crap out of Biden, there were two big areas that it was possible they could distances themselves from – One was J6 and the other was the MAL document raid. Both are Big Trump issues.
It is quite clear – from MacCarthy’s remarks, From Comer’s, From Jordan’s from myriads of other republicans, that republicans are going to investigate the disparate handling of J6 protestors and the BLM rioters – they could have stuck to parents at school boards, and Pro-life vs. pro-choice protestors. But they have chosen to look into J6 – that is a very big deal and a very pro trump stance, that they did not have to take.
The other is that they are not merely jumping on the Biden classified document mess, but they are jumping on the disparate treatment of Trump in a big way.
Chair Comer has called on DOJ to drop the SC investigation and leave all investigation to Congress. Ex-Presidents and VP’s take documents all the time – Clinton. Bush and Obama did in large numbers. Many classified. This is not new. What is now relevant according to Comer is who besides Biden and Trump had access, and whether Congress needs to enact new laws to improve classified document handling.
So you are saying that ALL the documents that Biden had at the Biden center – thousands of documents, were STOLEN ?
That All the Documents he had in cardboard boxes besides his corvette were STOLEN ?
Only a few pages were found, John. Not the hundreds like Trump. They are considered stolen if they are not voluntarily returned upon request. Trump didn’t volunteer to return all of them. He had to be subpoenaed. Biden didn’t. Trump claimed ALL of those documents he had were his property. They were not. Thus taking property that did NOT belong to him is considered theft.
“Only a few pages were found, John. Not the hundreds like Trump.”
Nope, thousands of pages of WH documents were found. Only about a Dozen TS/SCI marked documents were found.
NONE within Biden’s ex-VP offices. All roughly the equaivalent of Gigi’s “in a locker by the Pool.
“They are considered stolen if they are not voluntarily returned upon request.”
Nope. 18 U.S. Code § 641
theft: . the generic term for all crimes in which a person takes personal property of another without permission or consent.
There is absolutely nothing about it is not theft if you return it when asked.
“Trump didn’t volunteer to return all of them.”
Not relevant.
It remains debateable whether Trump owned the documents in question and whether they were classified.
And you have provided the evidence that obviously some of them atleast – such as the pardons – he owned.
“He had to be subpoenaed.”
A subpeona is not a request for the return of anything. It is a request to provide evidence in court.
“Biden didn’t.”
As best as we can tell Biden has nothing to do with the return of any of this.
Obviously this is from the news and could be wrong.
But as reported so far, Workers Removing documents from Biden’s closet encountered these documents.
They called Biden’s lawyers. They called NARA, NARA Called DOJ, Garland appointed Lausch,
And Lausch sent FBI agents to Biden properties to retrieve even more documents.
Biden personally had nothing to do with any of this. He does not appear to have been contacted until after the fact.
And anyone who doubts this would have gone radically differently if the MAL raid was not in the news is an idiot.
But For Biden’s raid of MAL, The Documents at Biden center would have been moved wherever they were going and no one ever would have heard about this.
“Trump claimed ALL of those documents he had were his property.”
He is allowed to claim that.
Biden can not make that claim as he could not declassifiy on his own until Jan 21, 2021, and these documents were out in the wild before that.
“They were not.” So you say.
“Thus taking property that did NOT belong to him is considered theft.”
None of the documents in Biden’s posession classified or otherwise belonged to him.
It is ARGUABLE that if they had remained within the ex-VP’s offices that while Not his, they were still withing his ex-VP authority to posess.
But they were removed from the Ex-VP offices – which was outside of his powers as Ex-VP, and worse as they were then in his garage, library, and Biden Center offices and used for his book they were “converted for his own use”
Look Biden is not near in as bad a position as Clinton was.
Biden worked on his book in the library where atleast 1 document was found.
He worked on his book in the Biden Center were hundreds of documents – a small number of them highly classified were found.
The inadvertent claim is quite lame.
But Biden IS free to make it – Just as Trump is free to claim he owned the documents found at MAL.
Trump has a better claim.
“Nope, thousands of pages of WH documents were found. Only about a Dozen TS/SCI marked documents were found.”
Where’s your source for that claim? You don’t cite any. Nobody is making such a claim except you. Prove it.
“There is absolutely nothing about it is not theft if you return it when asked.
“Trump didn’t volunteer to return all of them.”
Not relevant.
It remains debateable whether Trump owned the documents in question and whether they were classified.”
Didn’t say that. Trump didn’t volunteer to return the documents that were requested, documents that were NOT his. It’s significantly relevant. That’s theft. It’s no longer a debate, he didn’t own the majority of those documents. That’s why his home was raided. He kept insisting he didnt have any more and he lied to the FBI saying he didn’t have any and they found more thru a whistle blower.
““He had to be subpoenaed.”
A subpeona is not a request for the return of anything. It is a request to provide evidence in court.”
He had to be subpoenaed meaning he was not complying with normal requests. A subpoena is a legal document telling someone that they must attend a court of law and give evidence as a witness. Meaning he had to go to court to present the documents being requested to the court. It’s forcing someone to do what they were being asked to do. The difference is this is a court order to obey the request. If you have to be subpoenaed it means you have not been cooperating.
““Biden didn’t.”
As best as we can tell Biden has nothing to do with the return of any of this.”
Because he was cooperating fully. Trump was not.
““Trump claimed ALL of those documents he had were his property.”
He is allowed to claim that.
Biden can not make that claim as he could not declassifiy on his own until Jan 21, 2021, and these documents were out in the wild before that.”
He’s not allowed to claim that just by saying so. He has to prove they meet the definiton of personal according to the PRA. He didn’t do that. Declassifying all of them does not absolve him of that either. Plus there is zero proof that he declassified all of it. He never proved it in court and never filed proof that he did. Just thinking of it is not a thing as he claims.
“None of the documents in Biden’s posession classified or otherwise belonged to him.”
Not at the time they were authorized and used at the center or his residence.
“It is ARGUABLE that if they had remained within the ex-VP’s offices that while Not his, they were still withing his ex-VP authority to posess.”
No they were not his to possess. Being ex-VP at the time did not void the requirements of PRA. PRA applies to the VP as well.
“But Biden IS free to make it – Just as Trump is free to claim he owned the documents found at MAL.
Trump has a better claim.”
No. Trump has a worse, much worse claim. He couldn’t claim they were his without proving they were. He had to show they met the definition of ‘personal records’ under the PRA definiton. Obviously, the majority did not. His attitude was not inadvertent, it was intentional. He claimed without proof that all those documents including claiming merely thinking it he could declassify all of them. He did not and could not prove that claim in court. Trump refused to prove in court his claim that all of the documents at MAL were his property. His public claims would have had to be proven in court and he knew he could not do that without looking like the liar that he is.
Please follow the news.
Just to be clear – I am not claiming these reports are True – I do not trust $hit that the MSM writes.
I am merely claiming they were publicly reported – by LEFT WING outlets.
Google is your friend.
There are many things that have been publicly reported that you are likely unaware of.
Aparently Swedens equivalent of the FOIA means nearly everything governemt does is public.
As a result all the correspondence between Hunter Biden and the Swedes regarding his rental of the “swedish house” on the potomic has been released, and it confirms what Guilliani was saying well before the 2020 election. There is a long list, but the highlights are Hunter was a piss poor tenant. He was allowed only 1 key – he demanded 4 one for himself, one for Joe, one for Jill and one for the chinese.
That he let homeless people in the back door, that he paid 200K to rent the place for a year. And that the swedes politiely threw him out at the end of the lease.
We also have more idiocy with Hunter’s Baby momma – but JT has cover that.
Then we have Hunter claiming the Biden Home that contained the classified Doc’s as his residence in 2018-2019. Oops.
As well as variously claiming to own the home, and separately to be renting it for 50K/month.
Oh, and increasing numbers of democrats – including Schiff are sending unsupportive signals regarding Biden.
Frankly I have lost track of the bad news for Biden over the past week.
Theft is taking.
Theft is not, a failure to return when asked.
Theft is taking what does not belong to you. Theft is when you fail to return when asked for something that does NOT belong to you. Trump stole documents that were his to take. You said it yourself, “theft is taking”. Trump took documents that were not his. He stole them.
Trump claims these documents were his. That is a claim Trump as an ex-president can make.
By law, with those documents in his posession – anyone trying to dispute that claim MUST go to court, where that would be adjudicated in a hearing by a judge.
The Biden admin has done everything possible to avoid such a hearing.
Trump has done everything possible to get that hearing.
Ultimately the burden of proof is on the Biden admin. Trump has both posession and the law on his side.
I would further note that you STILL have not established that Trump “took” anything much less that he took something that was not his.
We do not know how these documents got to MAL – and that is relevant.
Again as revealed by the media as a result of the Biden case,
It is common place for as Biden has said documents to “inadvertently” end up out of government control at the transition.
The MAL documents could have been moved to MAL anytime from 2017-2021 and forgotten.
If moved while president they were not TAKEN. If moved without Trump’s knowledge during the transition they were not TAKEN.
Both of these are also true of Biden and as the press has reported are both common place during transitions.
To this point Biden and Trump are the same
Unlike Trump – Biden moved them from where government placed them – in the VP’s or Presidents office in his home.
To an actually insecure location.
Next, Biden’s PA has claimed she did not move any classifed documents during the transition. That is slowly converging on the likelyhood That Biden DELIBERATLY “took” these documents – the VP can not do that.
We do not know whether Trump ordered these documents to MAL – but he did as president have the power to do so – even on Jan 20, 2021.
It is arguable that if Trump ordered them moved to MAL knowing they would be there after he was president – they are declassified.
We also still do not know whether these documents are RussiaGate documents – if so they are indesputably declassified by Trump EO TWICE.
There are several hints that these are Russiagate documents – including references to FISA in DOJ filings.
This could easily turn into the Biden admin trying to abuse power to recover and hide Documents that were declassified TWICE by Trump and are embarrassing to Biden, DOJ, and FBI. Many many people feel that is likely.
If that proves true this explodes in Biden’s face.
I would note that the RussiaGate Documents that Trump ordered declassified has STILL not been released.
That too suggests that what Trump kept are those documents.
Finally multiple people have confirmed that Trump Frequently verbally declassified documents at the WH.
Trump has consistently asserted these documents are his property, and that they are declassified.
You periodicially remember that when it is convenient- but you completely ignore that it is not just possible, that it is probable.
“I would further note that you STILL have not established that Trump “took” anything much less that he took something that was not his.
We do not know how these documents got to MAL – and that is relevant.”
It’s well known he took those documents he ordered them to be taken to his residence in Florida.
“I would further note that you STILL have not established that Trump “took” anything much less that he took something that was not his.
We do not know how these documents got to MAL – and that is relevant.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/83034/tracker-evidence-of-trumps-knowledge-and-involvement-in-retaining-mar-a-lago-documents/
“I would note that the RussiaGate Documents that Trump ordered declassified has STILL not been released.
That too suggests that what Trump kept are those documents.”
That’s because they were never declassified. He “declassified” them thru a tweet. Which is NOT a valid order. It was pure BS.
“Finally multiple people have confirmed that Trump Frequently verbally declassified documents at the WH.”
That still requires a record be produced that the documents he allegedly declassified were indeed declassified. Trump or his staff have never been able to provide any record proving he declassified anything. He is the one who stated that just thinking about it is enough. Obviously he was lying and his staff was covering for his obvious BS. How do we know, because none of the staff or Trump said what was declassified. If it was anyone could have made a FOIA request for it. He didn’t say what was declassified because he didn’t declassify anything. He was lying as he usually is.
“It’s well known he took those documents he ordered them to be taken to his residence in Florida.”
No it is not well know. That is a GUESS that is all.
Do you have an order by Trump ? Do you have a date that occured ? Do you know who transported the documents ? When ?
You do not know any of those things.
Worse still if you actually find someone to say Trump ordered those specific documents to MAL at the end of his presidency – that will screw this up for you.
If that is true:
They are declassified.
They are Trump’s personal property.
The Actual Best Case for the DOJ is either the documents were moved to MAL months before Trump’s presidency ended,
or they were moved by GSA as part of the transition – either without direction or by order of someone other than Trump.
In those cases you have an argument that the docs are not Trump personal property, and are not declassified.
Regardless, you keep claiming as fact – things we do not know, and that YOU do not understand.
I would note that we also do not at this time know how documents got to Biden’s homes or the Biden center.
We do know that the person who cleared his vice presidential office has told reporters that She did not send any classified documents to Biden’s home during the transition.
“That still requires a record be produced that the documents he allegedly declassified were indeed declassified. ”
Nope.
Documents are declassified when the president says they are or when he acts such that they are declassified.
As an example When Reagan discussed the Stealth fighter at a press conferance.
“Trump or his staff have never been able to provide any record proving he declassified anything.”
And yet we KNOW of several things Trump declassified – such as the information on terrorism that he provided the Russians.
I would further note that Trump by Executive order declassified EVERYTHING RussiaGate related TWICE, incluing once on Jan 19, 2021.
And several members of Trump’s staff – including Meadows have confirmed that on several occasions he verbally declassified things in meetings in the Oval office.
There are records of All of this – including media confirmation – but you are ignorant of all that.
“He is the one who stated that just thinking about it is enough.”
That is not what he said, but what he said was inarticulate – as Trump often is – though not nearly so bad as Biden.
” Obviously he was lying and his staff was covering for his obvious BS.”
Yes, everyone who says something you do not like must be lying.
“How do we know, because none of the staff or Trump said what was declassified.”
All this proves is how poor your knowledge is. The statement is wrong.
We know LOTS of things Trump declassified.
We may not know everything he declassified.
Regardless, should DOJ attempt to prosecute this will be an issue – unless we get another idioctic 11th appeals order denying Trump the right to try to make his own case, ultimately this will be addressed.
Most people not morons KNOW that Trump TWICE By EO declassified everything RussiaGate related.
We have some clues from various GOVERNMENT records that it is likely that Some or all of these documents are Russia Gate documents.
Those are inarguably declassified.
“If it was anyone could have made a FOIA request for it.”
You do not need an FOIA request to review Executive orders – there are atleast two declassifying ALL RussiaGate documents.
The news has already reported several other instances of Trump declassifiying something.
I would suspect that if Trump declassified something by verbal order in the Oval that there is something you could FOIA.
But you can not FOIA conversations in the Oval office.
“He didn’t say what was declassified because he didn’t declassify anything. He was lying as he usually is.”
He usually isn’t. Biden usually is.
Regardless, DOJ refuses to tell us what documents were confiscated.
Trump has said repeatedly – if it was in his posession he declassified it. He has Said what he declassified – everything he had at MAL.
To a significant degree that is likely to be a testable claim – but not without information we do not currently have.
The Secrecy here is by DOJ. If DOJ produces a list of classified documents that include RussiaGate documents – then DOJ and Biden have a huge problem – because now we have Actual Obstruction BY DOJ/FBI and Biden. Efforts to hide the Declassified Russiagate documents would be actual obstruction.
I would ask you to please note ALL the words from the legal dictionary definition of theft.
If you own something – there can be no theft.
If you are authorized to posess something – there can be no theft.
The latter is relevant to Biden. It is why Turley has focused on the FACT that Biden moved the documents TWICE.
It is possible Trump owns the documents.
It is possible the Trump docs are declassified.
Biden can not own the documents.
Biden can not declassify the documents.
But assuming that Trump does not own the docs and they are not declassifed.
Both Biden and Trump can legally possess those documents within their respective ex-governmnt offices.
Trump’s remained there.
Biden’s did not.
Biden’s case is simple. The docs are not Biden’s, The docs are classified. They are not in an authorized location. A crime was committed.
Who committed it is an open question – though Biden was responsible for securing them.
The Trump case is more complex.
Trump could own them – easily.
They could be declassified – many different ways.
Even if none of the above is true – they are actually in an authorized location, and it is routine for ex-presidents and VP’s to legitimately possess classified documents. But they are STILL bound to protect them.
There is no evidence Trump did not. Biden clearly did not.
Most People are not stupid.
Though you seem to be.
I would also note that NARA came to MAL in Feb 2022, they were given full access. They were allowed to take whatever they wanted.
FBI came to MAL in June 2022. They were given full access. They were allowed to take whatever they wanted.
US ADA Bratt subpeona’d Trumps custodian of records asking her to search for and bring to the GJ any classified records she found.
Per typical exchanges on that she was allowed to just send records and not testify. She affirmed that she had made a good faith effort searched and provided what she found. Subpeona’s are not court orders regardless of what Anonymous tries to claim. Further they are efforts to seek evidence for a hearing.
not secure possession of anything.
Contra your claims you do not have Trump failing to cooperate until the FBI raided MAL and seized his property.
Then he went to court to get his property back. That is AFTER the government took possession of it.
He continues to maintain that it is his.
The 11th cir ct of appeals in a bad ruling ended the actual inquiry into who owned what.
They did so WITHOUT answering the question as to whether Trump owned any of the records.
They essentially concluded – the Warrant was valid, DOJ can seize this whether it is Trump’s property or not.
That conclusion was wrong – Special masters are used all the time to determine whether the government has seized things they can not.
“I would also note that NARA came to MAL in Feb 2022, and they were given full access. They were allowed to take whatever they wanted.
FBI came to MAL in June 2022. They were given full access. They were allowed to take whatever they wanted.”
No, they were not. Trump’s lawyers specifically told NARA and FBI agents they could only look in the room, but not open any boxes and search them. They were not allowed to take anything. If they were allowed to take anything they wanted they would have found that trump was in possession of documents he was not supposed to have. Your claim is a lie.
“US ADA Bratt subpeona’d Trumps custodian of records asking her to search for and bring to the GJ any classified records she found.
Per typical exchanges on that she was allowed to just send records and not testify. She affirmed that she had made a good faith effort searched and provided what she found. Subpeona’s are not court orders regardless of what Anonymous tries to claim. Further they are efforts to seek evidence for a hearing.”
You have not refuted anonymous’s claims. A subpoena IS a court order. It’s an order to appear before the court to present evidence.
“Contra your claims you do not have Trump failing to cooperate until the FBI raided MAL and seized his property.
Then he went to court to get his property back. That is AFTER the government took possession of it.
He continues to maintain that it is his.”
Trump failed to cooperate multiple times. That is why a subpoena was issued. In the course of 18 months, NARA gave Trump plenty of opportunities to comply with their requests. He jerked them around and kept delaying until they had enough and legally sought a court order to force him to comply. Only then did he partially comply.
The government seized government property. They returned what was clearly NOT government property. Trump didn’t prove in court that all the documents were his. He had no evidence to back up his claims. NARA did.
“The 11th cir ct of appeals in a bad ruling ended the actual inquiry into who owned what.”
FALSE. Judge Cannon did that. Not the appeals court. When the special master asked for proof of what trump declassified and what he claimed to be his personal property Trump’s lawyers complained to Cannon who shut down that line of inquiry. The 11th circuit shut down judge Cannon’s case due because she had no statutory authority to intervene in the case. she was rightfully admonished by the 11th circuit court.
“They essentially concluded – the Warrant was valid, DOJ can seize this whether it is Trump’s property or not.
That conclusion was wrong – Special masters are used all the time to determine whether the government has seized things they can not.”
Wrong, The special master was severely limited by what he could do by Judge Cannon. He was prevented from finding out whether Trump’s claims were true or not. In the end, the whole special master issue was moot because judge Cannon had no jurisdiction over the case.
Once again you are treating media claims as fact.
There is nothing in the unredacted portions of the Affadavit of probable cause backing up your claims.
There are however several other stupid claims – such as that a SCIF is magically now not a SCIF.
Also we are dealing with many of the same FBI agents that lied through the collusion delusion – even to the court. And through myriads of leaks.
Given that we have good reason to beleive these FBI agents will LIE on Warrant applicaitons – as they have in the past.
And we know that leaks if True are crimes – why are they or you to be beleived ?
Regardless, Cite a source for your claims.
You do not seem to grasp that the Court – Cannon appoints the special master. The special master does not appoint himself.
ALL the special masters authority is decided by the Judge – again not himself.
You play this nonsense all the time. Those in government are not self empowering.
Ultimately ALL government power comes from laws consistent with the constitution.
But the process flows from the constitution to the laws and then to specific people.
Cannon was the trial court judge for this case. During the course of hearing prep and through final orders SHE is the sole authority on the law and constitution until Final orders are issued – and then and only then can he decision be appealed.
There are LIMITED grounds for an interlocutory appeal – an appeal while the case is before Cannon.
But even an interlocutory appeal REQUIRES the Appeals court to take the FACTS as the trial court has found, or as the non-moving party claims.
The 11th appeals did not do so – and therefore erred.
They are also clearly wrong on the law.
President are different with respect to the espionage act,
and an ex-presidents claim to ownership of WH Docs is not reviewable by the courts.
Further even ordinary people cam mount 4th and 5th amendment challenges to a government seizure without requiring a criminal trial.
The 11th Appelate made myriads of errors. Higher courts choose not to correct this – which was stupid.
But what YOU miss is that the ONLY thing that the 11th appealate court did was End the case.
They did not actually decide a single issue. They did not decide who owns the documents. They did not decide if they are classified.
All they did was thwart the process of doing so NOW.
To a small extent this could favor Trump. The burden of proof was on Him in front of Cannon – though it was only preponderance of the evidence.
The burden of proof DOJ faces in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would further note that DOJ has serious risks at a criminal trial. If even a single peice of evidence that should not have been was reviewed by FBI agents, they could lose ALL evidence.
Regardless, there will be no indictment, there will be no trial.
POLL: If Biden were Republican and Trump was a Democrat, Would Anonymous be saying Biden Stole the Documents ?
Yes ?
No ?
Yes. If Biden refused to turn over documents that were not legally his to keep like Trump did it would be considered theft. It’s no different than taking a government issued car home and refusing to hand it back when you’re no longer a government employe.
theft: the unlawful taking of property of another.
Nowhere in the definition of theft – or in the law, is it no longer theft, if you return something that you stole.
The Crime is TAKING what is not yours.
It is trivially arguable that the documents Trump had at MAL were HIS. Please review Judicial Watch V NARA which I cited previously.
Presidents may take and keep records from their administration. They need not give them to NARA, they need not place them in their library.
They are free to decide what WH records they wish to keep personally and what they wish to give NARA custody of.
Conversly the PRA does not apply to Vide President’s.
Biden has a serious problem because not only are these records indisputably classified – there is no unlimited VP power to declassify, but whether Classified or not – these records are not HIS.
He TOOK Them unlawfully.
Returning them when he is caught does not get him off the hook.
“theft: the unlawful taking of property of another.
Nowhere in the definition of theft – or in the law, is it no longer theft, if you return something that you stole.
The Crime is TAKING what is not yours.”
Yes, Trump took documents that were not his. They were NOT his property according to the PRA and APA. He took was NOT his to take hence it is a crime by YOUR definition.
“Presidents may take and keep records from their administration. They need not give them to NARA, they need not place them in their library.
They are free to decide what WH records they wish to keep personally and what they wish to give NARA custody of.”
Nope. Again you do not understand what the PRA and APA are saying. Records from their administration that are part of their JOB are all government property. Which NARA is required by law to retain in custody. UNTIL their presidential libraries are built. Personal records are clearly defined as being NOT part of their official duties as president such as interviews recorded for books or personal projects NOT associated with their official duties.
“Biden has a serious problem because not only are these records indisputably classified – there is no unlimited VP power to declassify, but whether Classified or not – these records are not HIS.
He TOOK Them unlawfully.
Returning them when he is caught does not get him off the hook.”
Nope. We do not know if he was the one who had them classified or if Obama did. By EO vice presidents CAN declassify documents THEY classified themselves. He took them lawfully at the time he was VP. Forgetting he had them is not a crime. He was not intentionally keeping them after being requested for them as Trump did. NARA had no idea they were missing. Returning them when they were FOUND by his own lawyers is what it’s SUPPOSED to happen. Trump didn’t return documents when NARA knew he had them. There is a huge difference between the two that you are trying hard to ignore. Your argument collapses immediately upon presenting the facts.
“Trump took documents that were not his.”
Not according to Case law.
BTW the Branch tapes not only meet all the other requirements of the PRA for presidential documents, but portions of them are classified.
The current controlling decisions are Judicial Watch, Armstrong, and Armstrong II and ALL of these allow a president to do as they please with WH Documents, But are more limited with non-WH documents.
And as noted with Branch – Classified does not matter.
I have also been able to find a credible source that confirmes that VP’s do have the ability to declassify docs, but only those produced by them and classified by them – meaning by the Office of the VP. The same is also true regarding a VP’s ability to designate a Doc as personal property.
VP’s have the same power as presidents but Confined solely to Office of the VP Docs.
“They were NOT his property according to the PRA and APA.”
Not according to the case law which not only allows the president to call anything he wants personal, but the decision is not judicially reviewable.
That pretty much means UNLIMITED.
“We do not know if he was the one who had them classified or if Obama did. By EO vice presidents CAN declassify documents THEY classified themselves.”
That is obviously False. An EO is just a formal order of a president directing the executive regarding the administration of the law or of their executive duties and powers. A president can also Say to someone – “Do X” – that is also an executive order. It is just not a published order directing all or parts of the administration. Regardless EO’s do not bind presidents – that position is logically absurd as EO’s are not in the constitution and not covered by the legislature. Any President can disregard any EO of their own or any other president.
EO’s are also only very nominally reviewable by the court.
“He took them lawfully at the time he was VP.”
Nope,to the extent that Biden had the ability to lawfully take anything his power to legally do so was a small fraction of that of the president.
You can not avoid this. The president has nearly unlimited power to take WH docs including classified docs and convert them to personally property. The VP has a tiny fraction of the power of the President to do so. The president has significantly greater legal authority to take WH docs and NOT convert them to property.
“Forgetting he had them is not a crime.” False – according to the espionag act neglegently or recklessly handling classified docs is a crime.
Docs in ONE PLACE – in a ex-presidential SCIF guarded 24×7 by the SS, with all visitors logged in and out, are far more secure than in a Chinese funded think tank or a garage.
More importantly, while Documents that remain government property can get to MAL and the SCIF there by legal means – as well as to the VP’s office in his DE home. They can not get to the garage, the library. a chinese funded think tank without violating the espionage Act.
There is no “I Forgot” Excuse, the moves were illegal and intentional. I forgot I legally obtained classified documents might carry a tiny bit of weight. I forgot I moved them to insecure locations all over the places does not. That is an actual crime. One there is no evidence Trump committed.
I beleive were are now at 5 different insecure locations that Biden classified docs have been found.
Who know how many it will be next week. Further we have no records at all of who might have been at any of these places. Hunter Biden claims the DE home was rented by him for 50K a month (money laundering to Joe Biden) so Who Did Hunter have at the home ?
Hunter was constantly having keys made for anywhere he went for the Chinese.
“He was not intentionally keeping them after being requested for them as Trump did. NARA had no idea they were missing.”
Why is that ?
You think this is good for you- But it is Bad. We all know and more and more documentation gets out all the time that ex-presidents and VP’s take stuff with them. Lots of stuff. Stuff YOU (but not the courts) claim is Government property.
But neither NARA nor any prior government has sought to take posession of what a former president of VP took with them, and it is no secret that occured. There are few cases on this – there are several in which the courts found that the current govenrment can get ACCESS – not posession, to ex-presidents docs – IF they got a court order. Other than that there is the series of cases ending with JW v NARA that say – NO that stuff is the ex-presidents, go pound Sand.
Why is it that the Biden admin is the FIRST instance in which NARA has tried to get Docs from an ex-president or VP ?
Can you say “politically weaponized use of Government” three times ?
You say that Trump had a responsibility to return documents – yet do president or ex-president has ever done so.
In fact the history of prosecutions for this have ALL been either political or targeted whistle blowers or members of the military.
“Returning them when they were FOUND by his own lawyers is what it’s SUPPOSED to happen.”
Nope. what is supposed to happen is classified documents are not to be taken.
There is no law anywhere that say – you can take what you want – if only you remember to return it in less than 6 years.
“Trump didn’t return documents when NARA knew he had them.”
Trump did allow NARA to take documents.
The LAW says he does not have to.
Yet, the Biden admin – Alone of all prior admins continued to go after Trump. ALONE.
of all prior presidents. I noted that the Branch tapes include recordings of Classified communications.
Yet, NARA did not try and opposed trying to recover those.
“There is a huge difference between the two that you are trying hard to ignore.”
There are huge differences and they all favor Trump.
“Your argument collapses immediately upon presenting the facts.”
that would be yours not mine.
John B. Say, you still don’t understand what you are reading regarding case law. Especially the Judicial watch vs Clinton. No matter how many different ways you try to articulate it it’s still not what you think it is. You’re still wrong.
“ Trump took documents that were not his.”
Not according to Case law.”. You’re using the case involving Judicial watch which is not saying what you believe it’s saying. The PRA is very clear about what is deemed a presidential record and what is personal. NARA knew before Trump took them that he was not supposed to take those documents and he took them anyway. Trump never proved his claim in court that all of those documents were belonged to him just because he said so. That’s not how it works.
The tapes Clinton made do NOT meet the definition of presidential records because it was not part of his official duties. The presence of classified material is irrelevant as the President can divulge such material for whatever purpose. The historian Clinton sought to assist him on the project was not an official White House historian, The only way your argument stands is to assume he was, clearly he was not. Here’s the PRA’s definition of personal records;
“ 3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes–
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”
Clinton sought to create this for his own interest. It had no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duty. The inclusion of classified material is not relevant.
“ They were NOT his property according to the PRA and APA.”
Not according to the case law which not only allows the president to call anything he wants personal, but the decision is not judicially reviewable.
That pretty much means UNLIMITED.”
No it’s not, You keep referring to ‘case law’ which is the judicial watch ruling that you are relying on and it’s NOT saying what you think it’s saying. According to the PRA and the APA the president cannot call anything he wants as personal. The decision IS judicially reviewable nothing says it isn’t. The president still has to prove that anything he claims as personal meets the definitions set by the PRA. Trump never did that. In fact he avoided it because he could not prove his claim in court. He only made his claims in public because he can lie about it without being held accountable. In court he cannot to that. The special master requested trump do exactly that and his lawyers went to Judge Cannon to cover for Trump so he wouldn’t’ have to prove his claims in court. If what you are saying is true Trump’s lawyers would have gladly made the argument you are making. Clearly they did not because they knew Trump’s claims were BS.
Svelaz it is YOU that is not grasping the case law – and it is not just JW.
I have tried to explain the case to you several times.
Regardless Below is the holding – the ORDER
“The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s claim is not redressable.
NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,”
NARA does not have the tapes in question,
and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.
In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.”
Jackson did not say – These tapes are not Presidential records.
What she said is clear. So clear that I can not really write it better.
Nowhere in this decision does it say – if what JW was after was Classified – I would have ruled differently.
Nowhere in this decision does Jackson say – under other circumstances NARA could identify something as a record under its authority.
Jackson was absolutely clear – NARA has no authority.
Elsewhere in her decision she addresss further that the COURTS have no authority.
This isssue – what is and is not a “presidential record” has been decided by the courts. REPEATEDLY.
The president at the time the documents get created is the only one with the power to decide.
Not even the courts can second guess that decision.
The president of the united states has very few “official duties” – please read Article II of the constitution.
Presidents have POWERS. Not many duties.
BTW the Branch tapes are a record of clinton performing what YOU call “official duties”.
Would a phone call with a foriegn leader ? or a Cabinet member – in Svelaz world be an official duty ?
Regardless, Jackson did not dismiss JW’s suit saying ANYTHING about the Branch tapes at all.
She did not decide if they were presidential records. She did not address whether they fit the APA or PRA definitions.
What she said was –
“The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.”
i.e. Not NARA or the courts business.
You keep trying to prove the content of the Branch tapes did not meet the definition of presidential records.
While you are obviously blinded to reality. More important Jackson did not CARE.
“The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.”
Not a single word about the actual tapes or their content.
Jackson did not say – these tapes are not presidential records.
She said NARA does not get to decide that. Later she and and 3 other courts say – the decision is SOLELY the president at the times.
Not mine, not yours, not NARA’s.
BTW the APA only applies to executive authorities granted by congress – not those granted the executive in the constitution.
The APA does not apply. Congress can not make a law telling the president how to perform a purely Article II task.
The APA applies to the actions of the executive in fulfilling the legislation passed by congress.
The APA or the PRA or pretty much anything else enacted by congress does not apply to Pardon’s as an example.
Congress can not regulate the presidents execution of a purely executive power.
Again you are on the wrong side of massive amounts of case law.
Trump’s lawyers absolutely would have made many of the claims I have referenced – had NARA gone to court to retrieve documents.
NARA would have lost for exactly the reasons in the JW case. That is why NARA did not go to court.
Had DOJ gone to court to enforce its subpeona – it is likely the court would have taold Trump that he absolutely MUST provide DOJ with access to all classified docs he has. But it could not have ordered posession. DOJ has even less power in this case that NARA.
Th entire reason that DOJ/FBI raided Trump is that claiming a crime and getting a Warrant was the only way to CIRCUMVENT Trump’s claim of ownership.
I would note that While the 11th cir. ct. appeals got it wrong – they too refused to touch YOUR idiotic PRA claim. The 11th Cir Ct of appeals ignored the PRA, ignored the 4th and 5th amendment, and ruled exclusively within the domain of criminal warrants. And they STILL got it wrong.
With respect to issues before Cannon – SOME of this was argued – or would have been argued, had she been allowed to do her job without interferance by the 11th Appeals. She directed Deary to have DOJ divide the records into 4 catagories based on classification and DOJ’s view as to who owned those documents. DOJ was required for each document to provide how it was responsive to the warrant. why it was not priviledged, and their argument for posession. AFTER DOJ had done so, Trump was to chose what it sought to challenge and why.
None of that occured because of the meddling of the appelate court.
You do not get to claim Trump’s lawyers did not make a claim that:
They actually did,
and/or they were suing specifically for the opportunity to do so.
I would independently not that there is no obligation for Trump or his lawyers to make all applicable arguments – ever.
They can chose to make some arguments in one venue, others in another, and some not at all.
There was an actual fight amoung Trump’s lawyers because many did not want to file the lawsuit with Cannon. Not because the arguments were wrong. But becaude in front of Cannon the burden of Proof was on Trump and the standard was more likely than not.
If DOJ ever prosecutes Trump the burden of proof is on the DOJ and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
The politically expedient choice was to Sue DOJ – Which Trump did. A loss would have been politically beneficial for Trump and damning for Biden.
But no criminal defense attorney would deliberately choose to reverse the burden of proof onto their client.
The Best outcome for Trump would be to win in front of cannon.
But the worst outcome would be to lose in front of cannon.
The 11th while trying to screw trump actually made a criminal prosecution harder.
In a criminal proceding Trump need not prove he owned the documents, only that it was reasonable to beleive he did.
“Conversly the PRA does not apply to Vide President’s.”
Nope. the PRA requires that the Vice President’s record be treated the same as the president’s records.
“In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which states that any records created or received by the President as part of his constitutional, statutory, or ceremonial duties are the property of the United States government and will be managed by NARA at the end of the administration.”
https://www.archives.gov/news/topics/presidential-records-act
Sorry typo. The PRA applies to vice presidents – it does not apply to presidents or it would violate separation of powers.
We have been through this before.
While ABJ’s decision rested primarily on the fact that the PRA gives NARA no authority to recover records – the court can not order NARA to do what the PRA does not provide for.
She also determined that the decision as to what is a personal and what is a presidential record subject to the act MUST rest with the president,
otherwise the law is unconstitutional.
The rules of statutory construction require that courts narrow if possible unconstitional clauses in laws to make them constitutional rather than declare the entire law unconstitutional
This was a major issue in the ObamaCare case. It is why Roberts struck the penalty to save the law. Of course he ultimately contradicted himself in later decisions.
Regardless, congress can not be law narrow the Article II powers of the president.
This is also why the president can decide what is and is not classifed without any constraint. Because congress can not constitutionally constrain the presidents power to do so.
This is true of Trump, of Obama, of Bush. of Clinton.
This was addressed a long time ago during the Clinton email scandal where it was reported that Obama was also sending classified information via a private email over the internet.
The president can do that.
At this time Hillary Clinton can not ever get a security clearance ever again. The only government job sh can get that requires a clearance – is President. HOWEVER any president can unilaterally grant her a security clearance.
If you take my car for 6 years, and then find it in a garage you forgot about and return it – do you think you are not going to jail ?
“If you take my car for 6 years, and then find it in a garage you forgot about and return it – do you think you are not going to jail ?”
That depends on what YOU choose. But if the government is only interested in having the car back they CAN choose to just take back possession of it OR press charges. Just like you they have discretion on what they want to do. All they wanted was the documents back and that’s all they wanted when they were requesting Trump to return them. It was Trump who made it worse by refusing to return them AFTER NARA and the DOJ gave him plenty of opportunities to return them without a fuss. BUT Trump chose to do the worst possible choice. Keep what was NOT his. He forced the DOJ’s hand when he lied about giving back all of the documents when he was forced by a court to return them. Biden immediately volunteered to return documents when they were found.
The WH Documents of Presidents, belong to Presidents – see Judicial Watch V. NARA (also PRA)
And instead of telling me what you are sure it says – actually read it, and read the court cases related to it.
Custodian is NOT Owner.
I would further note that NARA is responsible to protect the records of Ex-Presidents from Current presidents.
A current president must go to court, and get a court order to get NARA to turn over the records of ex-presidents.
If the Government owned the records that would be stupid, and obviously not necescary.
NARA is the Custodian of the Records BELONGING TO the Ex-President – Not the government.
“The WH Documents of Presidents, belong to Presidents – see Judicial Watch V. NARA (also PRA)
And instead of telling me what you are sure it says – actually read it, and read the court cases related to it.
Custodian is NOT Owner.”
Wrong again. WH documents belong to the government YOUR own citation in the judicial watch case point this out. they belong to the government NOT NARA. NARA retains custody of the documents only. That’s the only thing you have correct.
“Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 291 (D.D.C. 2012) (““[t]he United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records,” id. § 2202, and it directs the President to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records,” id. § 2203(a). ”)”
SHALL reserve and retain COMPLETE ownership, possession, and control of presidential records.
The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records. Id. § 2201(3)(A). The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b).
Everything is spelled out in the case YOU cite. Clearly, you don’t understand what it’s saying.
It is impossible to have a debate with someone who can not read.
It is also impossible to deal logically with someone who repeats the same idiotic arguments long after they have been disproven.
I ABJ’s copied the decision portion of the opinion and posted it here.
It was a bit long but court decisions are not copyrighted so hopefully it is not
removed.
Recent Study by NYU found that “russian interferance” – i.e. Russian bots running pro-Trump adds in 2016 had No impact at all on the 2016 Election. There were too few, too few posts, and they targeted almost exclusively radical republicans who were already going to vote for Trump.
Study Found that Hillary lost the election because of her own problems – including arrogance and campaigning in deep blue CA to run up the popular vote instead of in the Rust belt where she was in trouble.
But I am sure at some point you will repeat once again that there was Collusion, and/or that Russia influence the election in favor of Trump.
But you studiously avoid the FACT that just about every Government agency was involved in rigging the 2020 Election against Republicans.
And likely are continuing to do so.
Our election system can work if foreign government try to persuade voters.
It can not work if Government itself takes a side in elections.
I am not interested in your view of the PRA, you can not read, and you are clueless about court cases.
And you have offered this idiotic claim regarding the JW v NARA case that
any moron can grasp is unworkable.
You claim there is a clear distinction between what is personal and what is government – and yet, you are so clueless about the JW case that you do not grasp that Branch’s recording do not meet YOUR defintion of Personal.
Regardless, you do not grasp that there is a “Who decides” issue, and in the US there is only one constitutional answer to that –
THE PRESIDENT.
And that is what ABJ ruled.
And you would understand that if you could read.
I asked you a number of questions regarding what is and is not a personal document.
You failed to answer them.
With good reason.
The PRA does not provide the guidance to be able to answer them.
Regardless,
Again according to the US constitution – the final authority of decisions of the executive branch is the president.
And the remedy of Congress does not like those decisions – is impeachment.
It is probable that you can pass new law that makes some of all WH records government records.
I do not see how that would run afoul of the constittution.
But the PRA was not created to change the ownership of WH Records.
It was created to address the fact that esp. during the transition, the ex-president might not have the resources to preserve their records.
Ex-Presidents are free under PRA to decide what they are keeping in their possession, and what they are letting NARA take custody of.
If NARA takes custody, the Ex-president and his designees is allowed full access to what is in NARA’s custody.
Ultimately NARA must turn over all ex-presidents records to Their Library – a private entity not part of the government.
While having custody of an ex-presidents records, if the Current Administration seeks access – they MUST go to court to get it.
There are many many cases on this. I can not think of one in which the government was denied access to an expresidents record.
But they still ALWAYS require a court order.
Why ? Because the records are NOT Govenrment property.
“It is probable that you can pass new law that makes some of all WH records government records.
I do not see how that would run afoul of the constittution.”
Pass one? That’s what the PRA does. All WH records ARE government records.
“But the PRA was not created to change the ownership of WH Records.
It was created to address the fact that esp. during the transition, the ex-president might not have the resources to preserve their records.”
Wrong, as always.
The Presidential Records Act was enacted in 1978 after President Richard Nixon sought to destroy records relating to his presidential tenure upon his resignation in 1974. The law superseded the policy in effect during Nixon’s tenure that a president’s records were considered private property, making clear that presidential records are owned by the public. It also requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records. Trump didn’t do that. In fact Trump refused to distinguish in court what was his personal records and what were government records. Since he claimed ALL were his personal records he was required to prove it. It was a civil case and court rules require he prove his claim which he did not.
“If NARA takes custody, the Ex-president and his designees is allowed full access to what is in NARA’s custody.”
Yeah they are allowed ACCESS, not the right to retain them in their personal possession. Access does not mean possession. NARA retains possession of the documents and ex-presidents’ are allowed to review the documents they want for their libraries. They can even restrict the disclosure of certain documents for a period of twelve years. They are afforded a certain privilege for a limited time. But not all the time.
“Why ? Because the records are NOT Govenrment property.”
Wrong, they ARE still government property. They are allowed ACCESS to the documents, but they do not have ownership of them. They can go to their own presidential library and go look at all of the documents including the classified ones, if they still have clearance, AFTER requesting NARA for them.
The presidential libraries ARE privately RUN, That does NOT mean the documents within them belong to the president’s themselves. They are still government property as in PUBLIC property that people are allowed to view. To request to view an original document that is STILL government property requires a request from NARA. FOIA requests are for COPIES of the original which is STILL government property.
The PRA is a dead issue – you still can not manage to accept that.
The courts have found that the PRA gives the president unlimited and unreviewable authority to declare whatever they want personal property.
If you think the courts have erred – take that up with the Supreme court.
In the meantime that is the state of the law.
Trump or any president is ENTITLED to rely on that.
Is ENTITLED to argue vigorously for that.
It is not obstruction to take what the courts have said as law.
You cant explain how the documents Biden has got out of the White House, or Naval Observatory, without identifying the actions as stealing.
Anon – Your side continues to say that Trump “stole” government documents. Of course, he didn’t. They were in his rightful possession when he was President and when he caused them to be moved to MAL. As C-I-C, he has the right to move NDI documents where he likes. (He may have had a duty to keep them in a safe place, but that it not an issue since they were secure.) Since they were not “wronglully taken”, he cannot be liable for “larceny”, which is the appropriate legal term. The following quote is from the DOJ itself: “The term ‘to steal’ has no established meaning in the common law. See Crabb v. Zerbst, 99 F.2d 562, 565 (5th Cir. 1938). Instead, this term refers to the crime of larceny and was developed in modern pleading to broaden larceny beyond its strict common law definition. See United States v. Maloney, 607 F.2d 222, (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918 (1980); United States v. Archambault, 441 F.2d 281, 282-83 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 843 (1971). Larceny requires proof of the following four specific elements in addition to the general elements: wrongful taking and carrying away of property; absence of consent from the organization or state or local government agency; and intent to deprive the organization or state or local government agency of its property. See United States v. Barlow, 480 F.2d 1245, 1251 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Larceny, like embezzlement, is a specific-intent crime. [cited in JM 9-46.100]”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1006-larceny
It appears Biden hid the highly classified documents he stole in many places: an office apparently financed by the Chinese communists; in his private garage; and in a room. I remember Democrat “Cold Cash” Jefferson hid $90,000 in illicit influence peddling money in his freezer.
Has anybody checked Biden’s freezer?
I remember Democrat “Cold Cash” Jefferson hid $90,000 in illicit influence peddling money in his freezer.
Has anybody checked Biden’s freezer?
*******************************
“10 held by H for the big guy”:
See that’s the kinda misinformation that gets you caught. You keep your vodka in the freezer, your laptop at the repair shop, your niece in your bed, your stripper baby momma in Arkansas (insert Bill Clinton [joke or just him] here), your sister-in-law as side chick and most importantly the nuclear codes in the trunk of your leaky ’72 Vette in your garage. It’s Biden Graft 101.
Don’t look for a a detailed Report from this latest Special Counsel.
Consider a few simple issues.
Chain of custody of the documents…each one of them and each copy of them.
Then determine who had access to them…from the time they were last known to be secure within legal custody to when they were found.
That is part of the Damage Assessment part alone.
Three batches, three different locations they were found in….and who knows how many different places they were kept….how many times they were moved….and how many people were on the property where they were found, stored in, moved from, moved to, and during each and every one of the moves for each document and every copy of them.
Then you get into the electronic versions, laptops, hard drives, servers copy machines, emails, texts, and audio recordings of meetings, and phone calls.
Then you throw in the Hunter Biden DOJ Investigation in Delaware, and the confluence of Joe’s Classified Documents debacle and how they intersect.
Don’t forget the Republicans are going to be stoking the fires on the Penn State/Chinese/Joe Biden thing….with part of the Classified Documents having been in that building with all of the visitors and staff there.
This is a very big deal folks.
Bottom line….those documents in Biden’s possession were illegally held….there is no getting around that no matter how you try to deny it.
Cardboard boxes in your beach house garage next to your Corvette…..yep….that sure meets the legal requirement of security for highly sensitive Classified Documents.
A hint….if I left my Safe open in my office…surrounded by others with the same clearance I had….and left my office for a minute or two to get a cup of coffee….I faced dismissal from the Federal Service….and nothing I had was as sensitive as that being talked about.
Those rules apply to Joe Biden as the Vice President which he was for years during which those documents were scattered around his many homes, offices, and who knows where else.
Most of what you wrote is also the case for the Trump documents, and there are many more of those.
Many factors are the same.
Further, inarguably Both Biden and Trump’s conduct is orders of magnitude less consequential than Hillary’s. And Hillary was not prosecuted.
As to Differences:
Biden did not have the authority to declassify documents as VP
WH Dcouments – including Classified documents are the property of the President.
Biden’s documents belonged to Obama.
Trump’s belonged to Trump.
NARA has a custodial document preservation role by law NOT an ownership role.
These differences are important. Classified or not Trump can claim these documents are HIS. Because they are.
The Trump fight is over Whether Trump can have these documents in his personal posession prior to their going to his library.
Case law strongly suggests he Can.
Further Trump can claim these documents were declassified by him. You may not beleive him, but it is a valid argument,
he had the power to do so. Nor is there a formal declassification process required for the President to declassify something.
There is absolutely no scenarion in which any of these documents are Biden’s.
Classified or not he has no ownership interest in them.
And he had no unlimited declassification authority.
More Simply there are valid legal questions, and valid legal reasons for Trump to beleive he could posess these documents.
Biden has no such defense.
There are valide legal questions and valid legals reasons for Trump to beleive these documents were not classified.
Biden has no such defense.
The courts can reject Trump’s claims and still trivially find him innocent, because of his beleif he did not have mens rea.
The Biden Documents were not his, and there is no question they are classified.
“ WH Dcouments – including Classified documents are the property of the President.”
No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Here’s the statutory language or the PRA,
“ § 2202. Ownership of Presidential records
The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2202
“THE UNITED STATES SHALL RESERVE AND RETAIN COMPLETE OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION, AND CONTROL OF PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS… “
Trump or any other president does NOT own classified or any White House records. None.
The courts have already determined otherwise.
They have also decides that a “Personal record” is whatever the president says is a personal record.
I have provided you with the case law.
Custody and Ownership are not the same.
NARA is given Custody.
Where there is a conflict in the language of a statute the narrowest reading prevails. Custody NOT Ownership.
I would note that it is likely that Government ownership would violate the constitution.
Congress can not by law change the article II powers of the constitution.
Regardless, all of this has been addressed before. Including by Case law.
Joe Biden with his nose in the air said “How could anyone be so irresponsible.” A very interesting exclamation knowing all along that he had his own stash of top secret documents in a secured location known as a closet or a garage. Like other doers of bad deeds he just thought he would never get caught. The prisons are full of guys who thought the same thing. They just didn’t have the high priced lawyers to smooth things over.
Both of these cases fall under the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Of note, the Act is specifically inclusive of classified national security information and additionally, specifically grants the former President (or designated representative) access to the records.
As with all things Trump, that’s where things start to get interesting. The DOJ claims there are “holes” in the PRA–holes that are allegedly best filled by 3 criminal statues including the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519). Thus, in one fell swoop, the DOJ effectively turns the PRA into a criminal statute and upends Supreme Court precedent by allowing a broader statute(s) to control a specific statute. Neat how that works. (IIRC, isn’t this straight from the Andrew Weissman Book of Prosecutorial Indiscretion & Skullduggery? Let’s see there’s the bait and switch followed by the muddying of the waters and then when the legal limb that you’re out on inevitably collapses from the sheer weight of the legal shenanigans you’re trying to pull, it’s fine because you’ve ensnared the victim on a false statements and/or obstruction of justice charge which would have never occurred if you hadn’t pulled the ploy in the first place. Ah, that’s good old justice for you–“Ius est ars boni et aequi”)
The Trump records were, in fact, the subject of active negotiations with the National Archivist and the appropriate handling of classified information was addressed by the FBI. After negotiations reached an impasse, the next logical step would seemingly be to seek mediation or judicial relief to appropriately resolve any issues between the parties. Instead, the DOJ opted for a full scale and unprecedented FBI raid on a former president’s residence (b/c, naturally, #OrangeManBad. Enough said.).
This brings us to Joe Biden’s current classified info snafu (“c’mon man, you guys know how seriously I take classified information”) and yes, it is substantively the same as and parallel to the Trump scenario. It truly is bemusing to watch the mainstream media wrestle themselves into a pretzel to try and explain this away via differences. I nearly had coffee coming through my nose. All this before the full facts are even known in either case. Remarkable but not surprising.
This may be completely OG, but you would think that the media’s first foray would be to express concern or even outrage at Biden’s apparently irresponsible handling of classified information. Instead, the first line of defense for the media is to position the Biden situation as perhaps an inadvertent transgression at best whereas Trump clearly should be facing a felony conviction. Then again, this is what is now known as the journalism of “moral clarity” (Orwellian translation: the journalism of immoral obfuscation).
In the end, the filmic parallel that came to mind was Captain Renault’s declaration in the classic film Casablanca:
“I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here”…after which he is given his gambling winnings.
Several commenters (Svelaz, Anonymous, Gigi) have pointed out the differences between Trump and Biden in the classified documents saga:
Here are the differences that I see:
(1)On Oct. 6, 2020,Trump publicly ordered the declassification of documents he eventually took with him to mar-a-lago.
-Even reported by left-wing NBC News, dated 20 Oct 2020, Trump published/publicly stated the following: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweet-total-declassification-russia-docs-not-order-white-n1244022
He then took the documents with him upon leaving office, and immediately started resisting efforts for their return. After unsuccessful negotiations, the new adminstration raided mar-a-lago.
(2) I see nothing indicating that Biden or Obama ever published/publicly authorized, or for that matter, declared, “the total Declassification of any & all documents” that were found in Biden’s house, trunk of corvette, or off-site office.
Indeed, no one seemed to know about their whereabouts at all until five years later, in November 2022, just six days before the midterm elections but not revealed until after the elections (as I previously noted three days ago).
I further note that on this blog and elsewhere, the flurry of resistance to these facts by certain commenters tells me that (as we know already exist(s), there are plants on this site whose task is to tamp down these undesirable comparisons and rather spin a whole different argument employing their own “alternative facts.”
(after all, who would ever think to look for documents in the locked trunk of Biden’s corvette?
Correction. I am pretty sure I read somewhere that documents were in trunk..I know nothing about Corvettes and this is not something I would make up. Strangely, I cannot find that source this a.m. so I apologize for that.
The Trunk would have been safer than where they were found.
“On Oct. 6, 2020,Trump publicly ordered the declassification of documents he eventually took with him to mar-a-lago.”
Absent a detailed list of the 160 documents in question, there’s no way that you could possibly know that the documents with classified markings that were turned over by or seized from Trump were all “documents pertaining to” the Russia investigation. Why do you just assume that?
I’m starting to think that you assume others are plants because you’re a plant.
actually it was widely reported that the Russians did their damage at the bidding of Hillary Clinton who never forgot a half-white/black adjunct law instructor community organizer and a TV producer beat the snot out of her in spite of her delusions of grandeur
Obama & Trump were frauds
Hillary was just a disgrace all around, a failed wife, a failed politician and a nouveaux riche by virtue of her lying about everything….
BTW, despite his public claim that he was declassifying all docs related to the Russia investigation, his written order made clear that he was not declassifying all of it: “I have determined to accept the redactions proposed for continued classification by the FBI in that January 17 submission.” — https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/
Also keep in mind that some of this was litigated, and under penalty of perjury, Mark Meadows stated “The President indicated to me that his statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification or release of any particular documents, including the FD-302 reports of witness interviews prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller III. Instead, the President’s statements related to the authorization he had provided the Attorney General to declassify documents as part of his ongoing review of intelligence activities relating to the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The President’s statements do not require altering any redactions on any record at issue in these or other cases, including, but not limited to, any redactions taken pursuant to any discretionary FOIA exemptions.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7273535-Trump-Declassify-2020-10-20.html
@lin
They are indeed plants. Keep refuting them in comments so there is a record. *We* will overwhelm *them*.
For historical comparisons:
Two Presidents, Two Special Counsels
Last year a former civilian employee of the Pentagon was sentenced to three months in prison for taking classified documents to her hotel room, as well as keeping handwritten notes of meetings that included classified details. That information was categorized as Confidential and Secret. To compare, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump each reportedly held on to documents that were rated as more sensitive than Top Secret.
Prosecutions for mishandling the nation’s secrets aren’t rare, though many of them involve reams of materials or high risk of exposure. Former CIA Director John Deutch was set to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information on a computer at his home. President Clinton pardoned him first.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-classified-documents-merrick-garland-special-counsel-robert-hur-11673565715
She took them to her hotel room and then had a party there that included foreign nationals, where the docs were found by a co-worker, plus a second event after she was caught in the first one: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.hid.155323/gov.uscourts.hid.155323.7.0_3.pdf
A plea deal, as it looks like she was facing additional charges (e.g., false statements).
Biden did far worse with spreading documents hither thither, having no chain of custody and possibly falling into enemy hands, Hunter’s drug dealers, prostitutes, and so forth
lock him up!
As a rule of Thumb:
If you are in the military and mishandle classified documents – even ONE at the lowest classification level,
Your life is over. You are going to prison.
If you are a Government employee, especially in Defense or Intelligence – your in trouble, you will likely have to plead guilty to something.
If you are an employee of a government contractor – you will lose your job, never get a security clearance again. and never work for a government contractor again.
The above all presumes – mere mishandling.
If you have a security clearance and you DELIBERATELY provide classified documents to a foreign power – you are in Deep $hit.
All of the above said – the Rules do not appear to apply at all to Cabinet level officials.
Hillary deliberately copied thousands of classified documents to an electronic form, emailed them over the internet to people not allowed to have them. and left them bare ass naked to the world on here bathroom basement mail server, which some hostile foreign power – likely the Chinese were reading in real time.
And the consequences ? NADA.
Through the Clinton investigation we learned that:
Colin Power had a private email account and RARELY emailed Classified documents to people with clearance.
Obama had a private email account over which classified communications took place which the Russians almost certainly intercepted.
Biden currently has two major problems that Trump does not have.
Biden’s Mishandling was as VP or Ex-VP – not as president.
VP’s do NOT have unlimited declassification authority.
VP’s do NOT have a property interest in WH papers.
The latter is extremely important here – and keeps getting ignored.
Those on the left, are constantly trying to pretend that all of these WH Documents belong to the government.
They try to leverage the Presidential Records act to establish that.
But the PRA makes NARA Custodian of the records NOT Owner.
The Actual Owner of WH papers is the President at the time.
The PRA was not written to take WH Papers away from outgoing presidents.
It was written to assure that outgoing presidents were not burdened with the costs of preserving and protecting them.
There are plenty of court cases that demonstrate that Outgoing presidents have routinely Kept documents even after the PRA.
None of those cases has ever found the documents belong to the government.
Most but not all of the time the ex-president is ordered to provide the current government with documents.
But this is always based on a court Finding that the current government proved a compelling need for those documents.
Again the ownership rests with the ex-president.
This nonsense with Trump is the First Time the Government has tried to take posession of an Ex-Presidents WH Paper claiming that the ex-president did not own them.
Even the PRA requires NARA to deny access to ex-presidents documents by the current administration without going to court.
All of the above applies to Trump.
NONE of it applies to Obama-Biden WH records in Biden’s posession – those belong to Obama – Not Biden.
The interesting thing…
Nobody bothered to ask the following question…
Biden and the WH claim that he was surprised about these documents… and that his lawyers were clearing out the office… and now his garage… who then promptly handed them over to the US Government.
Now is it just me, but why would you pay a $250 an hour lawyer to clear out a closet of documents in the first place?
That either means that they discovered prior to the lawyers that these were classified docs, or that they knew these docs were Classified so that Joe Biden wasn’t surprised and his lawyers were already telling him to not say anything.
That’s the first question that should have been asked… but wasn’t.
Seems that this also ties back to Hunter.
And with the NYT now running cover… the WH expect the Republicans to start finding and publishing the truth about Biden.
-G
Or they were looking through legal docs, and he didn’t want privilege pierced.
Anybody else notice the Biden’s leave stuff lying around?
Left a Gun in a trashcan
Left a diary in a halfway house
Left a lap top at a repair shop
Left classified docs in the garage
Left a baby in a stripper.
Speaking of five-year turnarounds and follow-ups (2017 to 2022) for Obama/Biden admin (vis-a-vis Trump admin), here’s another:
https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/resources/ud-2017-0018-dhs-open-close-letter.pdf
pay particular attention to the resolution/reason why the case was closed without further investigation….
Some Tennessee Big Guy Wisdom the Dims could use about now. Oh and Shane’s a “comer.”:
mespo—– You’re right about Shane! He’s going places.
We get back to the reality of all this.
Trump did nothing wrong and neither has Biden.
That’s the adult way to handle things. All Presidents have taken classified info, and nobody cared.
Biden’s weaponization of the DoJ to attack his political rivals, created this. Ignoring President Obama’s warning. Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fv(k things up.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13340183/obama-concerns-biden-underestimate-ability-things-up/
I believe there is a new entry into the Congressional Dumber-than-Dirt sweepstakes. He is Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson who after Biden admitted knowing the secret documents were in his garage, told Fox News that he suspects the documents were “planted.” The President cannot hold a thought for more than a few seconds, and some of his defenders, like Johnson, lack the necessary intelligence to make a credible argument. Is the house of cards beginning to sway?
In further support of Rep. Hank Johnson’s nomination, recall his statement in the Armed Services Committee upon hearing about a large military buildup planned for Guam: “”My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” With defenders like this, the President has nothing to worry about.
Oh please. I keep this clip in my stash to roll out when somebody tells me how “wise” the new Dims are. Just a lovely depiction of the thoughtful man, the towering intellect, and the conscientious folks who support him:
Continuing the theme of Biden’s lies, one night stands, a one trick pony, and Joe You’re a Lying Dog Faced Pony Soldier Biden, Prince warned us about Biden’s little red corvette
Estovir…..Thumbs up! (can’t find the emoji)
Deer-in-Headlights Garland just appointed a Special Counsel to investigate his boss, Corvette Joe. This is great. Classified documents in his garage between old Playboys and old Highlights (talk about a doofus .. er … goofus) magazines, I’d bet. Biden’ statements about to be used against him (“shocked, shocked I say that he’d be that reckless”) and the Dims coming for him BEFORE his 2024 announcement. It’s all the intrigue of the Court of the Medici without the gild and spoken Italian. Here’s some: Buona liberazione, Assonatto Giuseppe! Such a good week!!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/12/attorney-general-merrick-garland-assigns-special-counsel-investigate-joe-biden-possession-classified-documents/
Jonathan: Biden certainly has egg on his face. There is apparently no good reason Biden was keeping top secret docs at his former office and in his garage. Now AG Garland has appointed Special Counsel to investigate the Biden case–that takes the wind out of your sails. That should put to rest your claim of disparate treatment in the Biden and Trump cases. The Q is why Biden did not disclose this information before the mid-terms? This leaves a lot of unanswered Qs that require explanation.
That said there is a huge difference between the Biden and Trump cases. When the classified material Biden was holding was discovered it was promptly reported and the material returned to NARA. That was not the case with the top secret docs Trump took to Mar-a-Lago. For 18 months NARA and the DOJ tried to recover those docs. Trump resisted and ignored the requests and subsequent subpoenas. Trump even bizarrely claimed all the classified material he took was magically “declassified” and he had a right to keep it. It took a search warrant executed by the FBI to recover most of the material. But even then Trump did not turn over everything and obstructed the investigation. We still don’t know why Trump kept those docs. I doubt he was keeping them because he wanted to write a book as might be the case with Biden. As Andrew Weissmann, the FBI’s former General Counsel, has pointed out: “”It’s not a crime to accidently take and retain government docs. you return them, there is no crime. That is not what Trump did. If he had simply returned everything this [would] have been a non-story”. But you want to conflate the two cases. You say: “Biden may be accused of the same underlying crime as Trump”. Really? What “crime(s) do you have in mind? Did Biden refuse to return the classified material? Did he ignored subpoenas and obstruction the investigation? Nope. This is where your argument completely falls apart.
In your continuing attacks on the DOJ you missed another important point. There is a whole lot of over-classification in government. A lot of things are marked “classified” or “top secret” for the sole purpose of preventing disclosure of embarrassing or criminal activity by government officials. We saw this back in 2014 when Sen. Diane Feinstein released a long but redacted report detailing how the CIA resisted any government oversight of its illegal rendition and torture programs. It took 5 years to produce the report because the CIA fought tooth and nail to prevent any disclosure of its programs claiming they were “classified”. There are also a lot of what are called “classified spills”–people working in government take things by mistake they shouldn’t have. But these are handled administratively with any criminal prosecution.
I think in the end, after all the dust has settled, the Special Counsel will conclude that Biden’s retention of classified material was negligence but not a violation of any criminal statute. Don’t expect that to happen in the Trump case.
I don’t think we know the classification of the documents.
It doesn’t matter – classified is classified.
Anything marked “SCI” derives from signals intelligence, so is validly given that marking.
I worked with SCI for nearly 20 years, so I ought to know.
‘Cheer up Biden voters. This isn’t the worst thing a Democratic President has ever been special counseled for. Close, but no cigar.’
~Jimmy Failla
Cindy:
I do love this so very much!! Thanks to you and hubby.
mespo…Thank you! It should be called the “batty” mobile!! 🙂
LOl
did they check the trunk of his corvette?
Be thankful that Garland isn’t on the Supreme Court. And it’s likely that the Mar-A-Lago raid was not triggered by any need to recover classified documents; instead, it was the January 6 Committee looking for anything they could pin on Trump. That’s why the raiders took everything they could find, not just classified documents.
THE KEY: Makes no difference. Liberals are in control. Nothing will happen to harm Biden. It’s a done deal. We complain and nothing will happen. Nothing ever does. They have carte blanche.
Nothing will happen to harm Biden.
Biden is doing a bangup job all by himself, and none of the Democrat psychophants (*) are doing him nor themselves nor America’s global standing any favors.
* synonyms:
crawler
yes man
toady
slave
parasite
cringer
fawner
hanger-on
sponger
brown-noser
flatterer
truckler
lickspittle
ass-kisser
apple polisher
bootlicker
https://www.freethesaurus.com/Psychophant
What none of you Biden defenders have mentioned once, and I’ll type slowly so you understand. Biden was not the President at the time he took the classified docs. The power to declassify docs rest with the potus and only potus, it does not include the VP. At this point if you cannot come out and say that Biden is clearly compromised, then I don’t know what will convince you.
“The power to declassify docs rest with the potus and only potus, it does not include the VP.”
That’s false. The VP can declassify anything s/he classified and anything classified by someone s/he supervised:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
The VP has original classification authority.
Both Biden and Trump are in the wrong with respect to retaining docs with classification markings, but Trump is the only one who engaged in obstruction about it.
Objection to a subpoena is not “obstruction.” If it were, half of the lawyers in this countrry would be in jail. A document request, even by a governmental body, is not holy writ.
They didn’t object to the subpoena. They lied in response to it.
ATS, you are creating a fact that doesn’t exist. Trump objected but let the FBI examine the records. He did that more than once.
If you think there was a lie, quote it. You can’t because there were no significant mistruths, and I think one can assume Trump’s lawyers are smart enough to reply without lying.
I await your proof which I think will not appear. You always shoot before looking.
Anon – It is not a “lie” to claim client-lawyer privilege, or executive privilege, or to contest the classification of certain documents as “Presidential records.” The fact that a court might later disagree does not mean the assertioin was a “falsehood.” The words “true” and “false” are not appropriate in the realm of disputes over points of law. You simply use the word “lie” to carry on your endless campaign of character assassination against Trump.
No, they lied that they’d already turned over all of the classified docs and that a thorough search had been carried out.
did I miss “fluffer” in your list?
evhall: your amazing post proves exactly what discipleship is: now, you’re denying the fundamental truth that the so called “Mar-A-Lago raid” was not triggered by the need to repatriate the documents Trump stole: it was just to look for “anything they could pin in Trump”. This proves that you will literally make up facts to arrive at your pre-determined conclusion: poor widdle Trumpy Bear is a victim. No evhall, America was and still is, the victim here: Trump is, and has always been, a deeply-flawed individual. Everything revolves around his pathological need for attention, adulation and praise, which, as psychologists can explain, is based on the underlying truth that Trump knows he’s really inferior to others. According to Gen. Kelly, former Chief of Staff, Trump is far more lazy, immoral and stupid than he could have imagined. He had to have the basics of things explained to him, like what NATO is and why it was formed after WWII. Kelly had enough when Trump called those killed or wounded in action fighting for America “losers”. Kelly’s own son died on behalf of the United States. Why not read “Donald Trump v. The United States” by Schmidt? You might learn something about your hero.
Turning to the documents matter, your problem is that Trump doesn’t deny the underlying facts: the NARA did request return of the papers. He only partially complied. The NARA was forced to get a subpoena and he returned more, but not all. He ignored further requests for the papers, so they were forced to get a search warrant. Then, he fundraised over his victimhood, lied about “mentally declassifying” the papers, got federal judge he appointed humiliated because she fell for the baseless argument of his lawyers that he had some possessory right to the papers, and is still fighting the case in court.
Do you think the investigators will check for fingerprints on Joey’s Garage-gate docs and surprise, surprise…they find Hunter’s prints all over them? Hunter had access to them. So did Jimbo. The Chinese commies don’t pay tens of millions in bribes for nothing in return.
Gig – they were not “forced to get a search warrant.” A more rational reaction would have been negoation between counsel, or mediation, or even a court action to get judicial review. Raiding the home of a former President was an absue of power.
Needs to be said again and again until people like you, get it:
Raiding the home of a former President was an absue of power.
Anon – I would not have believed that you would pounce on a typo. But I guess I was wrong. Getting desperite? (I misspelled “desperate” for your edification.)
They (DOJ) are not going to take “The Big Guy” down. When the time comes, if anything He’s going to go out on a Medical Condition,
so He either has a Major Neurocognitive Disorder (Dementia Case) of “I Don’t Recall – Really I Don’t”
or completely found “Not Fit to Stand Trial.”