Trump hit with criminal charges in New York, a first for a US ex-president -New York Times

[forkup]

Call. *tosses in chip* Nice bet!

Maybe I should heed my own sig.

Yes, I've been on the wrong end of set vs. set many a time. Probably on the right end just as often, but you don't remember those as well. You just remember winning with a set.

Ever play against a guy who looks like he can't afford to lose as much as he's losing, but he keeps going back to the ATM? How about a guy who loses a lot of money, but he doesn't seem to care, so what looks like a lot to you isn't a lot to him?

I'd put you in the second category. You don't post that much, not nearly as obsessively as I do. So a month off wouldn't be much more than you often take off for whatever reason. I take you for a single dude with better things to do. If so, good for you.

To avoid misunderstandings: If Trump is indicted for having classified documents illegally before the end of August, I take a month off the board. September 1st comes with no indictment for classified documents, you take a month off the board.

Actually, I'm a very boring player. Typical TAG multi-tabler. I've played for a number of years as a side hustle online. Was never good enough to do it for a living but good enough to clean up until 10/25. I've been a winning player with the exception of the first 6 months. Just saying I'm not at all inclined to let wishes cloud reason. Or for that matter lose money out of ego. I'm both married and have a daughter. Part of the reason I'm not on here obsessively and why I don't play large tourneys online. So, your assessment of me is kind of wrong across the board. I'm a category that you didn't describe. I'm the category that doesn't mind raising the stakes when he feels statistically he's more likely to win.

And yes you have the terms of the wager right.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually, I'm a very boring player. Typical TAG multi-tabler. I've played for a number of years as a side hustle online. Was never good enough to do it for a living but good enough to clean up until 10/25. I've been a winning player with the exception of the first 6 months. Just saying I'm not at all inclined to let wishes cloud reason. Or for that matter lose money out of ego.

Nice.

I made a little money online starting in 2016. I can only play on Bovada or Ignition where I live. Starting sometime in 2018, the players actually got better. So the TAG multi-tabling strategy became a losing strategy, becuase players would fold when I finally had a big hand, or only call with a better one. I went from consistent winner to slight winner to break even. My game improved when I added some bluff ranges, and played 6-Max.

Then I started playing live. Can't multi-table, but there is much more money on the table. In Texas many of the poker players seem to be people who wish they could play blackjack instead, but don't want to drive to Lake Charles. Lots of bad beats, but many more players who call down with second pair.

I'm both married and have a daughter. Part of the reason I'm not on here obsessively and why I don't play large tourneys online. So, your assessment of me is kind of wrong across the board. I'm a category that you didn't describe. I'm the category that doesn't mind raising the stakes when he feels statistically he's more likely to win.

Alright, then!

And yes you have the terms of the wager right.

Good wager.

 

[forkup]

Nice.

I made a little money online starting in 2016. I can only play on Bovada or Ignition where I live. Starting sometime in 2018, the players actually got better. So the TAG multi-tabling strategy became a losing strategy, becuase players would fold when I finally had a big hand, or only call with a better one. I went from consistent winner to slight winner to break even. My game improved when I added some bluff ranges, and played 6-Max.

Then I started playing live. Can't multi-table, but there is much more money on the table. In Texas many of the poker players seem to be people who wish they could play blackjack instead, but don't want to drive to Lake Charles. Lots of bad beats, but many more players who call down with second pair.

Alright, then!

Good wager.

I just use pokertracker and target the donks. Works in the noosebleeds stakes. You are right though about the level. Those that play nowadays even in the micros generally know what they're doing. I opened up my range somewhat and I still have a decent ROI on 5/10. Less so in 10/25. That's why I will never be a pro, I guess.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Despite that, he still wouldn't turn everything over. And a locked storage unit was not sufficient. He was not authorized to be in possession of those docs at all. Hence, the FBI had to obtain a search warrant to retrieve them.

That was never the situation with Pence. So again I ask, since you didn't answer... what does Pence have to do with Trump?

Trump was not required to turn anything over. The presidential records act allows him to do exactly what he did.

Pence had no such rights, being a former VP, so if they don't indict Pence, they will look incredibly obvious in their bias. Then again, that doesn't seem to bother them.

If the FBI had found anything to indict Trump on, Garland would have indicted him already. The raid was almost a year ago.

Just like they never indicted Trump for anything in the Mueller report. They implied that they didn't indict him because he was a sitting president, so why have they still not, when he's been been a private citizen for more than two years?

It's not coincidence that the Dems picked a black man to be the sacrificial lamb by indicting Trump on the most obviously fake charge.

 

[Faun]

Trump was not required to turn anything over. The presidential records act allows him to do exactly what he did.

Pence had no such rights, being a former VP, so if they don't indict Pence, they will look incredibly obvious in their bias. Then again, that doesn't seem to bother them.

If the FBI had found anything to indict Trump on, Garland would have indicted him already. The raid was almost a year ago.

Just like they never indicted Trump for anything in the Mueller report. They implied that they didn't indict him because he was a sitting president, so why have they still not, when he's been been a private citizen for more than two years?

It's not coincidence that the Dems picked a black man to be the sacrificial lamb by indicting Trump on the most obviously fake charge.

The presidential records act does not allow an ex-president to keep classified material. You're out of your mind. And unlike the Mueller investigation, this one is still ongoing.

 

[forkup]

Trump was not required to turn anything over. The presidential records act allows him to do exactly what he did.

Pence had no such rights, being a former VP, so if they don't indict Pence, they will look incredibly obvious in their bias. Then again, that doesn't seem to bother them.

If the FBI had found anything to indict Trump on, Garland would have indicted him already. The raid was almost a year ago.

Just like they never indicted Trump for anything in the Mueller report. They implied that they didn't indict him because he was a sitting president, so why have they still not, when he's been been a private citizen for more than two years?

It's not coincidence that the Dems picked a black man to be the sacrificial lamb by indicting Trump on the most obviously fake charge.

Trump was not required to turn anything over. The presidential records act allows him to do exactly what he did.

This is why I think you're making a sucker bet. Your information simply is faulty. You have "the presidential records act says this". I have "here's the presidential records act, read for yourself."

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(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.

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

www.archives.gov

We had another conversation a few months ago about sources. This is a good example why it's important. Just like why in a poker context a tracker is important. Better information gives you more chance of getting too correct conclusions.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This is why I think you're making a sucker bet. Your information simply is faulty.

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(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.

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

www.archives.gov

You have to read the whole regulation. Trump did not take the only or original copy of any of the documents he had in his home. He kept copies that made for himself for reference. From your link:

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

As stated above, the purpose of the presidential records act is to keep a president from taking documents with him as he leaves office to make them unavailable for historians and people who want to research his presidency. It was never intended to keep a president from keeping copies of WH documents. Why would it be?

Given that there are no criminal penalties for violating the PRA, and that Trump did not violate it in the first place, The DOJ would be better off focusing on the classified talking point, rather than the "no president is allowed to keep documents" talking point.

I say talking point, because to actually push that case in court, they would have to get the USSC to overturn the precedent set in Navy Vs. Egan:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

From the never-accused-of-being-Trumpers, American Bar Association:

Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it. But as an ABA Legal Fact Check posted Oct. 17 explains, legal guidelines support his contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected, while they are in office.

The system of classifying national security documents is largely a bureaucratic process used by the federal government to control how executive branch officials handle information, whose release could cause the country harm. The government has, however, prosecuted cases for both mistaken and deliberate mishandling of information. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders.

Also, if they actually prosecuted Trump, he could subpoena documents from the DOJ, and would be entitled to discovery. That's the main reason I doubt the DOJ will ever indict. But, if I'm wrong, I'll pay the price.

We had another conversation a few months ago about sources. This is a good example why it's important.

Yes, sources are important. I just used your source to support my contention about the president's ability to keep copies of documents, and gave another source that supports another contention about the president's ability to declassify documents on his own.

Just like why in a poker context a tracker is important. Better information gives you more chance of getting too correct conclusions.

I tried to use one shortly after I started playing, but nothing was compatible with Bovada. I later heard that one program, I believe it was PokerTracker had a plug-in that let it take data during a session, but not save data since Bovada is anonymous.

I decided not to use it because at that point, I considered my online play to be training for live play.

 

[forkup]

You have to read the whole regulation. Trump did not take the only or original copy of any of the documents he had in his home. He kept copies that made for himself for reference. From your link:

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

As stated above, the purpose of the presidential records act is to keep a president from taking documents with him as he leaves office to make them unavailable for historians and people who want to research his presidency. It was never intended to keep a president from keeping copies of WH documents. Why would it be?

Given that there are no criminal penalties for violating the PRA, and that Trump did not violate it in the first place, The DOJ would be better off focusing on the classified talking point, rather than the "no president is allowed to keep documents" talking point.

I say talking point, because to actually push that case in court, they would have to get the USSC to overturn the precedent set in Navy Vs. Egan:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

From the never-accused-of-being-Trumpers, American Bar Association:

Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it. But as an ABA Legal Fact Check posted Oct. 17 explains, legal guidelines support his contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected, while they are in office.

The system of classifying national security documents is largely a bureaucratic process used by the federal government to control how executive branch officials handle information, whose release could cause the country harm. The government has, however, prosecuted cases for both mistaken and deliberate mishandling of information. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders.

Also, if they actually prosecuted Trump, he could subpoena documents from the DOJ, and would be entitled to discovery. That's the main reason I doubt the DOJ will ever indict. But, if I'm wrong, I'll pay the price.

Yes, sources are important. I just used your source to support my contention about the president's ability to keep copies of documents, and gave another source that supports another contention about the president's ability to declassify documents on his own.

I tried to use one shortly after I started playing, but nothing was compatible with Bovada. I later heard that one program, I believe it was PokerTracker had a plug-in that let it take data during a session, but not save data since Bovada is anonymous.

I decided not to use it because at that point, I considered my online play to be training for live play.

That section you highlighted is lifted from the part that determines what are NOT presidential records. As In NOT falling under it. Like for instance documents produced by agencies like those found in the president's possession. Those are government documents he retained and lied about having. I saw the affidavit. As for copies. Do you honestly believe that an ex-president can take documents with classification markings, copy them, and all of a sudden he's free to show them to anyone? Or for that matter just copy them and give NARA the originals? By the way if they are copies they would have to be marked clearly that way, easy enough to check in other words. (Not that that happened as shown by the fact that NARA asked for them for 2 years before the FBI got them by taking them out of his house.)

The second thing you highlighted doesn't even have anything to do with presidential records it has to do with whether or not he can simply declassify by thought or whatever. You acknowledge that theory isn't supported by most legal scholars but think a selective quote from a fact check helps you.

From your link.

-None of the three criminal statutes deal with classified material per se.
- President Barack Obama issued EO 13526, the most recent EO which provided such guidance to federal agencies. But as a previous ABA Legal Fact Check noted, presidents can modify or nullify EOs although there is no evidence that then-President Trump did so with the Obama executive order.
- In all cases, however, a formal procedure for recording and memorializing classification decisions is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point in denying the paper access to documents after tweets by then-President Trump regarding a covert program in Syria. “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said, citing Obama’s 2009 executive order in a footnote.

In other words, you cited the one part that supported your assertion and then removed all the context. Yes, presidents have a theoretical power to handle classified material however they want, as long as the federal government is aware what the rules are and are notified of the status of the documents in question. And in any event Trump being charged doesn't hinge on the classification status of the documents. Think about that. In order to support your point, you basically put out misleading information. I think by the way it was accidental.

 

[forkup]

That section you highlighted is lifted from the part that determines what are NOT presidential records. As In NOT falling under it. Like for instance documents produced by agencies like those found in the president's possession. Those are government documents he retained and lied about having. I saw the affidavit. As for copies. Do you honestly believe that an ex-president can take documents with classification markings, copy them, and all of a sudden he's free to show them to anyone? Or for that matter just copy them and give NARA the originals? By the way if they are copies they would have to be marked clearly that way, easy enough to check in other words. (Not that that happened as shown by the fact that NARA asked for them for 2 years before the FBI got them by taking them out of his house.)

The second thing you highlighted doesn't even have anything to do with presidential records it has to do with whether or not he can simply declassify by thought or whatever. You acknowledge that theory isn't supported by most legal scholars but think a selective quote from a fact check helps you.

From your link.

-None of the three criminal statutes deal with classified material per se.
- President Barack Obama issued EO 13526, the most recent EO which provided such guidance to federal agencies. But as a previous ABA Legal Fact Check noted, presidents can modify or nullify EOs although there is no evidence that then-President Trump did so with the Obama executive order.
- In all cases, however, a formal procedure for recording and memorializing classification decisions is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point in denying the paper access to documents after tweets by then-President Trump regarding a covert program in Syria. “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said, citing Obama’s 2009 executive order in a footnote.

In other words, you cited the one part that supported your assertion and then removed all the context. Yes, presidents have a theoretical power to handle classified material however they want, as long as the federal government is aware what the rules are and are notified of the status of the documents in question. And in any event Trump being charged doesn't hinge on the classification status of the documents. Think about that. In order to support your point, you basically put out misleading information. I think by the way it was accidental.

Feel free to point out the word copy in any of these documents.

 

[beagle9]

Feel free to point out the word copy in any of these documents.

What matters is the content of the document's... Otherwise whether or not they would be allowed to be made unclassified by president Trump leaving office, and him taking them.

So why not (if they are declassified), aren't we made aware of the content in order to make a judgement on the matter ? Is it because the political stunt would be revealed if a nothing burger is all that the railroading of Trump over the document's is made up of ??

 

[forkup]

What matters is the content of the document's... Otherwise whether or not they would be allowed to be made unclassified by president Trump leaving office, and him taking them.

So why not (if they are declassified), aren't we made aware of the content in order to make a judgement on the matter ? Is it because the political stunt would be revealed if a nothing burger is all that the railroading of Trump over the document's is made up of ??

I'm aware. I was simply responding to Seymour's contention that the PRA allows for copies of documents being retained be the president when he leaves office.

In order to make that argument. He has to disregard the fact that copies of documents have to be so marked as the content of the text states. Disregard that no such nonsense is being argued by the defense team. And disregard that NARA very much doesn't agree with Trump's retention of documents as they have made clear by asking the documents back for more than a year and a half. It's an ad hoc defense to the unambiguous nature of the PRA.

 

[beagle9]

I'm aware. I was simply responding to Seymour's contention that the PRA allows for copies of documents being retained be the president when he leaves office.

In order to make that argument. He has to disregard the fact that copies of documents have to be so marked as the content of the text states. Disregard that no such nonsense is being argued by the defense team. And disregard that NARA very much doesn't agree with Trump's retention of documents as they have made clear by asking the documents back for more than a year and a half. It's an ad hoc defense to the unambiguous nature of the PRA.

It's also being used for political purposes by Trump's opposition in contrast to everything else that's gone on over the year's. Otherwise it was a nothing burger that was added to in an attempt to make it a something burger.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That section you highlighted is lifted from the part that determines what are NOT presidential records. As In NOT falling under it.

Right, that was my point. Those personal copies made for convenience and reference do not fall under the regulations for presidential records. The point of the presidential records act is to keep presidents from taking documents with them to hide them from the American people who are the rightful owners. Taking a copy is not hiding them.

Like for instance documents produced by agencies like those found in the president's possession. Those are government documents he retained and lied about having. I saw the affidavit. As for copies. Do you honestly believe that an ex-president can take documents with classification markings, copy them, and all of a sudden he's free to show them to anyone?

If he declassified them while he was the president, sure. But there is no evidence that he showed them to anyone, even after declassifying them, so I don't know where you get that part. It's not like he put them in a box in his garage like old school porno mags, where any crackhead could get them.

Or for that matter just copy them and give NARA the originals? By the way if they are copies they would have to be marked clearly that way, easy enough to check in other words. (Not that that happened as shown by the fact that NARA asked for them for 2 years before the FBI got them by taking them out of his house.)

NARA asking for those copies was like your library seeing you making a copy of a reference book page and demanding that copy "back." The library owns the reference book and does not allow it to be checked out. They have no control over copies of the pages. Yes, it would be easy enough to check to see if Trump's copies were marked "copy." The FBI has them now, and can easily check. What have they told us about that?

Suppose it turns out that Trump did not stamp the copies "COPY." What's the penalty for that? Nothing of course. The PRA is not a criminal statute. If NARA believed that it was damaged by Trump's actions, it should have sued in civil court.

The second thing you highlighted doesn't even have anything to do with presidential records it has to do with whether or not he can simply declassify by thought or whatever. You acknowledge that theory isn't supported by most legal scholars but think a selective quote from a fact check helps you.

From your link.

-None of the three criminal statutes deal with classified material per se.
- President Barack Obama issued EO 13526, the most recent EO which provided such guidance to federal agencies. But as a previous ABA Legal Fact Check noted, presidents can modify or nullify EOs although there is no evidence that then-President Trump did so with the Obama executive order.
- In all cases, however, a formal procedure for recording and memorializing classification decisions is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified.

Obama's EO was for federal agencies, not the president. Former presidents have no authority over current presidents.

A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point in denying the paper access to documents after tweets by then-President Trump regarding a covert program in Syria. “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said, citing Obama’s 2009 executive order in a footnote.

In other words, you cited the one part that supported your assertion and then removed all the context. Yes, presidents have a theoretical power to handle classified material however they want, as long as the federal government is aware what the rules are and are notified of the status of the documents in question.

The power of presidents to handle classified material any way they want is not theoretical. It has been affirmed by the USSC in Egan v. Navy as I linked earlier.

And in any event Trump being charged doesn't hinge on the classification status of the documents. Think about that. In order to support your point, you basically put out misleading information. I think by the way it was accidental.

So, are you saying that if the documents were completely unclassified and everyone agreed that they were, there is still a criminal case against Trump? That is news. What criminal statute could he be charged under?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Feel free to point out the word copy in any of these documents.

How could I? They are covered up, like most of the so-called "investigations" of Trump by the DOJ/FBI/DNC. You know that those pictures are staged, do you not? You don't really believe that this is how the FBI found the documents?

You see how fresh and new those red bordered and yellow bordered classification cover sheets are? The FBI brought those with them, obviously. They hadn't been handled for years or they would not look like that. We have no way to khow what the FBI brought with them to that search.

You don't find it at all suspicious that the FBI did not allow Trump's lawyers in the house when the did their search?

Larger question, do you believe, in spite of the IG report and the Durham Report, that the series of investigations that Trump has been subjected to have been nothing more than attempts to enforce the law by high integrity agents of a competent, non-partisan and thoroughly honest agency? Please answer in a complete sentence, as in "Yes, I believe . . .

 

[Faun]

How could I? They are covered up, like most of the so-called "investigations" of Trump by the DOJ/FBI/DNC. You know that those pictures are staged, do you not? You don't really believe that this is how the FBI found the documents?

You see how fresh and new those red bordered and yellow bordered classification cover sheets are? The FBI brought those with them, obviously. They hadn't been handled for years or they would not look like that. We have no way to khow what the FBI brought with them to that search.

You don't find it at all suspicious that the FBI did not allow Trump's lawyers in the house when the did their search?

Larger question, do you believe, in spite of the IG report and the Durham Report, that the series of investigations that Trump has been subjected to have been nothing more than attempts to enforce the law by high integrity agents of a competent, non-partisan and thoroughly honest agency? Please answer in a complete sentence, as in "Yes, I believe . . .

You have no evidence the FBI brought those cover sheets. You're just saying that. And even Trump admitted not everything he took was unclassified.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You have no evidence the FBI brought those cover sheets. You're just saying that. And even Trump admitted not everything he took was unclassified.

I'll see Trump's "admission" before I comment.

The evidence is how new the cover sheets look. That picture is a picture of cover sheets with the edges of supposed documents. You ahve no evidence that they were documents in Trump's house. The picture is staged. Be gullible if you like, but I'm not required to humor you about it.

 

[Faun]

I'll see Trump's "admission" before I comment.

The evidence is how new the cover sheets look. That picture is a picture of cover sheets with the edges of supposed documents. You ahve no evidence that they were documents in Trump's house. The picture is staged. Be gullible if you like, but I'm not required to humor you about it.

The evidence they were confiscated during the raid. Not to mention, you're making up shit again, like you always do, for no value at all. Trump isn't isn't in trouble for taking cover sheets. He's potentially in trouble for taking classified documents.

As far as his admission. Here's the memo given to the Attorney General to declassify a binder of documents. Not only does he acknowledge some of the documents could not be declassified despite his request to declassify them... but this was just one binder. He took much more...

Memorandum on Declassification of Certain Materials Related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation – The White House

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

In response, and as part of the iterative process of the declassification review, under a cover letter dated January 17, 2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation noted its continuing objection to any further declassification of the materials in the binder and also, on the basis of a review that included Intelligence Community equities, identified the passages that it believed it was most crucial to keep from public disclosure. I have determined to accept the redactions proposed for continued classification by the FBI in that January 17 submission.​

 

[Seymour Flops]

The evidence they were confiscated during the raid. Not to mention, you're making up shit again, like you always do, for no value at all. Trump isn't isn't in trouble for taking cover sheets. He's potentially in trouble for taking classified documents.

As far as his admission. Here's the memo given to the Attorney General to declassify a binder of documents. Not only does he acknowledge some of the documents could not be declassified despite his request to declassify them... but this was just one binder. He took much more...

Memorandum on Declassification of Certain Materials Related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation – The White House

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

​

In response, and as part of the iterative process of the declassification review, under a cover letter dated January 17, 2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation noted its continuing objection to any further declassification of the materials in the binder and also, on the basis of a review that included Intelligence Community equities, identified the passages that it believed it was most crucial to keep from public disclosure. I have determined to accept the redactions proposed for continued classification by the FBI in that January 17 submission.​

So there is no "admission" by Trump that "not everything he took was unclassified." Just your mental gymnastics in interpretting Trump's memo in which he compromised with the FBI who was desperate to hide the entire binder from the American people.

How do you even know that the binder was recovered during the raid? Let me guess: You've seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of it?

 

[forkup]

Right, that was my point. Those personal copies made for convenience and reference do not fall under the regulations for presidential records. The point of the presidential records act is to keep presidents from taking documents with them to hide them from the American people who are the rightful owners. Taking a copy is not hiding them.

If he declassified them while he was the president, sure. But there is no evidence that he showed them to anyone, even after declassifying them, so I don't know where you get that part. It's not like he put them in a box in his garage like old school porno mags, where any crackhead could get them.

NARA asking for those copies was like your library seeing you making a copy of a reference book page and demanding that copy "back." The library owns the reference book and does not allow it to be checked out. They have no control over copies of the pages. Yes, it would be easy enough to check to see if Trump's copies were marked "copy." The FBI has them now, and can easily check. What have they told us about that?

Suppose it turns out that Trump did not stamp the copies "COPY." What's the penalty for that? Nothing of course. The PRA is not a criminal statute. If NARA believed that it was damaged by Trump's actions, it should have sued in civil court.

Obama's EO was for federal agencies, not the president. Former presidents have no authority over current presidents.

The power of presidents to handle classified material any way they want is not theoretical. It has been affirmed by the USSC in Egan v. Navy as I linked earlier.

So, are you saying that if the documents were completely unclassified and everyone agreed that they were, there is still a criminal case against Trump? That is news. What criminal statute could he be charged under?

Taking a copy is not hiding them.

And yet no one is claiming Trump simply took copies. Not the FBI; not NARA, not the Trump defense team. The only person who is claiming this is... you. An argument simply concocted in your own head.

But there is no evidence that he showed them to anyone, even after declassifying them, so I don't know where you get that part.

There is plenty of reporting that he shared them, not only that, but if you declassify something it is declassified for everybody. By acknowledging that Trump kept them under wraps you are acknowledging that those documents were not to be shown to the public.

If he declassified them while he was the president

Of which there is exactly zero evidence. And by the way Trump's lawyers have refused to make that claim in a court of law even when directly asked.

Suppose it turns out that Trump did not stamp the copies "COPY." What's the penalty for that?

None whatsoever, it does however prove that Trump didn't have the right to do what he did under the PRA.

Obama's EO was for federal agencies, not the president. Former presidents have no authority over current presidents.

Of course, they do. EO's have the force of law until rescinded by a successive president. Again, something that has no documentary proof that it happened.

It has been affirmed by the USSC in Egan v. Navy as I linked earlier.

You did the exact same thing as you did when you sourced the ABA. Find one quote within an order and then disregard what follows in that same source.

Presidents, in a series of Executive Orders, have sought to protect sensitive information and to ensure its proper classification throughout the Executive Branch by delegating this responsibility to the heads of agencies. See Exec.Order No. 10290, 3 CFR 789 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec.Order No. 10501, 3 CFR 979 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec.Order No. 11652, 3 CFR 678 (1971-1975 Comp.); Exec.Order No. 12065, 3 CFR 190 (1979); Exec.Order No. 12356, § 4.1(a), 3 CFR 174 (1983).

In other words. You fixate on the authority of declassifying that rests with the president, and completely reject the means by which they exert that authority.

You have a legal theory reject half of it as invalid and use the other half to try to prove your point.

I'll put it in this analogy. You and I decide to play a board game that you invented. You explain the rules to me, and I win the game. Then you come back and say you actually won because you have the right to change the rules in the middle of the game, and what's more you don't even have to tell me you changed them.
That is not how the rule of law works. Or for that matter board games.

So, are you saying that if the documents were completely unclassified and everyone agreed that they were, there is still a criminal case against Trump?

Yes.

What criminal statute could he be charged under?

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

www.law.cornell.edu

You will not find the word classified in this statute. Simply "defense information."

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

www.law.cornell.edu

This simply handles obstruction of justice. Like for instance lying in response to a federal subpoena.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

www.law.cornell.edu

This simply handles government records.

These are all federal offenses that don't require an actual classification level to be deemed a crime and they were the statutes cited in the search warrant.


This is why BILL BARR said the entire argument was a "red herring".

 

[Seymour Flops]

And yet no one is claiming Trump simply took copies. Not the FBI; not NARA, not the Trump defense team. The only person who is claiming this is... you. An argument simply concocted in your own head.

I've seen zero evidence that Trump took anything other than copies. If he had taken the one and only original of any document, then the NARA would have legitimate reason to ask for it back. Then Trump could have simply made a copy for himself and given them the original.

If Trump did not return them right away, that would be the equivalent of an overdue library book, with the same level of criminality.

I don't know if you have ever worked in government, but large numbers of documents would have only one copy is pretty specious.

There is plenty of reporting that he shared them,

Remember, though, that there was also plenty of reporting that Trump colluded with Russia and that the FBI's investigation of that supposed collusion was a legit investigation done my a non-partisan agency? We now know both of those were completely and one hundred percent false, right?

not only that, but if you declassify something it is declassified for everybody. By acknowledging that Trump kept them under wraps you are acknowledging that those documents were not to be shown to the public.

Not at all accurate. Just because something is no longer classified, doesn't mean it is to be shared with the public.

Of which there is exactly zero evidence. And by the way Trump's lawyers have refused to make that claim in a court of law even when directly asked.

Why would they even be asked that? Trump is not required to make that claim unless he chooses to use it in his defense. Since the DOJ has not indicted him for anything, he has no obligation to say a word. Trump said that he declassified them, that will be evidence if he swears to it in court.

That is exactly what the DOJ does not want, for Trump to have a day in court after being indicted.

None whatsoever, it does however prove that Trump didn't have the right to do what he did under the PRA.

No it does not. The PRA doesn't say anything about stamping a copy "COPY."

Of course, they do. EO's have the force of law until rescinded by a successive president. Again, something that has no documentary proof that it happened.

Binding on agencies, but not on the current president. You have yet to show me the EO that you think Trump violated. That would be your first step, then show a precedent of a president being required to follow past presidents' EO's.

You did the exact same thing as you did when you sourced the ABA. Find one quote within an order and then disregard what follows in that same source.

Presidents, in a series of Executive Orders, have sought to protect sensitive information and to ensure its proper classification throughout the Executive Branch by delegating this responsibility to the heads of agencies. See Exec.Order No. 10290, 3 CFR 789 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec.Order No. 10501, 3 CFR 979 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec.Order No. 11652, 3 CFR 678 (1971-1975 Comp.); Exec.Order No. 12065, 3 CFR 190 (1979); Exec.Order No. 12356, § 4.1(a), 3 CFR 174 (1983).

When a president delegates authority (they cannot delegate responsiblity), they do not then lose that authority.

They can rescind, modify, reverse, or make exceptions to their own EO's or those of past presidents at will. They often do. You would have no trouble with this idea if it were Biden going against an executive order of Trump.

In other words. You fixate on the authority of declassifying that rests with the president, and completely reject the means by which they exert that authority.

I've asked this so many times and never gotten an answer, so maybe you will be the first. Where can I read this mandatory means for presidents to declassify? How did whoever wrote this get authority over the president in matters of classification?

You have a legal theory reject half of it as invalid and use the other half to try to prove your point.

I'll put it in this analogy. You and I decide to play a board game that you invented. You explain the rules to me, and I win the game. Then you come back and say you actually won because you have the right to change the rules in the middle of the game, and what's more you don't even have to tell me you changed them.

That is not how the rule of law works. Or for that matter board games.

Here's a better analogy. Divorced mom goes on a cruise, leaving the kids with dad who sleeps at moms house to make things easier on the kids. Dad writes his rules on a whiteboard on the refridgerator with the heading "parental order." His rules allow an hour later bed time, and dessert whether they finished all their vegatables or not.

Mom comes home, dad goes back to his apartment and the kids proceed to demand the later bedtime and unconditional dessert. Mom has not erased the parental order, nor written a new one. Is she bound to follow those rules until she puts in writing a change back to her rules?

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

www.law.cornell.edu

You will not find the word classified in this statute. Simply "defense information."

But you do find this in the first few sentences:

with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

No one has suggested that he was intending to injure the U.S. or advantage any foreign nation. The main criticism of Trump is that he put America first when his opponents believe that the United States is a racist, xenophobic Hellhole that need more Democrats to take it down several pegs.

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

www.law.cornell.edu

This simply handles obstruction of justice. Like for instance lying in response to a federal subpoena.

Trump "lied" in response to a federal subpoena? What did he say, and how do you prove that it was false and that he knew it was false?

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

www.law.cornell.edu

This simply handles government records.

These are all federal offenses that don't require an actual classification level to be deemed a crime and they were the statutes cited in the search warrant.

So Trump destroyed, altered or falsified records? Which ones, and what is your proof?

This is why BILL BARR said the entire argument was a "red herring".

Argument from authority.

If Trump were guilty of all those crimes, the DOJ would be negligent in not indicting him. They know that they don't have a case, they just want to keep the investigation going so they can be selectively leak to interfere with the 2024 election.