No Trump didn't commit treason or espionage

[forkup]

You really are dumb aren't ya

"Consistent with the provisions of this chapter" that means after the 5 years after the President has left office. In the meantime from the day the present leaves office for the last time to when 5 years is up the President is responsible to maintain them and if he lives at Mar-a-Logo guess where he chose to maintain them

You lose again

I posted the DAMN LAW that says otherwise, It is specific in who has immediate custody after a president leaves office. If you are too dumb or too dishonest to understand that I can't help you.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

I posted the DAMN LAW that says otherwise, It is specific in who has immediate custody after a president leaves office. If you are too dumb or too dishonest to understand that I can't help you.

Once again

Consistent with provisions of this chapter!

• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years AFTER the end of the Administration,

Meaning until 5 years is up the President maintains and controls

• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

(F)The President shall remain exclusively responsible for custody, control, and access to such Presidential records.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Whataboutism is a logical fallacy called an Appeal to Hypocrisy.

So how does one point out special treatment for others then? rather than "an appeal to hypocrisy" it would be more accurate to call it "pointing out the hypocrisy".

It's something everybody in their normal life is confronted with, especially if they have kids. It's the idea that if you do something wrong and you can point out someone else doing the same thing wrong it all of a sudden becomes acceptable.

And if that was the case here then the poster claiming hillary did something wrong was correct about her, to claim that the means of proving or exposing that is unacceptable is the real fallacy...it doen't in anyway mean its acceptable, just that equal treatment is the expected norm.

It doesn't work for my daughter. It doesn't work for my employees,

which means you have different standards for different people, just as the poster was pointing out in the case of hillary.

and it sure as hell doesn't work legally.

Try firing some employees for things you allow other employees to do and then tell a judge about how you do not let your daughter point those things out so no court is sure as hell going do it...the judge will introduce you to the legal synonym for "Whataboutism" and the consequences.

 

[forkup]

Once again

Consistent with provisions of this chapter!

• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years AFTER the end of the Administration,

Meaning until 5 years is up the President maintains and controls

(F)The President shall remain exclusively responsible for custody, control, and access to such Presidential records.

I'll try to explain how it works and what you are citing actually means.

First, These documents are the PROPERTY of the United States government. The President has custody, control and access but they are NOT his property.

-So what happens after the President leaves office is that ALL documents have to be given over to the archivist. This is to sort out what is part of the presidential records and what is the sole property of the government. This judgment is set up by a law and is NOT in the control of the ex-president because again they are NOT his property.
-If however the archivist wants something released in what is deemed the presidential records the ex-president has the right to deny him, because HE has complete control over them for 5 years. This is to prevent the incoming administration to use what is in those records as a way to damage a possible rival or rival party.
-After that process is done the records that are deemed part of the presidential records can be turned over to the presidential library where the ex-president has progressively less control over access.

This is how that law works and why it's set up the way it is.

You are confusing the right to control access to the presidential records with it being his property.

 

[forkup]

So how does one point out special treatment for others then? rather than "an appeal to hypocrisy" it would be more accurate to call it "pointing out the hypocrisy".


And if that was the case here then the poster claiming hillary did something wrong was correct about her, to claim that the means of proving or exposing that is unacceptable is the real fallacy...it doen't in anyway mean its acceptable, just that equal treatment is the expected norm.


which means you have different standards for different people, just as the poster was pointing out in the case of hillary.


Try firing some employees for things you allow other employees to do and then tell a judge about how you do not let your daughter point those things out so no court is sure as hell going do it...the judge will introduce you to the legal synonym for "Whataboutism" and the consequences.

So how does one point out special treatment for others then? rather than "an appeal to hypocrisy" it would be more accurate to call it "pointing out the hypocrisy".

You can point it out as much as you want. It's simply a fallacious argument. At best you can make a case that the person being favored deserves the same punishment NOT that nobody deserves a punishment. That's why it's fallacious.

And if that was the case here then the poster claiming hillary did something wrong was correct about her, to claim that the means of proving that is unacceptable is the real fallacy...it doen't in anyway mean its acceptable, just that equal treatment is the expected norm.

There's 2 things. It's not fallacious to point out hypocrisy. It's fallacious to justify your own actions by pointing out hypocrisy. Second in Hillary's case you would run into a a second fallacy. Namely the false equivalency. Just because something is roughly similar doesn't mean it's the same. For one thing both things rely on different laws that are being potentially broken.

which means you have different standards for different people, just as the poster was pointing out in the case of hillary.

No it means I try to apply the same standard to all people. It don't accept it from anyone.

Try firing some employees for things you allow other employees to do and then tell a judge about how you do not let your daughter point those things out and no court is sure as hell going do it...the judge will introduce you to the legal synonym for "Whataboutism" and its consequences.

A court would not use that argument because they will focus on the actual case before them NOT my hypocrisy. That is their job. A defense attorney would use it probably as a way to garner symphaty for his client but it's not a very good legal argument.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

I'll try to explain how it works and what you are citing actually means.

First, These documents are the PROPERTY of the United States government. The President has custody, control and access but they are NOT his property.

-So what happens after the President leaves office is that ALL documents have to be given over to the archivist. This is to sort out what is part of the presidential records and what is the sole property of the government. This judgment is set up by a law and is NOT in the control of the ex-president because again they are NOT his property.
-If however the archivist wants something released in what is deemed the presidential records the ex-president has the right to deny him, because HE has complete control over them for 5 years. This is to prevent the incoming administration to use what is in those records as a way to damage a possible rival or rival party.
-After that process is done the records that are deemed part of the presidential records can be turned over to the presidential library where the ex-president has progressively less control over access.

This is how that law works and why it's set up the way it is.

You are confusing the right to control access to the presidential records with it being his property.

No, you are confusing what "

• Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.

With the archivist means

If I have "exclusive legal custody" of a child what does that mean?

 

[SweetSue92]

I posted the DAMN LAW that says otherwise, It is specific in who has immediate custody after a president leaves office. If you are too dumb or too dishonest to understand that I can't help you.

Oh, here it is.

We're not going to appeal to the law anymore. We are not going to care if he broke the law or didn't. Your game, your rules.

You will hate it.

 

[forkup]

Oh, here it is.

We're not going to appeal to the law anymore. We are not going to care if he broke the law or didn't. Your game, your rules.

You will hate it.

Not really. If you want to outright say that the law doesn't matter that is your problem. Try to sell that to the general public.

 

[SweetSue92]

You can point it out as much as you want. It's simply a fallacious argument. At best you can make a case that the person being favored deserves the same punishment NOT that nobody deserves a punishment. That's why it's fallacious.

There's 2 things. It's not fallacious to point out hypocrisy. It's fallacious to justify your own actions by pointing out hypocrisy. Second in Hillary's case you would run into a a second fallacy. Namely the false equivalency. Just because something is roughly similar doesn't mean it's the same. For one thing both things rely on different laws that are being potentially broken.

No it means I try to apply the same standard to all people. It don't accept it from anyone.

A court would not use that argument because they will focus on the actual case before them NOT my hypocrisy. That is their job. A defense attorney would use it probably as a way to garner symphaty for his client but it's not a very good legal argument.

You're missing the point.

You can argue hypocrisy or whataboutism or whatever. You can cry "fallacious" all you want.

Because of your tricks and tactics, you are now left with half the nation that has ZERO trust left in the system you're citing as a foundation.

So stop weed whacking at the dandelions and look at the redwood forest you planted and cultivated.

Now what you gonna do, chief?

 

[SweetSue92]

Not really. If you want to outright say that the law doesn't matter that is your problem. Try to sell that to the general public.

Oh sweetheart.

Half of the general public is nodding along with me.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Amazing, the conclusions people can draw with so little real information.

Not really.
FOX groomed them well.
Trump sent them to the abyss.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You can point it out as much as you want.

well it was out of necessity as opposed to want

It's simply a fallacious argument. At best you can make a case that the person being favored deserves the same punishment NOT that nobody deserves a punishment. That's why it's fallacious.

and how would one make that case without pointing out what someone else did the same thing? [or in layman terms "whataboutism" ] The need to refer to it as fallacious is because it is difficult to accept otherwise

There's 2 things. It's not fallacious to point out hypocrisy.
It's fallacious to justify your own actions by pointing out hypocrisy.

Now all ya need do is explain the relevant part, pointing out the hypocrisy of unequal treatment

Second in Hillary's case you would run into a a second fallacy. Namely the false equivalency. Just because something is roughly similar doesn't mean it's the same. For one thing both things rely on different laws that are being potentially broken.

then say theyre not the same...your claim does nothing to dispell "whataboutism" and it matters not which laws were broken in this case [since the point was that one is allowed to and someone else is not] but that both broke the law and were treated differently

No it means I try to apply the same standard to all people. It don't accept it from anyone.

that's the very point the poster was making about applying the same standard to hillary, which btw, you are accepting it in the case of hillary

A court would not use that argument because they will focus on the actual case before them NOT my hypocrisy.

The actual case would be you being sued for un/equal treatment under the law, Your unequal treatment would bring down the wrath of any court

That is their job. A defense attorney would use it probably as a way to garner symphaty for his client but it's not a very good legal argument.

Unequal treatment not a good legal argument? so far the only fallicies in these posts are the ones you are making up in stride...it is such a good legal argument that both the judge and your lawyer would insist you plea out.

In any case are you going to try the "whataboutism" argument any longer? or is that one a lost cause?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Trump did nothing wrong.

But since when do lynch mobs care about right and wrong?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Not just any private citizen, moron. Do you feel the same about Obama, Clinton, Carter, and Bush? Should we raid all of them too? What a fucking twit you are.

They don't have to, idiot.
THEY received their papers through the National Archivist.
Not U HAUL.

 

[Rogue AI]

They don't have to, idiot.
THEY received their papers through the National Archivist.
Not U HAUL.

The archivists don't pack up the White House. You are clueless, no surprise.

 

[Smokin' OP]

The archivists don't pack up the White House. You are clueless, no surprise.

No, they don't.
Trump can't just take what isn't his, you fucking moron.

Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

(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. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

(2) The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States. The Archivist is authorized to designate, after consultation with the former President, a director at each depository or facility, who shall be responsible for the care and preservation of such records.

(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or 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. Such term--

(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

 

[Rogue AI]

No, they don't.
Trump can't just take what isn't his, you fucking moron.

Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

(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. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

(2) The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States. The Archivist is authorized to designate, after consultation with the former President, a director at each depository or facility, who shall be responsible for the care and preservation of such records.

(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or 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. Such term--

(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

Hey dumbass, where's the part about how the archivist actually gets the physical records? Did you leave that out on purpose or did you intentionally do so to be misleading like the two bit hack you are?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Hey dumbass, where's the part about how the archivist actually gets the physical records? Did you leave that out on purpose or did you intentionally do so to be misleading like the two bit hack you are?

WTF?
You're a moron.
It's up to the president or his administration to submit them to the archivist.
Because, another republican traitor did the same thing.

For the first two centuries of U.S. history, outgoing presidents simply took their documents with them when they left the White House. The materials were considered their personal property.

But for the past four decades, every presidential document — from notebook doodles to top-secret security plans — is supposed to go directly to the National Archives as the material is considered the property of the American people.

So when former President Donald Trump left office on Jan. 20, 2021, all his records should have traveled from the White House to the National Archives, according to Jason R. Baron, who served as director of litigation at the National Archives for 13 years.

"No president has the right to retain presidential records after he or she leaves office," Baron said. "And so it is an extraordinary circumstance if presidential records are found in a former president's residence or anywhere else under his control."

When President Nixon resigned amid the 1974 scandal, he wanted to take his documents to his home in California — including his infamous tape recordings.

Congress realized it would not have access to that material, and they also feared it could be destroyed. So legislators passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, which made all of Nixon's material public property.

However, that measure applied to Nixon only. In 1978, Congress passed the more sweeping Presidential Records Act that has been the standard ever since.

"Every president, when they leave office, those records that have been created by the president and his staff are presidential records that go to the National Archives," Baron said. "The owner is the American people."

This includes all presidential material, whether it's routine, unclassified notes or top-secret national security documents.

 

[Mac1958]

The irony, and lack of self-awareness in the above post, is astonishing.
Like an AI bot set on contrarian mode.
The projection too.
How are you not embarrassed?

Mac triggers another one.

zzz

 

[forkup]

well it was out of necessity as opposed to want


and how would one make that case without pointing out what someone else did the same thing? [or in layman terms "whataboutism" ] The need to refer to it as fallacious is because it is difficult to accept otherwise

Now all ya need do is explain the relevant part, pointing out the hypocrisy of unequal treatment


then say theyre not the same...your claim does nothing to dispell "whataboutism" and it matters not which laws were broken in this case [since the point was that one is allowed to and someone else is not] but that both broke the law and were treated differently


that's the very point the poster was making about applying the same standard to hillary, which btw, you are accepting it in the case of hillary

The actual case would be you being sued for un/equal treatment under the law, Your unequal treatment would bring down the wrath of any court

Unequal treatment not a good legal argument? so far the only fallicies in these posts are the ones you are making up in stride...it is such a good legal argument that both the judge and your lawyer would insist you plea out.

In any case are you going to try the "whataboutism" argument any longer? or is that one a lost cause?

well it was out of necessity as opposed to want

I believe that. Since you don't have an actual decent justification for Trump's actions whataboutism is probably the best you've got.

and how would one make that case without pointing out what someone else did the same thing?

By establishing that Hilary did the same thing would be a nice start. There was a period this site consisted almost exclusively of posts featuring Hilary's emails.

Now all ya need do is explain the relevant part, pointing out the hypocrisy of unequal treatment

Hypocrisy is irrelevant as a justification for Trump's actions, that's why it's a fallacy.

then say theyre not the same

I have. In the case of Hillary, you have the Secretary of State having an unsecured e-mail address. This is not against State Department regulations or federal law providing they are turned into the national archives within 20 days. The only thing you can lay at her feet is that some were wiped, although an explanation was provided that rings true to me but won't to you but will, either way, be hard to prove a lie.

Trump on the other hand TOOK documents from the White House and didn't turn them into the national archives even when subpoenaed, some of which are classified above Top Secret. This is against federal law.

that's the very point the poster was making about applying the same standard to hillary, which btw, you are accepting it in the case of hillary

No, I don't. My post 137 directly links you to my contemporary position on Clinton's e-mails. I fully supported a full and proper investigation into it, even to the point that I was perfectly willing to accept REOPENING that investigation a few weeks before the general election. I care about one thing only. The law. If someone could have proven Hillary was guilty of a crime I would have supported that verdict. On the other hand, the fact that nobody did even after 4 years of Trump should tell you something.

The actual case would be you being sued for un/equal treatment under the law

There are laws that protect from some very specific reasons for unequal treatment. General hypocrisy is not one of them

Unequal treatment not a good legal argument?

No, it isn't. If I have 2 employees who are late all the time. One I fire, and one I don't, I don't all of a sudden lose my good reason for firing that one person. He doesn't all of a sudden become a model employee.