Biden had no authority at all to hold classified documents at his home or his other places

[kyzr]

The PRA isn’t a card to play as it clearly lays out that official documents are the property of the United States government and are to be surrendered at the end of a Presidents time in office. In addition the espionage laws pertain to national security / classified documents.

WW

You're probably right since AG Barr already said that Trump is toast. But, the PRA is a Trump card to play...

Donald Trump, the Presidential Records Act and âClinton's sock drawerâ defense

If you believe the most ardent defenders of newly indicted former president Donald Trump, there’s a silver bullet hiding in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer.

www.reuters.com

But in a 2012 opinion
, opens new tab, the trial judge overseeing Judicial Watch’s lawsuit ruled that even if the tapes should have been designated to be presidential records, she could not order the National Archives to recategorize them.
“The [Presidential Records Act] does not confer any mandatory or even discretional authority on the archivist,” wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in that 2012 ruling. “Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the president.”
That language, as I’ll explain, has emboldened Trump supporters who contend that under Jackson's analysis, the Justice Department had no authority to seize documents from Mar-a-Lago.

 

[Care4all]

How many times does this need to be debunked? There isn't some national register where they are tracking the location every piece of classified paper in the system. Have any of you actually thought about what that would entail? Just the administrative strain that would be? It would quite literally cripple the IC.

I'm sure you are correct that everything Top Secret is not held and viewed only in a SCIF, when we have millions of people in our Nation with top secret clearance, (though less on a need to know basis) that some top secret classified documents or classified information in things such as Presidential briefings, may end up, outside of a SCIF viewing protection area. Is that illegal? Yes, likely. Is that worth criminally prosecuting? Heck no, is my answer! (Though let me say loud and clear, we have a loosey goosey system of protection now, which can sink ships, and this needs major strengthening changes)

Senator Biden, on the Foreign Affairs Committee likely had access on a need to know basis, top secret information or documents, involving Foreign countries.

Whatever he had was given to him by an intelligence agency, or signed out by him.... NOT illegally stolen by stuffing it in his socks type situation, .... being implied in this thread...

 

[j-mac]

Whatever he had was given to him by an intelligence agency, or signed out by him....

That's stunningly stupid...Senators can not just "sign things out of a SCIF....What a dumb post, and that you think we are supposed to buy that drivel shows your level of deceit....

 

[Nostra]

Nope!

They would have had a record of that and tried to retrieve them, eventually.

Bullshit. The only place he could view them is in a SCIF. He had to steal them from there.

No other options.

 

[Nostra]

Whatever he had was given to him by an intelligence agency, or signed out by him.... NOT illegally stolen by stuffing it in his socks type situation, .... being implied in this thread...

You can't "sign out" classified documents from a SCIF, Simp.

 

[Care4all]

1. Trump is going to play the PRA card. If it works is another story. It worked for Bill Clinton and his sock drawer tapes.
2. If the "DOJ Double-Standard" is used, Trump is guilty. If legal PRA precedent is used, Trump walks. We'll see.

Donald Trump, the Presidential Records Act and âClinton's sock drawerâ defense

If you believe the most ardent defenders of newly indicted former president Donald Trump, there’s a silver bullet hiding in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer.

www.reuters.com

But in a 2012 opinion
, opens new tab, the trial judge overseeing Judicial Watch’s lawsuit ruled that even if the tapes should have been designated to be presidential records, she could not order the National Archives to recategorize them.
“The [Presidential Records Act] does not confer any mandatory or even discretional authority on the archivist,” wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in that 2012 ruling. “Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the president.”

That language, as I’ll explain, has emboldened Trump supporters who contend that under Jackson's analysis, the Justice Department had no authority to seize documents from Mar-a-Lago.

None of his charges involve the presidential records act, PRA, so he can not use it in his defense.

__________________________
__________________________



Washington — Since the indictment charging him with 37 federal felony counts was unsealed last week, former President Donald Trump and some of his allies have repeatedly mischaracterized a law known as the Presidential Records Act, according to legal experts and the federal agency charged with preserving White House records.

"Under the Presidential Records Act, I'm allowed to do all this," he wrote on Truth Social after the indictment was revealed, referring to his decision to retain dozens of boxes of documents and other material from his time in the White House. He repeated that claim in a speech in Georgia over the weekend, calling the charges a "fake indictment."

Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore also misconstrued the law last week, telling CNN that outgoing presidents are "supposed to take the next two years after they leave office to go through all these documents to figure out what's personal and what's presidential."

Those assertions prompted a public rebuke from the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. The agency released a statement detailing how presidential records are meant to be handled.

"The PRA requires that all records created by Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) be turned over to [NARA] at the end of their administrations," the Archives said.

NARA also refuted Parlatore's assertion, saying that there is "no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports."

A federal grand jury in Florida charged Trump with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information and six other counts alleging he illegally concealed documents and obstructed the Justice Department's investigation. The former president pleaded not guilty during his first court appearance on Tuesday.

Trump is not charged with violating the Presidential Records Act, which has no enforcement mechanism. But his repeated invocation of the law has renewed questions about what it says and how it applies to government documents. Here is a look at the federal law that lays out the requirements for maintaining and preserving presidential records:

READ HERE, pretty pease!

What does the Presidential Records Act say, and how does it apply to Trump?

Trump and some of his allies have mischaracterized the law governing presidential records, according to legal experts and the federal agency charged with preserving them.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[kyzr]

None of his charges involve the presidential records act, PRA, so he can not use it in his defense.

Washington — Since the indictment charging him with 37 federal felony counts was unsealed last week, former President Donald Trump and some of his allies have repeatedly mischaracterized a law known as the Presidential Records Act, according to legal experts and the federal agency charged with preserving White House records.

"Under the Presidential Records Act, I'm allowed to do all this," he wrote on Truth Social after the indictment was revealed, referring to his decision to retain dozens of boxes of documents and other material from his time in the White House. He repeated that claim in a speech in Georgia over the weekend, calling the charges a "fake indictment."

Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore also misconstrued the law last week, telling CNN that outgoing presidents are "supposed to take the next two years after they leave office to go through all these documents to figure out what's personal and what's presidential."

Those assertions prompted a public rebuke from the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. The agency released a statement detailing how presidential records are meant to be handled.

"The PRA requires that all records created by Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) be turned over to [NARA] at the end of their administrations," the Archives said.

NARA also refuted Parlatore's assertion, saying that there is "no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office to sort through, such as for a two-year period as described in some reports."

A federal grand jury in Florida charged Trump with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information and six other counts alleging he illegally concealed documents and obstructed the Justice Department's investigation. The former president pleaded not guilty during his first court appearance on Tuesday.

Trump is not charged with violating the Presidential Records Act, which has no enforcement mechanism. But his repeated invocation of the law has renewed questions about what it says and how it applies to government documents. Here is a look at the federal law that lays out the requirements for maintaining and preserving presidential records: READ HERE, pretty please!

All Trump is saying is that the PRA was used by Bill Clinton, the judge agreed, the precedent was set.

“The [Presidential Records Act] does not confer any mandatory or even discretional authority on the archivist,” wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in that 2012 ruling. “Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the president.”

 

[Care4all]

Every OCA other than the President derives their authority FROM THE PRESIDENT. They continue to be able to classify information at his pleasure. He could at any time, for any reason or no reason at all rescind that authority. The President 100% has the authority to declassify information unilaterally.

I dont understand

1. why that's so hard to grasp
2. why it's such a controversial issue
3. why people refuse to believe it.

Ok, yes it is derived from the president, now I understand your point.

However, the President is who created the Executive Order, and the President would need to create an executive order rescinding the initial order....or simply rescind it You would think? We are not a nation of chaos and mayhem that would carelessly and intentionally cause our under cover agents and allied sources to be exposed or to be killed....

 

[Edgetho]

Um no they dont. IC agencies like NSA, CIA, DIA. The FBI, DoE, State, HLS, NRO, NGIA, DEA, DoT, etc., produce countless amounts of classified material. Just the NSA collection reporting alone is a mountain of material. The S-2 and G-2's you speak of are in large part intelligence consumers and do not produce intelligence. Most of what they are "classifying" is derivative classification based on already classified source reporting. The majority of the military's intelligence personnel work for these agencies. Even tactical level SIGINT collection is run through NSA systems, so the classification on that reporting is done under DIRSNSA's umbrella. The same with HUMINT though it falls under Dir CIA typically. I worked in the IC my entire adult life. I've forgotten more on this subject than you've ever hoped to know.

So as I've already stated you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

If we requisitioned a pallet of mortar shells, my clerk would put a 'SECRET' stamp on it. Bingo! Classified.

If I was taking a Company-sized Unit into the bush and we sent the report to the C Team, it was classified. Everything we did was classified. If I took a shit, it was classified

We carried Code Books that, if we went to war with (at the time) the Warsaw Pact, those Code Books would be the ones ALL of NATO would use to communicate with each other.

You are, maybe, more up to date than I am because my knowledge is much older and I'm sure things have changed -- Some. But not all that much.

I had a Top Secret Security Clearance. I was with some boys that had a Top Secret Crypto clearance (pretty common in my Unit). And I worked with a couple guys that had a Top Secret "Do Not Sedate" Clearance.

I know what I'm talking about. But I admit, my knowledge is dated. That's why I 'speak' in such general terms. You'll never know what I know. And I don't want to know what you think you know.

 

[Couchpotato]

Ok, yes it is derived from the president, now I understand your point.

However, the President is who created the Executive Order, and the President would need to create an executive order rescinding the initial order....or simply rescind it You would think? We are not a nation of chaos and mayhem that would carelessly and intentionally cause our under cover agents and allied sources to be exposed or to be killed....

What’s your question? That EO didn’t grant anyone unilateral power to declassify anything. It granted certain individuals OCA those things aren’t the same.

 

[Couchpotato]

If we requisitioned a pallet of mortar shells, my clerk would put a 'SECRET' stamp on it. Bingo! Classified.

If I was taking a Company-sized Unit into the bush and we sent the report to the C Team, it was classified. Everything we did was classified. If I took a shit, it was classified

We carried Code Books that, if we went to war with (at the time) the Warsaw Pact, those Code Books would be the ones ALL of NATO would use to communicate with each other.

You are, maybe, more up to date than I am because my knowledge is much older and I'm sure things have changed -- Some. But not all that much.

I had a Top Secret Security Clearance. I was with some boys that had a Top Secret Crypto clearance (pretty common in my Unit). And I worked with a couple guys that had a Top Secret "Do Not Sedate" Clearance.

I know what I'm talking about. But I admit, my knowledge is dated. That's why I 'speak' in such general terms. You'll never know what I know. And I don't want to know what you think you know

Ok you’re just making shit up now. Good bye.

 

[Arlette]

I will let you listen to Larry Kudlow who dives deep into this topic. As he says, Biden has no authority as a Senator nor a VP to hold classified documents at his homes or his storage places. And how long did he have them? From a period of 4 to up to 12 years in all. He had them as VP for 8 years and 4 years as a private citizens. But why is the Garland Administration turning a blind eye? Guess why!!!

LARRY KUDLOW: Why was President Biden not charged in the classified documents case?

FOX Business host Larry Kudlow reacts to reports that President Biden will not be charged in the classified documents scandal on "Kudlow."

www.foxbusiness.com

It's already settled. Biden gets off Scott free and Trump gets executed

 

[Edgetho]

Ok you’re just making shit up now. Good bye.

I've proven who I am in here before. Not gonna do it again. Take it for what it's worth or suck on it, all the same to me

 

[Couchpotato]

I've proven who I am in here before. Not gonna do it again. Take it for what it's worth or suck on it, all the same to me

Ok little buddy. I get it you’re just a troll.

 

[Couchpotato]

I've proven who I am in here before. Not gonna do it again. Take it for what it's worth or suck on it, all the same to me

BTW. don’t fall down while you back pedal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're probably right since AG Barr already said that Trump is toast. But, the PRA is a Trump card to play...

Donald Trump, the Presidential Records Act and âClinton's sock drawerâ defense

If you believe the most ardent defenders of newly indicted former president Donald Trump, there’s a silver bullet hiding in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer.

www.reuters.com

But in a 2012 opinion
, opens new tab, the trial judge overseeing Judicial Watch’s lawsuit ruled that even if the tapes should have been designated to be presidential records, she could not order the National Archives to recategorize them.
“The [Presidential Records Act] does not confer any mandatory or even discretional authority on the archivist,” wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in that 2012 ruling. “Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the president.”
That language, as I’ll explain, has emboldened Trump supporters who contend that under Jackson's analysis, the Justice Department had no authority to seize documents from Mar-a-Lago.

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Sorry my friend, it's really not. The PRA of 1978 is very clear on who owes Presidential Records (and it ain't the ex-President).

Nor does it provide a shield under the Espionage Act (and associated obstruction).

The Judicial Watches lawsuit failed because (a) Clinton's tapes were personal for writing memoirs after leaving office, (b) it asked the NARA to try to force personal records be turned over.

The Justice department wasn't seizing personal records, they were seizing US Government property and classified documents. Clintons memoir tapes have no being on FPOTUS#45's classified documents case. I know he keeps this belief alive to the uninformed, but its is not a winning "Trump Card" (pardon the pun) in court.

WW

 

[Robert W]

If we requisitioned a pallet of mortar shells, my clerk would put a 'SECRET' stamp on it. Bingo! Classified.

If I was taking a Company-sized Unit into the bush and we sent the report to the C Team, it was classified. Everything we did was classified. If I took a shit, it was classified

We carried Code Books that, if we went to war with (at the time) the Warsaw Pact, those Code Books would be the ones ALL of NATO would use to communicate with each other.

You are, maybe, more up to date than I am because my knowledge is much older and I'm sure things have changed -- Some. But not all that much.

I had a Top Secret Security Clearance. I was with some boys that had a Top Secret Crypto clearance (pretty common in my Unit). And I worked with a couple guys that had a Top Secret "Do Not Sedate" Clearance.

I know what I'm talking about. But I admit, my knowledge is dated. That's why I 'speak' in such general terms. You'll never know what I know. And I don't want to know what you think you know.

Things during the cold war were more serious than some posters might think. I believe you sound as if you served as an officer????

 

[Robert W]

View attachment 900595

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Sorry my friend, it's really not. The PRA of 1978 is very clear on who owes Presidential Records (and it ain't the ex-President).

Nor does it provide a shield under the Espionage Act (and associated obstruction).

The Judicial Watches lawsuit failed because (a) Clinton's tapes were personal for writing memoirs after leaving office, (b) it asked the NARA to try to force personal records be turned over.

The Justice department wasn't seizing personal records, they were seizing US Government property and classified documents. Clintons memoir tapes have no being on FPOTUS#45's classified documents case. I know he keeps this belief alive to the uninformed, but its is not a winning "Trump Card" (pardon the pun) in court.

WW

You just indicted Biden. Clearly you did.

 

[Edgetho]

Things during the cold war were more serious than some posters might think. I believe you sound as if you served as an officer????

11B4S

 

[Couchpotato]

Things during the cold war were more serious than some posters might think. I believe you sound as if you served as an officer????

Yes far more serious than 20 years of hot war.....