Smith's patience has expired.

[Rumpole]

Your cult did that assessment over two years ago. Does it give you a clue that they haven't released the results of their assessment? Just a little one?

the salient point was, 'espionage does not depend on any classification regime'. The other item was anecdotal and not important to the rebuttal. Please focus on the salient point, and I'll avoid offering you anecdotal items in the future, given your propensity to pettifog on them.

And your senile cult leader hid his caches of classified docs. More docs than Trump had. But the cult leader's DOJ gives him a pass. You doin't think that will be issue at trial?

Your cheap shots destroy your credibility. I cannot, therefore, take you seriously. But, I'll address your point, anyway: it is apparently the policy of the DOJ not to prosecute exec branch staff for mere possession (no doubt because of the commonality of the occurrences, as Reagan, North, Poindexter, Pence, and others, had them) and so they prosecute for aggravated circumstances. The only person having aggravated circumstances is Trump, who obstructed the government's effort to have them returned. We have video tape, witness testimony, etc., confirming this fact, not to mention Trump's public announcement, on several occasions that he has 'the right to do with them whatever he pleases' which is false, as the PRA he cites says precisely the opposite. No president in history got it so wrong on the law, not to mention the EO that governs it, as well.

How about the fact that the National Archive told Trump to go fuck himself when he asked for help with his WH documents.

You've got stugotz.

Weasel words/rant words are not merit worthy arguments. To improve your argument, give a link and a quote to clarify the point you are attempting. Thank you.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn't say that the defense is referencing the PRA as being what he is charged with.

The defense has injected the PRA as a defense claiming that because of it he can't be charged under the Espionage Act.

Read posts first. Then post. You’ll do much better that way.

WW

I understood what you unclearly posted, kid.

And you’re not exactly on the mark as to why the defense has referenced the PRA.

Once again, no surprise.

So, educate yourself first. Then post. I’m telling ya, it could save you much embarrassment.

 

[Seymour Flops]

FPOTUS#45 is the one injecting the Presidential Records Act, he's not charged under that act - it's civil law.

Is he? When did he do that? I’m not saying he didn’t, I’m just wondering whe he brought it up.

I looked up the PRA weeks ago. Prior to Jack Smiths proclaimation that this case has nothing to do with the PRS, posters were citing it as the law that required Trump to turn over all records in the White House.

It doesn’t, and clearly states that presidents may keep personal documents. Then the Clinton Sock Drawer Case set the precedent that the outgoing president is the unreviewable determiner of what is personal and what is presidential.

There is also the “copies for reference” exception, which I believe applies just as well, but doesn’t have such strong case law as far as I know.

He's charged under the Espionage Act which is criminal law.

WW

True but that doesn’t make the PRA irrelevant. If applied correctly, Trump lawfully had possession of the documents in question. Therefore, he cannot be guilty of unauthorized possession.


18 U.S. Code 739, section (d) it gives a very narrow set of circumstances in which a person having lawful possession of very specific types of documents commits a crime by not delivering it on demand to a person entitled to receive it.

Two problems for the prosecution:

1) Proving the documents meet the narrow definition without showing them to the jury.

2) Proving that anyone was entitled to receive them, if Trump was entitled to keep them.

None of that is the prosecution’s fault. The sections are over-lawyered and have long run-on sentences. The judge will have to explain the law to the jury, and Smith is a petulant childlike person who seems to prefer fighting the judge to winning cases.

No doubt that’s why he loses so many.

 

[WorldWatcher]

18 U.S. Code 739, section (d) it gives a very narrow set of circumstances in which a person having lawful possession of very specific types of documents commits a crime by not delivering it on demand to a person entitled to receive it.

Two problems for the prosecution:

1) Proving the documents meet the narrow definition without showing them to the jury.

Under CIPA they don't have to be shown to the jury. Sorry you keep getting that wrong. There are three options:

• Declassify the documents and show them to the jury.
• Redact the classified portion of the document and show the redacted documents to the jury.
• Prepare a certified Summary Document and use the summary in lieu of the actual document to show the jury.

This isn't the first classified documents case, there are well established procedures for dealing with prosecutions involving national defense infromatrion.

2) Proving that anyone was entitled to receive them, if Trump was entitled to keep them.

No, he wasn't. Once he left office at Noon, January 20, 2021 he was not entitled to keep United States Government owned classified documents.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, he wasn't. Once he left office at Noon, January 20, 2021 he was not entitled to keep United States Government owned classified documents.

WW

I’ll answer about CIPA later.

The presidential records act covers all White House documents. There is no exception for classified documents.

Question: do you know when Trump lost his clearance? By “know” I mean with a valid source, not a guess.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I’ll answer about CIPA later.

The presidential records act covers all White House documents. There is no exception for classified documents.

You mean the act that says that Presidential Records are the propety of the United State government and are to be turned over to the Archivist when the occupant leaves office?

Question: do you know when Trump lost his clearance? By “know” I mean with a valid source, not a guess.

Yes, Noon January 20, 2021.

FPOTUS#45's "clearance" isn't a clearance as thought of by most people. FPOTUS#45's "clearance" was based on occupying the Oval Office as an elected official. When his term ended, is "clearance" ended.

Now, the follow on administration can grant a "clearance" to ex-President's, but my understanding is the Biden Administration has not done that, even ending his post presidency classified briefings because he's a security risk.

WW

 

[Rawley]

the salient point was, 'espionage does not depend on any classification regime'. The other item was anecdotal and not important to the rebuttal. Please focus on the salient point, and I'll avoid offering you anecdotal items in the future, given your propensity to pettifog on them.

LOL So your bullshit about the DNI's risk assessment was just that - bullshit. Got it. We're seeing a pattern here.

Your cheap shots destroy your credibility. I cannot, therefore, take you seriously

I'm devastated.

But, I'll address your point, anyway: it is apparently the policy of the DOJ not to prosecute exec branch staff for mere possession (no doubt because of the commonality of the occurrences, as Reagan, North, Poindexter, Pence, and others, had them) and so they prosecute for aggravated circumstances. The only person having aggravated circumstances is Trump, who obstructed the government's effort to have them returned.

LOL Given up on the your espionage act bullshit in light of your cult leader's signficantly greater violation of that act and moved onto "obstruction." Smart move.

Weasel words/rant words are not merit worthy arguments.

LOL couldn't agree more

To improve your argument, give a link and a quote to clarify the point you are attempting. Thank you.

You big poopyhead. I win.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Under CIPA they don't have to be shown to the jury. Sorry you keep getting that wrong. There are three options:

• Declassify the documents and show them to the jury.
• Redact the classified portion of the document and show the redacted documents to the jury.
• Prepare a certified Summary Document and use the summary in lieu of the actual document to show the jury.

This isn't the first classified documents case, there are well established procedures for dealing with prosecutions involving national defense infromatrion.

And, of course, I never said that he had to show them to the jury. In fact, I specified that the problem was proving that the documents met the narrow definition without showing them to the jury.

I’m sorry that you have difficulty responding to what I actually say.

You mean the act that says that Presidential Records are the propety of the United State government and are to be turned over to the Archivist when the occupant leaves office?

With no exceptions, such as copies for reference, and no distinction between presidential and personal records?

Yes, Noon January 20, 2021.

A common, miss-perception, but absolutely incorrect.

FPOTUS#45's "clearance" isn't a clearance as thought of by most people. FPOTUS#45's "clearance" was based on occupying the Oval Office as an elected official.

As the president, yes. Exactly right so the answer to when did Trump lose his security clearance, is never. Because he never a clearance.

Many presidents come to the job having served in roles in which they did have a clearance, but Trump was not one of them.

Trump was eligible to receive all classified information, because he was the president of the United States. He did not have to wait for a He did not have to wait for an FBI background check.

Note that he never made a formal announcement that “I now authorize myself to receive classified information.” Formal or informal declarations about classified information are not required of presidents.

When his term ended, he was no longer eligible to possess classified information by virtue of being president. He could only be authorized to have access to classified information as a former president if that were a common practice for former presidents.

Which, of course it is. it is a common practice for elected presidents and even people nominated for president to receive classified information.

I believe there is currently a controversy over weather RFK Junior is sufficiently close to possibly becoming president to begin to receive the briefings. There is also the usual, crying and whining about giving the orange boogie man, the briefings that any other major party nominee would get.

Those decisions are entirely the purview of Joe Biden, as the president. He is free to be as petty and vindictive, or as self-serving as he pleases when making them. We may not like his decisions, but that won’t change the fact that he is the president at the moment. And the president is the only authority over classified documents. All other authorities are delegated by the president or the people. He delegates authority to.

Now, the follow on administration can grant a "clearance" to ex-President's, but my understanding is the Biden Administration has not done that, even ending his post presidency classified briefings because he's a security risk.

WW

Your understanding is incorrect. That’s why I specified that I did not want a guess but a valid source. I was hoping that by researching it, looking for that valid source, you would learn.

Former president have always been authorized to possess classified information, just as future presidents or major party nominees are. I know of no formal executive order stating that, but it has been that way long time.

The current president could remove that authorization for all past presidents, or for Donald Trump specifically. He has not. In mid February, he ended the practice of giving Donald Trump security briefing, but he never said Donald Trump could not have classified documents or information.

Again, denying Trump access to the briefings was Biden’s prerogative, regardless of his motivation.

Just out of curiosity, I assume if Trump becomes president again, you will support him in keeping classified information away from Joe Biden given Biden‘s propensity to steal it and keep it in cardboard boxes in an unsecure garage?

 

[WEATHER53]

Unless he is extolling their virtues, he can’t talk
Only in Lib101 Witch Hunt Commie Land

 

[Rawley]

And, of course, I never said that he had to show them to the jury. In fact, I specified that the problem was proving that the documents met the narrow definition without showing them to the jury.

I’m sorry that you have difficulty responding to what I actually say.


With no exceptions, such as copies for reference, and no distinction between presidential and personal records?

A common, miss-perception, but absolutely incorrect.

As the president, yes. Exactly right so the answer to when did Trump lose his security clearance, is never. Because he never a clearance.

Many presidents come to the job having served in roles in which they did have a clearance, but Trump was not one of them.

Trump was eligible to receive all classified information, because he was the president of the United States. He did not have to wait for a He did not have to wait for an FBI background check.

Note that he never made a formal announcement that “I now authorize myself to receive classified information.” Formal or informal declarations about classified information are not required of presidents.

When his term ended, he was no longer eligible to possess classified information by virtue of being president. He could only be authorized to have access to classified information as a former president if that were a common practice for former presidents.

Which, of course it is. it is a common practice for elected presidents and even people nominated for president to receive classified information.

I believe there is currently a controversy over weather RFK Junior is sufficiently close to possibly becoming president to begin to receive the briefings. There is also the usual, crying and whining about giving the orange boogie man, the briefings that any other major party nominee would get.

Those decisions are entirely the purview of Joe Biden, as the president. He is free to be as petty and vindictive, or as self-serving as he pleases when making them. We may not like his decisions, but that won’t change the fact that he is the president at the moment. And the president is the only authority over classified documents. All other authorities are delegated by the president or the people. He delegates authority to.

Your understanding is incorrect. That’s why I specified that I did not want a guess but a valid source. I was hoping that by researching it, looking for that valid source, you would learn.

Former president have always been authorized to possess classified information, just as future presidents or major party nominees are. I know of no formal executive order stating that, but it has been that way long time.

The current president could remove that authorization for all past presidents, or for Donald Trump specifically. He has not. In mid February, he ended the practice of giving Donald Trump security briefing, but he never said Donald Trump could not have classified documents or information.

Again, denying Trump access to the briefings was Biden’s prerogative, regardless of his motivation.

Just out of curiosity, I assume if Trump becomes president again, you will support him in keeping classified information away from Joe Biden given Biden‘s propensity to steal it and keep it in cardboard boxes in an unsecure garage?

It's funny that's they've all bought into the Biden regime propaganda that this documents case is a slam dunk. We are so far off into uncharted territory because of their unprecedented act of indicting a former President over documents.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's funny that's they've all bought into the Biden regime propaganda that this documents case is a slam dunk. We are so far off into uncharted territory because of their unprecedented act of indicting a former President over documents.

These actions against are not only unprecedented, they go against existing precedents, including one that arose after the start of the Trump documents investigations.

H. Clinton was not prosecuted for her violations of the Espionage act, because “she might be our next president” and the FBI feared retaliation.

J. Biden will not be prosecuted for his violations of the same act because of how the jury might see him.

Both could apply to Trump, but of course “that’s different!”

 

[WEATHER53]

These actions against are not only unprecedented, they go against existing precedents, including one that arose after the start of the Trump documents investigations.

H. Clinton was not prosecuted for her violations of the Espionage act, because “she might be our next president” and the FBI feared retaliation.

J. Biden will not be prosecuted for his violations of the same act because he’s too senile.

Joe was not senile when he did it

 

[Rigby5]

Is he? When did he do that? I’m not saying he didn’t, I’m just wondering whe he brought it up.

I looked up the PRA weeks ago. Prior to Jack Smiths proclaimation that this case has nothing to do with the PRS, posters were citing it as the law that required Trump to turn over all records in the White House.

It doesn’t, and clearly states that presidents may keep personal documents. Then the Clinton Sock Drawer Case set the precedent that the outgoing president is the unreviewable determiner of what is personal and what is presidential.

There is also the “copies for reference” exception, which I believe applies just as well, but doesn’t have such strong case law as far as I know.



True but that doesn’t make the PRA irrelevant. If applied correctly, Trump lawfully had possession of the documents in question. Therefore, he cannot be guilty of unauthorized possession.


18 U.S. Code 739, section (d) it gives a very narrow set of circumstances in which a person having lawful possession of very specific types of documents commits a crime by not delivering it on demand to a person entitled to receive it.

Two problems for the prosecution:

1) Proving the documents meet the narrow definition without showing them to the jury.

2) Proving that anyone was entitled to receive them, if Trump was entitled to keep them.

None of that is the prosecution’s fault. The sections are over-lawyered and have long run-on sentences. The judge will have to explain the law to the jury, and Smith is a petulant childlike person who seems to prefer fighting the judge to winning cases.

No doubt that’s why he loses so many.

The PRA is for unique things for the public, like signed treaties.
It is NOT at all for mundane copies of classified docs used for weekly cabinet briefings.
The public already has its sources for all the classified docs from their sources, like the CIA and Pentagon. The public has no authority to take the copies that belong to the president personally. They belong in the presidential library.

Since Trump is the ultimate authority over all classified docs created during his administration, no one has superior authority over them, cannot ask for them, and do not even have authority to see them if an ex-president deems it so.

 

[Rigby5]

...

The current president could remove that authorization for all past presidents, or for Donald Trump specifically. ...

Not true.
Presidents do NOT lose arbitrary authority over the classified docs created during their administration. That would violate FOIA if one tried to do that. The whole point of presidential libraries is to prevent future presidents from altering the perception of reality by hiding it under fake classification labels.

If old presidents did not retain their authority over classified docs, then all the labs, allies, ambassadors, generals, etc., would all have to return their copies of classified docs every time a new president were elected. And clearly that is never what happens.

Current presidents only have authority over the new classified docs their administration created. The only thing they can do to old classified docs is declassify them for everyone to access.

 

[Rigby5]

These actions against are not only unprecedented, they go against existing precedents, including one that arose after the start of the Trump documents investigations.

H. Clinton was not prosecuted for her violations of the Espionage act, because “she might be our next president” and the FBI feared retaliation.

J. Biden will not be prosecuted for his violations of the same act because of how the jury might see him.

Both could apply to Trump, but of course “that’s different!”

Hillary was also safe from prosecution since that would have revealed illegal US actions, like arming and paying ISIS from the CIA annex in Benghazi, to attack Assad.

Biden is safe since prosecuting him would reveal our illegal actions in the Maidan coup in the Ukraine in 2014.

 

[Billiejeens]

We know the documents were prepared for Trump
by the government for his use.

We know the tapes were made by Clinton for his own use.

We know the government considers Trump’s documents to be classified government secrets and presidential records.

We know the government considered Clinton‘s tapes to be personal.

We know more than you think.

The Government -
Is currently a corrupt banana republic.

 

[Nostra]

View attachment 926776

Fear the Beard

WW

I would fear that beard. No telling what kind of diseased ridden vermin reside in it.

 

[Orangecat]

Smith's patience has expired.​

So has his fantasy of derailing the Trump campaign for POTUS.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not true.
Presidents do NOT lose arbitrary authority over the classified docs created during their administration. That would violate FOIA if one tried to do that. The whole point of presidential libraries is to prevent future presidents from altering the perception of reality by hiding it under fake classification labels.

If old presidents did not retain their authority over classified docs, then all the labs, allies, ambassadors, generals, etc., would all have to return their copies of classified docs every time a new president were elected. And clearly that is never what happens.

Current presidents only have authority over the new classified docs their administration created. The only thing they can do to old classified docs is declassify them for everyone to access.

You make good points.

It has always been the practice to allow former presidents access to classified information. I’ve never heard of a former president losing that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You make good points.

It has always been the practice to allow former presidents access to classified information. I’ve never heard of a former president losing that.

And probably never will again, once we put more protections in place to prevent a pile of shit like Trump from doing what he did.