Schiff: Trump Thinking He Can Declassify Without a Process Shows How Dangerous He Is

[lantern2814]

Of course he kept them secret.

We don't know what is on them, do we. That's proof.

You go to court with that then. Then don’t cry too hard when you get laughed out of the room. Noting no mention of the now verification that Obozo has classified material among the 30 million documents he stole.

 

[lennypartiv]

Does Schiff even know what the law is?

 

[forkup]

I never said any such thing. You people can't make an argument without lying. Can you? Why is that?

If you claim that the reason for there not being declassified markings on the documents is that those documents haven't been released to the public yet. WHILE IN THE POSSESSION OF TRUMP, WHO IS AT THIS POINT A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. You are in fact claiming there's a separate classification procedure for Trump.

So no I'm not lying. You are simply unable to think about the full implications of your claim.

 

[forkup]

Trump's claim that he declassified the documents would come after he's indictedvwich is extremely unlikely.

It would be legal malpractice for his attorneys to swear to it under oath now. Not to mention absurd since They are not fact witnesses.

The lawyers don't have to swear anything. They simply need to deliver a signed affidavit from Trump, who is the ONLY fact witness.

As for legal malpractice. I find that an interesting argument his lawyer made. It's interesting because it makes little sense.

In what way would providing evidence in a civil court of a claim that you are PUBLICLY making hinder the legal defence in a criminal court?

In fact, the lack of evidence provided in court has already made his way in a ruling of the 11th District as a reason to side with the prosecution granting them a partial stay.

It was the lawyers making a strained argument to not have to provide a knowingly false statement to the judge in my opinion.

You are kind of right though. It is true that providing such a statement in court would be legal malpractice. Making such a ridiculous and probably easily refuted claim in court would subject their client to possibly perjury charges and themselves to all kinds of sanctions. From remedial training, to disarmament, and even possibly criminal charges.

Something that has all happened to lawyers representing Trump in the recent past. Which should tell you something by the way

 

[Rogue AI]

Where is this 'process' in the Constitution? Looks like Schiff is lying again.

 

[forkup]

Where is this 'process' in the Constitution? Looks like Schiff is lying again.

A 'process' doesn't have to be mentioned in the Constitution to be legally binding. It can be simply a federal law, or in this case described in an Executive Order.

 

[Rogue AI]

A 'process' doesn't have to be mentioned in the Constitution to be legally binding. It can be simply a federal law, or in this case described in an Executive Order.

It does need to be in the Constitution if it's going to be binding. A federal law would be legislative overreach, in violation of the separation of powers. An EO can simply be undone by the President. There is a process for federal employees and Congresscritters, to view and access classified information, not so for the President.

 

[forkup]

It does need to be in the Constitution if it's going to be binding. A federal law would be legislative overreach, in violation of the separation of powers. An EO can simply be undone by the President. There is a process for federal employees and Congresscritters, to view and access classified information, not so for the President.

LOL there are a bunch of federal laws. Why would they be legislative overreach? The process in which the federal government institutes laws IS described in the Constitution. So only the process and not any particular law have to be mentioned.

And yes a president can simply undo a EO. The thing is Trump never overturned the particular Executive Order describing the process behind classification and declassication. Making him legally bound to it's provisions.

 

[Rogue AI]

LOL there are a bunch of federal laws. Why would they be legislative overreach. The process in which the federal government institutes laws IS described in the Constitution.

And yes a president can simply undo a EO. The thing is Trump never overturned the particular Executive Order describing the process behind classification and declassication. Making him legally bound to it's provisions.

Federal laws that pertain to the President are an overreach, not all federal laws.

Executive Orders are guidelines, not legally binding, as there is no prescribed penalty for ignoring them from one President to the next.

 

[forkup]

Federal laws that pertain to the President are an overreach, not all federal laws.

Executive Orders are guidelines, not legally binding, as there is no prescribed penalty for ignoring them from one President to the next.

Lol, Presidents aren't subject to laws? I think the Constitution disagrees. As to the law pertaining classification? I never claimed it was a federal law. I claimed it was an EO.

As to an EO being not legally binding. I'd suggest you look that one up. They are binding and are subject to punishment.

And since Trump is no longer president he sure as hell would be liable for those punishments. Again the Constitution is pretty clear on what it means to be president and it doesn't include a life long immunity for breaking laws.

 

[Rogue AI]

Lol, Presidents aren't subject to laws? I think the Constitution disagrees. As to the law pertaining classification? I never claimed it was a federal law. I claimed it was an EO.

As to an EO being not legally binding. I'd suggest you look that one up. They are binding and are subject to punishment.

And since Trump is no longer president he sure as hell would be liable for those punishments. Again the Constitution is pretty clear on what it means to be president and it doesn't include a life long immunity for breaking laws.

Do you not understand what 'pertaining to' means? Either you are being obtuse or you are out of your depth.

EOs are not legally binding to Presidents. There is no enforcement apparatus to hold Presidents accountable for such things in the Constitution.

 

[forkup]

Do you not understand what 'pertaining to' means? Either you are being obtuse or you are out of your depth.

EOs are not legally binding to Presidents. There is no enforcement apparatus to hold Presidents accountable for such things in the Constitution.

Sure there is. As a federal employee he is subject to the provisions and sanctions described in the EO. Whether or not they do or not on a practical level is another thing, since a CURRENT president can always change the EO.

However once they leave office this changes, since a FORMER president no longer has the authority to change the EO. At that point his culpability is that of any other ordinary citizen.

You are suggesting that the perogatives of holding the presidency attach to the person and not the office. Something that is simply wrong.

 

[Rogue AI]

Sure there is. As a federal employee he is subject to the provisions and sanctions described in the EO. Whether or not they do or not on a practical level is another thing, since a CURRENT president can always change the EO.

However once they leave office this changes, since a FORMER president no longer has the authority to change the EO. At that point his culpability is that of any other ordinary citizen.

You are suggesting that the perogatives of holding the presidency attach to the person and not the office. Something that is simply wrong.

The President is not just some federal employee. Stop being ridiculous.

 

[forkup]

The President is not just some federal employee. Stop being ridiculous.

Of course he is. Just like a CEO of a company is still just an employee of a company. His authority within that company doesn't change his status.

I note that you aren't actually engaging my premise anymore though.

By what authority do you suppose a former president is capable of challenging the provisions of an EO that he never rescinded?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The lawyers don't have to swear anything. They simply need to deliver a signed affidavit from Trump, who is the ONLY fact witness.

As for legal malpractice. I find that an interesting argument his lawyer made. It's interesting because it makes little sense.

In what way would providing evidence in a civil court of a claim that you are PUBLICLY making hinder the legal defence in a criminal court?

In fact, the lack of evidence provided in court has already made his way in a ruling of the 11th District as a reason to side with the prosecution granting them a partial stay.

It was the lawyers making a strained argument to not have to provide a knowingly false statement to the judge in my opinion.

You are kind of right though. It is true that providing such a statement in court would be legal malpractice. Making such a ridiculous and probably easily refuted claim in court would subject their client to possibly perjury charges and themselves to all kinds of sanctions. From remedial training, to disarmament, and even possibly criminal charges.

Something that has all happened to lawyers representing Trump in the recent past. Which should tell you something by the way

Lawyers always advise their clients who are at risk of indictment to keep their mouths shut until trial. We know that Trump will never be indicted for this silliness, but his lawyers have to assume the worst case scenario.

 

[forkup]

Lawyers always advise their clients who are at risk of indictment to keep their mouths shut until trial. We know that Trump will never be indicted for this silliness, but his lawyers have to assume the worst case scenario.

Lol, Trump has been running his mouth from the moment they searched Mar O Lago. Which is the exact thing that has now put them in the position to be asked to back up the claims being made.

In case you haven't noticed by the way. He isn't asked to keep his mouth shut in public. He is asked to back up what he said in public in court. And you haven't answered in any way why that would be harmful to his defense if true?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Lol, Trump has been running his mouth from the moment they searched Mar O Lago. Which is the exact thing that has now put them in the position to be asked to back up the claims being made.

Which is the weird part. Judges aren't supposed to watch CNN and Fox to find questions to ask lawyers.

In case you haven't noticed by the way. He isn't asked to keep his mouth shut in public. He is asked to back up what he said in public in court. And you haven't answered in any way why that would be harmful to his defense if true?

Dunno, I'm not a lawyer. I just know that lawyers default advice is to not answer questions until they testify with the lawyer doing the questioning.

If you know the law better than Trump's attorneys tweet him and maybe he'll hire you.

 

[forkup]

Which is the weird part. Judges aren't supposed to watch CNN and Fox to find questions to ask lawyers.

Dunno, I'm not a lawyer. I just know that lawyers default advice is to not answer questions until they testify with the lawyer doing the questioning.

If you know the law better than Trump's attorneys tweet him and maybe he'll hire you.

Sorry but a judge sure as hell can use public information to question lawyers. He can even compel people to shut up in public if the need arises. Hard to do when your not supposed to consider anything they see him say, don't you think?

It is simply a matter if what they say can have a bearing on his ruling. In this case both the "declassification" claim and the "FBI planted evidence claim" do.

The "keep your mouth shut" advice you keep on referring to is about exactly that. Once you say something publicly a judge can and does consider it.

Keeping your mouth shut in front of a judge though is NOT what lawyers mean by that advice. In fact the only time a lawyer advices not to speak when asked a direct question by a judge is when the answer directly implicates you.

Trump in that sense is lucky he is ruling as a special master and not a district court judge, in which case the only way to not answer would be pleading the fifth.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry but a judge sure as hell can use public information to question lawyers. He can even compel people to shut up in public if the need arises. Hard to do when your not supposed to consider anything they see him say, don't you think?

It is simply a matter if what they say can have a bearing on his ruling. In this case both the "declassification" claim and the "FBI planted evidence claim" do.

The "keep your mouth shut" advice you keep on referring to is about exactly that. Once you say something publicly a judge can and does consider it.

Keeping your mouth shut in front of a judge though is NOT what lawyers mean by that advice. In fact the only time a lawyer advices not to speak when asked a direct question by a judge is when the answer directly implicates you.

Trump in that sense is lucky he is ruling as a special master and not a district court judge, in which case the only way to not answer would be pleading the fifth.

A judge doesn't see something on TV and ask the lawyer if that's going to be the Defense. Especially since there's no reason to think they'll be an indictment.

In this case the special master asked if Trump's lawyers want him to consider Trump's declassification while sorting documents. That's all.

The reason you want to make that a big deal is because there wont be no indictment so no trial.

 

[forkup]

A judge doesn't see something on TV and ask the lawyer if that's going to be the Defense. Especially since there's no reason to think they'll be an indictment.

In this case the special master asked if Trump's lawyers want him to consider Trump's declassification while sorting documents. That's all.

The reason you want to make that a big deal is because there wont be no indictment so no trial.

He didn't ask them about their defense strategy. He asked if he declassified the documents, nothing more nothing less. For the simply reason that it has a bearing on the claims of executive privilege he is asked to rule on.

And I don't know why you rule out an indictment? He is been subject to a search warrant approved by a federal judge citing possible crimes dealing with national security documents and the handling thereof. Those documents where found. By what convoluted thinking you presume to have confidence how this plays out?