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 EO's have the force of law until rescinded by a successive president.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?
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.
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?
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.
