Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sure you could, if you qualify it. Educated, rational adults do this all the time.You don't understand.....OK, got it.
I couldn't come to that determination without examining all the evidence.
No. I referred to 244 US code 2201 presidential records.
(2) The term “presidential record means …but (B) Does not include any documentary materials that are… Extra copies of documents, produce only for convenience of reference…”
As far as we know, that is exactly what happened.
He can take copies of them for reference as called for in the part of the regulation I just quoted.
As to whether they were classified or not, that will be for the jury to determine. Apparently the department of Justice wants to hide those records so the jury cannot make a fair decision.
I said personal records, I spoke in error. I meant copies for reference. Sorry, I’ve explained this so many times. I feel like I have to start over with each poster.
EDIT:
I just checked and I didn’t say anything about “personal.” I suppose you assumed that was what I meant and ran with it.
Turns out, I meant what I said, and said what I meant. And it matched the regulation perfectly. Go figure!
Now, you are being intellectually dishonest by going back to "personal documents" when I never said that Trump kept the records in question because they were personal.The Presidential Records Act (PRA) requires the President to separate personal documents from Presidential records before leaving office. 44 U.S.C. 2203(b).
So personal records he can keep and the government does not keep them
I'll be happy to debate with you if you acknowledge the plain fact that presidents are allowed to keep copies of documents for reference. Sorry, not going to debate a person who does the message board verson of fingers in the ears, "lalalalala."The PRA makes clear that, upon the conclusion of the President’s term in office, NARA assumes responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and access to the records of a President. 44 U.S.C. 2203(g)(1). The PRA makes the legal status of Presidential records clear and unambiguous, providing that the United States reserves and retains “complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records.” 44 U.S.C. 2202. There is no history, practice, or provision in law for presidents to take official records with them when they leave office
So copies of presidential duties and actions belong to the US. I would imagine that anything that is not classified would be available to the public based on FOIA request.
making copies of classified documents does not change anything
Making a copy does not change its status as a presidential record because these records are what he does as president and belongs to the government which would include any copies. unless is is stated specifically that he can make copies to keep somewhere
Personal records can be kept but he or she must sort them before the end of the presidency but it also appears to make it clear that if he or she do not separate the two that they would belong to the government once he or she leaves the building.
Now, you are being intellectually dishonest by going back to "personal documents" when I never said that Trump kept the records in question because they were personal.
I'll be happy to debate with you if you acknowledge the plain fact that presidents are allowed to keep copies of documents for reference. Sorry, not going to debate a person who does the message board verson of fingers in the ears, "lalalalala."
View attachment 920997
44 U.S. Code § 2201 - Definitions
www.law.cornell.edu
So, you are eager for the jury to see the documents so they know that they are classified?This does not apply to classified documents which is the problem Trump is facing
Don't feed the sealions.So, you are eager for the jury to see the documents so they know that they are classified?
It will never happen. Classified by its definition means you have to have the proper clearance to see them. The judge is risking her career if she goes down that pathSo, you are eager for the jury to see the documents so they know that they are classified?
thehill.com
This judge's career has one foot in the grave.It will never happen. Classified by its definition means you have to have the proper clearance to see them. The judge is risking her career if she goes down that path
Cannon largely sides with prosecutors in bid to limit sharing of classified evidence
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon largely sided with special counsel Jack Smith in a battle to shield certain information from former President Trump’s lawyers as they prepare for trial in hi…
This was a month ago so I do not know where this new story is coming from. It seems that there was an offer of limited sharing by the prosecution but my bet is the defense wants it all knowing full well it will never happen. Thus causing a big delay which is what they want.
It will never happen unless they redact a lot of stuff then maybe all they will see is a lot of blocked out text.
Still the big red marking should be enough to show the jury
no need for them to bother reading it in detail unless the defense is saying that this is all a conspiracy as a defense, hell I would do it as that what a defense is for. Throw mud and see what sticks. Get more money from Trump
If they were to read it then most likely it would doom Trump
Why?It will never happen. Classified by its definition means you have to have the proper clearance to see them. The judge is risking her career if she goes down that path
Cannon largely sides with prosecutors in bid to limit sharing of classified evidence
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon largely sided with special counsel Jack Smith in a battle to shield certain information from former President Trump’s lawyers as they prepare for trial in hi…
Now, that is interesting. Why would it be up to the prosecution to "offer" to "share?" Why do they get to decide exactly what to "share?"This was a month ago so I do not know where this new story is coming from. It seems that there was an offer of limited sharing by the prosecution but my bet is the defense wants it all knowing full well it will never happen. Thus causing a big delay which is what they want.
Do you have any previous cases in which a jury convicted without seeing the evidence?It will never happen unless they redact a lot of stuff then maybe all they will see is a lot of blocked out text.
Still the big red marking should be enough to show the jury
Then why is the prosecution so eager to hide it?no need for them to bother reading it in detail unless the defense is saying that this is all a conspiracy as a defense, hell I would do it as that what a defense is for. Throw mud and see what sticks. Get more money from Trump
If they were to read it then most likely it would doom Trump
Guess you're feeling kind of left out after that statement......feeling sorry for you.Educated, rational adults do this all the time.
Very true, all the more reason to view the evidence as I have previously stated."If the evidence bears out the statements of fact in the indictment, Trump is guilty as shit."
They only need evidence the documents are classified. That does not include the top secret content of the documents.Guess you're feeling kind of left out after that statement......feeling sorry for you.
Very true, all the more reason to view the evidence as I have previously stated.
Classified Mad magazine issues?They only need evidence the documents are classified.
There has to be a little bit more that 'trust me'.That does not include the top secret content of the documents.
Oops, looks like Dell has rolled up into the fetal position again.Classified Mad magazine issues?
Tell me, how would a jury vote on evidence they haven't any clue what it was about?Oops, looks like Dell has rolled up into the fetal position again.
That, of course, depends on the question being asked.Tell me, how would a jury vote on evidence they haven't any clue what it was about?
Back tracking in support of Trump now.................Is it classified? That seems to be the question.
And how would they come to that conclusion.....because some Trump hating DOJ wonk wouldn't give them some inclinations as to what they are about to base a verdict on?A jury would not need to read the contents of a classified document to understand that it is classified.
By showing that part of the document to them, then showing them how classification works.And how would they come to that conclusion...
Still no inference to what the charges are about. Can't reach a verdict in your world.By showing that part of the document to them, then showing them how classification works.
Yet you give stupid posts.You're asking stupid questions.
Except for when I said: "Are the documents classified? That's the question."Still no inference to what the charges are about.
The documents can be described and summarized without revealing the classified information.And how would they come to that conclusion.....because some Trump hating DOJ wonk wouldn't give them some inclinations as to what they are about to base a verdict on?
