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

[Faun]

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?

Rightard, I didn't say the Hurricane Crossfire documents were retrieved during the raid. I'm not sure which documents were involved with that seizure. What I showed you was Trump didn't have the authority to declassify everything he wanted declassified, and he accepted some things remained classified and he was knowledgeable that some things were still classified. That's a crime.

 

[Faun]

If he had taken the one and only original of any document, then the NARA would have legitimate reason to ask for it back.

Which is exactly what the NARA did.

I've seen zero evidence that Trump took anything other than copies.

Other than your own admission that the NARA would ask for them back if they weren't copies.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Rightard, I didn't say the Hurricane Crossfire documents were retrieved during the raid. I'm not sure which documents were involved with that seizure.

Right, nobody knows what documents were involved in that seizure except the FBI and they are still hiding that information along with much other information.

What I showed you was Trump didn't have the authority to declassify everything he wanted declassified, and he accepted some things remained classified and he was knowledgeable that some things were still classified. That's a crime.

You're typing too fast, I think, Faun. Slow down and read what you wrote before you hit "Post reply."

You did not show that Trump or any other president did not have the authority to declassify everything he wanted to declassify, and you did not show that he accepted that somethings remained classified and he was knowledgeable that some things were still classified.

Maybe he did accept it. You seem pretty sure. But I'm not sure, because you are not showing me Trump's words in which he said any of that. Show me a quote and a link.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Which is exactly what the NARA did.



Other than your own admission that the NARA would ask for them back if they weren't copies.

That doesn't mean that NARA was right in claiming that they weren't copies. That whole thing with NARA looks like a set up in which the FBI asked them to ask for documents "back" (that they had never had) in order to set up a fake predicate for a subpoena and a warrant. How does an overdue library document turn into a SWAT raid? It doesn't in an honest system.

We now know how incredibly biased and dishonest the FBI was during Crossfire-Hurricane and as far as I know, only three FBI members were fired for it. So nearly all of the highly partisan and corrupt investigators are still in charge and they proved that they are capable of anything in their mania to "get Trump."

 

[Faun]

Right, nobody knows what documents were involved in that seizure except the FBI and they are still hiding that information along with much other information.

Jack Smith knows.

You're typing too fast, I think, Faun. Slow down and read what you wrote before you hit "Post reply."

You did not show that Trump or any other president did not have the authority to declassify everything he wanted to declassify, and you did not show that he accepted that somethings remained classified and he was knowledgeable that some things were still classified.

Of course I did. Maybe you just didn't understand it. Trump said he sent a memo to the DoJ, declassifying everything before taking them. I showed you the memo.

It clearly shows the DoJ refused to declassify everything.

It clearly shows Trump acknowledged not everything was declassified.

What else can I help you with?

 

[Faun]

That doesn't mean that NARA was right in claiming that they weren't copies. That whole thing with NARA looks like a set up in which the FBI asked them to ask for documents "back" (that they had never had) in order to set up a fake predicate for a subpoena and a warrant. How does an overdue library document turn into a SWAT raid? It doesn't in an honest system.

We now know how incredibly biased and dishonest the FBI was during Crossfire-Hurricane and as far as I know, only three FBI members were fired for it. So nearly all of the highly partisan and corrupt investigators are still in charge and they proved that they are capable of anything in their mania to "get Trump."

Then why did Trump voluntarily turn over some of the documents if he was legally allowed to keep them (according to you)?

And you've shown absolutely no evidence that were just copies.

And you've shown absolutely no evidence he was allowed to even keep copies of documents containing classified information.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Jack Smith knows.

And he has done nothing as far as indicting Trump. I guess he knows there is nothing to indict him for.

Of course I did. Maybe you just didn't understand it. Trump said he sent a memo to the DoJ, declassifying everything before taking them. I showed you the memo.

It clearly shows the DoJ refused to declassify everything.

The DOJ does not have the authority to refuse to declassify what the president orders them to declassify.

It clearly shows Trump acknowledged not everything was declassified.

As a courtesy, Trump allowed them to redact portions that they claimed were super important for the American people not to know.

What else can I help you with?

You can tell me how you know that Trump specifically took documents that were not redacted as he allowed the DOJ to do.

Otherwise, all you've "proven" is that Trump did not declassify all classified information, which nobody claimed that he did.

Then why did Trump voluntarily turn over some of the documents if he was legally allowed to keep them (according to you)?

And you've shown absolutely no evidence that were just copies.

Maybe he turned over documents that he was told were originals, so he could comply with the PRA. Unlike the DOJ/FBI/DNC, Trump follows the law. If so, nothing would have stopped him from making copies before he turned the documents over. The NARA has no authority to stop a president from keeping copies for reference. The PRA specifially allows a former president to do that.

And you've shown absolutely no evidence he was allowed to even keep copies of documents containing classified information.

And you've shown absolutely no evidence that he did keep copies of documents containing classified information.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think should happen to Chris Wray if he continues to defy the congressional subpoena?

 

[forkup]

I've seen zero evidence that Trump took anything other than copies.

You don't?

If he had taken the one and only original of any document, then the NARA would have legitimate reason to ask for it back.

They did, isn't that proof he didn't just take copies? By the way how you read the PRA is NOT correct.

We now know both of those were completely and one hundred percent false, right?

No we don't. You presume you do. I'm thinking because you disregard any information saying otherwise.

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

That is what declassified means. Any declassified document can be requested by the public under the freedom of information act. One of the reasons why a president declassifying documents without notifying anyone of the fact is ridiculous.

Why would they even be asked that?

Because the Trump team asked for a special master and that special master wanted to know which documents Trump claimed he declassified because that claim has a bearing on the status of the documents.

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.

He doesn't have an obligation. Not citing a potential exculpatory piece of information when you have the chance though does tell you something. This is stuff that came up in the rulings of the court of appeals in response the judge Canon saga.

The PRA doesn't say anything about stamping a copy "COPY."

Doesn't it.

extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

Stuff you yourself posted states otherwise. Does it never occur to you that it's not good when I can use stuff you yourself post or use as a source against you?

Where can I read this mandatory means for presidents to declassify?

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

Until you rescind this, this is how government employees (which include the president) are supposed to handle classified documents. There is no exception in it for Trump. If he wanted to include an exception for him. He was free to make a new EO or rescind the Obama one.

Here's a better analogy.

No it isn't. For one thing your "mom" isn't claiming that the dad's rules were not the actual rules when she was away.

No one has suggested that he was intending to injure the U.S. or advantage any foreign nation.

Well, some people have but that's just wild speculation. That's why you investigate.

Trump "lied" in response to a federal subpoena?

Yes.

What did he say

The individual present as the custodian of records produced and provided a signed certification letter, which stated in part the following: Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump, the following: a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida; b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena; c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document. I swear or affirm that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. See Attachment E.
Page 9 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.0_3.pdf

and how do you prove that it was false and that he knew it was false?

This is how

Pursuant to the above-described search protocols, the government seized thirty-three items of evidence, mostly boxes (hereinafter, the “Seized Evidence”), falling within the scope of Attachment B to the search warrant because they contained documents with classification markings or what otherwise appeared to be government records. Three classified documents that were not located in boxes, but rather were located in the desks in the “45 Office,” page 12

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

I don't have any. I'm not a prosecutor. There are however reports that security tapes of the storeroom are missing. Might be true. In any case it is verifiable by talking to witnesses. Wich they are doing.

Argument from authority.

It would be if I would simply repeat Bill Barr's words. I don't however since I explained exactly why whether or not the documents were classified is irrelevant to the potential charges. I don't easily use fallacious arguments. And I very much doubt you would want me to point out your fallacies.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You don't?

They did, isn't that proof he didn't just take copies? By the way how you read the PRA is NOT correct.

No, a request from NARA isn't proof of anything other than that NARA requested something.

No we don't. You presume you do. I'm thinking because you disregard any information saying otherwise.

If you still don't know that Crossfire-Hurricane was a shameful sham led by corrupt and partisan maxed out donors to Democrats, then you really need to read these offical DOJ documents (don't worry, they're not classified and I didn't steal them):

Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation | U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General

Review

oig.justice.gov

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

I think you do know, because you are too smart not to know. Not being able to bring yourself to admit it is not the same as not knowing.

That is what declassified means. Any declassified document can be requested by the public under the freedom of information act. One of the reasons why a president declassifying documents without notifying anyone of the fact is ridiculous.

You can also request classfied documents at the highest level under the freedom of information act. You just won't get them. Anyone submitting a FOIA request to Mar-a-Lago would likely get no response at all. FOIA is a huge sham. It's a law passed by the legislative branch that is ignored by the executive branch at the highest and the lowest levels.

You think you could FOIA request the Form FD 1023 that Comer and Grassley have subpoena'd from the FBI and get a redacted version? Doubtful since Wray is negotiating instead of complying with the subpoena. Most FOIA requests are simply ignored.

Now, forkup, it is very, VERY important that you answer this question: What should happen to Wray for negotiating over the subpoena instead of immediately complying? If you dont' answer that, none of the rest would really matter. But I have confidence that you will answer it.

Because the Trump team asked for a special master and that special master wanted to know which documents Trump claimed he declassified because that claim has a bearing on the status of the documents.

He doesn't have an obligation. Not citing a potential exculpatory piece of information when you have the chance though does tell you something. This is stuff that came up in the rulings of the court of appeals in response the judge Canon saga.

No, he certainly does not. If his attorneys had adviced him to start blurting out his defenses before he is even indicted, they would be liable for malpractice. Are you one who believes that anyone accused of a crime that doesn't immediately start giving up all his defense strategy must be guilty?

It would be especially unwise in light of how dishonest the various investigations of Trump have been.

Doesn't it.

Stuff you yourself posted states otherwise. Does it never occur to you that it's not good when I can use stuff you yourself post or use as a source against you?

As far as I know, the PRA says nothing about "stamping."

Nor, as far as I know, did the documents fail to indicate that they were copies. You never answered about whether you've worked in government. I was in Army logistics for twelve years, and - unlike the civilian world where copies are never an issue, copies are indeed indicated as copies for any sensitive document.

But, hey! Let's say for fun that you are right. Trump should have stamped those copies "COPY" by golly!

Is that really the incredibly thin straw you now want to grasp at? How many years do you expect Trump to get for that?

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

Until you rescind this, this is how government employees (which include the president) are supposed to handle classified documents. There is no exception in it for Trump. If he wanted to include an exception for him. He was free to make a new EO or rescind the Obama one.

He was also free to simply make exceptions as needed. That's the power of being a president. You may not like having so much power vested in one man, but that's what the constitution says: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States." Maybe you'd prefer a parliamentary system in which the executive and the judicial are not branches but are subordinate to the parliament. I've often thought it might be better.

But, for now, we have what we have.

No it isn't. For one thing your "mom" isn't claiming that the dad's rules were not the actual rules when she was away.

No, but she is claiming that mom makes the rules now. Not even claiming it, just assuming that the kids know that. In that scenario, my mom would not have given a lengthy explanation about having changed the rules back. Dad's rules were temporary and ad hoc, mom is in charge now.

Obama had no further presidential power after Trump was sworn in, no matter how much some may wish he had.

Well, some people have but that's just wild speculation. That's why you investigate.

Someone is really trying to find out whether Trump wanted to harm the U.S. after years of his being excoriated by Dems for trying to help the U.S. too much? Who is on that job?

Yes.

The individual present as the custodian of records produced and provided a signed certification letter, which stated in part the following: Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump, the following: a. A diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida; b. This search was conducted after receipt of the subpoena, in order to locate any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena; c. Any and all responsive documents accompany this certification; and d. No copy, written notation, or reproduction of any kind was retained as to any responsive document. I swear or affirm that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. See Attachment E.
Page 9 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.0_3.pdf

This is how

Pursuant to the above-described search protocols, the government seized thirty-three items of evidence, mostly boxes (hereinafter, the “Seized Evidence”), falling within the scope of Attachment B to the search warrant because they contained documents with classification markings or what otherwise appeared to be government records. Three classified documents that were not located in boxes, but rather were located in the desks in the “45 Office,” page 12

That is not proof. You are only allowing for one possible interpretation: That the government is telling the truth about what it found. That's what a trial would be for, to determine that. Since the government hasn't shown any desire for such a trial, it is fair to wonder if they are not simply hoping for another endless investigation to interfere int eh 2024 election as they did in the 2016.

No doubt they can count on some people to assume that Trump is guilty of crimes with which he has not been charged.

I don't have any. I'm not a prosecutor. There are however reports that security tapes of the storeroom are missing. Might be true. In any case it is verifiable by talking to witnesses. Wich they are doing.

"There are reports?" You have to know how incredibly lame that sounds, right?

If the DOJ has something, they need to act on it now and get it done one way or another, so we can have a free and fair election this time. But clearly, that is the last thing that the DOJ/FBI/DNC wants.

It would be if I would simply repeat Bill Barr's words.

What was the point in bringing Barr up?

don't however since I explained exactly why whether or not the documents were classified is irrelevant to the potential charges. I don't easily use fallacious arguments. And I very much doubt you would want me to point out your fallacies.

Yes, point them out, that's what the board is about.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

Until you rescind this, this is how government employees (which include the president) are supposed to handle classified documents. There is no exception in it for Trump. If he wanted to include an exception for him. He was free to make a new EO or rescind the Obama one.

This is annoying for me, and more than a little embarassing for you, I must say. You did not even read what you posted. I guess you just hoped that i would not either. If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen this:

I assume that you know that the highest supervisory official for all federal agencies is the POTOS. That's the sitting POTUS, not former POTUS that were rilly, rilly, popular with the media. Therefore Trump was authorized to declassify the information on the documents.

In fact - had you read your link - you would have seen Obama's EO several times urges officials not to leave information classified without good reason. By declassifying the information in the documents, Trump was following the spirit and letter of Obama's EO.

There is no procedural instructions in that EO that would be binding on a future president.

 

[Faun]

And he has done nothing as far as indicting Trump. I guess he knows there is nothing to indict him for.

You know his investigation is still ongoing, right?

The DOJ does not have the authority to refuse to declassify what the president orders them to declassify.

You're in a sad state of denial. I literally showed you a Trump memo where he asked the DoJ to declassify a bunch of documents and they wouldn't declassify all of what he requested.

You can tell me how you know that Trump specifically took documents that were not redacted as he allowed the DOJ to do.

The FBI said so and now a special counsel is investigating. On top of that, the excuses Trump has come up with.

Maybe he turned over documents that he was told were originals, so he could comply with the PRA. Unlike the DOJ/FBI/DNC, Trump follows the law. If so, nothing would have stopped him from making copies before he turned the documents over. The NARA has no authority to stop a president from keeping copies for reference. The PRA specifially allows a former president to do that.

And you've shown absolutely no evidence that he did keep copies of documents containing classified information.

You're the one making claims you can't prove.

You claim he kept copies. Prove it.

You claim it's legal for someone without authority to be in possession of classified documents, to be in possession of copies of classified documents. Prove it.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think should happen to Chris Wray if he continues to defy the congressional subpoena?

If he refuses to show the document to Comer, he should be held in contempt of Congress.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You know his investigation is still ongoing, right?

Duh! Almost a year now.

That's what the weaponized DOJ specializes in. Endless "ongoing investigations" that lead to nothing but keep a cloud over the candidate they want to lose, while giving them an excuse to not be held accountable by congressional oversight.

You're in a sad state of denial. I literally showed you a Trump memo where he asked the DoJ to declassify a bunch of documents and they wouldn't declassify all of what he requested.

Yes, you showed me that memo, that I already knew about. You have not showed me any evidence that he took anything but the redacted documents with him. You've shown no evidence at all about what the FBI took from Trump at Mar-a-Logo. Neither has the FBI or Special Counsel. Because ongoing investigation.

The FBI said so and now a special counsel is investigating. On top of that, the excuses Trump has come up with.

The FBI said so? Link me to a quote of the FBI saying that that Trump specifically took documents that were not redacted as he allowed the DOJ to do. It sounds like you're lying.

You're the one making claims you can't prove.

You claim he kept copies. Prove it.

You claim it's legal for someone without authority to be in possession of classified documents, to be in possession of copies of classified documents. Prove it.

Niether I nor Trump has to prove anything. It's still innocent until proven guilty, no matter how much the DOJ/FBI/DNC hates that idea.

If he refuses to show the document to Comer, he should be held in contempt of Congress.

Just like Eric Holder?

He was not subpoena'd to "show the document to Comer." He was subpoena'd to hand over the document to the Oversight Committee. Comer will refer him for contempt with the backing of Speaker McCarthy. The DOJ will do nothing, of course. They are weaponized against Republicans only.

Contempt is meaningless in that situation. They should impeach Wray immediately.

 

[Faun]

Duh! Almost a year now.

That's what the weaponized DOJ specializes in. Endless "ongoing investigations" that lead to nothing but keep a cloud over the candidate they want to lose, while giving them an excuse to not be held accountable by congressional oversight.

Yes, you showed me that memo, that I already knew about. You have not showed me any evidence that he took anything but the redacted documents with him. You've shown no evidence at all about what the FBI took from Trump at Mar-a-Logo. Neither has the FBI or Special Counsel. Because ongoing investigation.

The FBI said so? Link me to a quote of the FBI saying that that Trump specifically took documents that were not redacted as he allowed the DOJ to do. It sounds like you're lying.

Niether I nor Trump has to prove anything. It's still innocent until proven guilty, no matter how much the DOJ/FBI/DNC hates that idea.

Just like Eric Holder?

He was not subpoena'd to "show the document to Comer." He was subpoena'd to hand over the document to the Oversight Committee. Comer will refer him for contempt with the backing of Speaker McCarthy. The DOJ will do nothing, of course. They are weaponized against Republicans only.

Contempt is meaningless in that situation. They should impeach Wray immediately.

It's still under investigation. We'll see how that turns out. Still, there's nothing to show Trump.is unaware that not all documents he took were no longer classified.

 

[forkup]

No, a request from NARA isn't proof of anything other than that NARA requested something.

If you still don't know that Crossfire-Hurricane was a shameful sham led by corrupt and partisan maxed out donors to Democrats, then you really need to read these offical DOJ documents (don't worry, they're not classified and I didn't steal them):

Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation | U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General

Review

oig.justice.gov

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

I think you do know, because you are too smart not to know. Not being able to bring yourself to admit it is not the same as not knowing.

You can also request classfied documents at the highest level under the freedom of information act. You just won't get them. Anyone submitting a FOIA request to Mar-a-Lago would likely get no response at all. FOIA is a huge sham. It's a law passed by the legislative branch that is ignored by the executive branch at the highest and the lowest levels.

You think you could FOIA request the Form FD 1023 that Comer and Grassley have subpoena'd from the FBI and get a redacted version? Doubtful since Wray is negotiating instead of complying with the subpoena. Most FOIA requests are simply ignored.

Now, forkup, it is very, VERY important that you answer this question: What should happen to Wray for negotiating over the subpoena instead of immediately complying? If you dont' answer that, none of the rest would really matter. But I have confidence that you will answer it.

No, he certainly does not. If his attorneys had adviced him to start blurting out his defenses before he is even indicted, they would be liable for malpractice. Are you one who believes that anyone accused of a crime that doesn't immediately start giving up all his defense strategy must be guilty?

It would be especially unwise in light of how dishonest the various investigations of Trump have been.

As far as I know, the PRA says nothing about "stamping."

Nor, as far as I know, did the documents fail to indicate that they were copies. You never answered about whether you've worked in government. I was in Army logistics for twelve years, and - unlike the civilian world where copies are never an issue, copies are indeed indicated as copies for any sensitive document.

But, hey! Let's say for fun that you are right. Trump should have stamped those copies "COPY" by golly!

Is that really the incredibly thin straw you now want to grasp at? How many years do you expect Trump to get for that?

He was also free to simply make exceptions as needed. That's the power of being a president. You may not like having so much power vested in one man, but that's what the constitution says: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States." Maybe you'd prefer a parliamentary system in which the executive and the judicial are not branches but are subordinate to the parliament. I've often thought it might be better.

But, for now, we have what we have.

No, but she is claiming that mom makes the rules now. Not even claiming it, just assuming that the kids know that. In that scenario, my mom would not have given a lengthy explanation about having changed the rules back. Dad's rules were temporary and ad hoc, mom is in charge now.

Obama had no further presidential power after Trump was sworn in, no matter how much some may wish he had.

Someone is really trying to find out whether Trump wanted to harm the U.S. after years of his being excoriated by Dems for trying to help the U.S. too much? Who is on that job?

That is not proof. You are only allowing for one possible interpretation: That the government is telling the truth about what it found. That's what a trial would be for, to determine that. Since the government hasn't shown any desire for such a trial, it is fair to wonder if they are not simply hoping for another endless investigation to interfere int eh 2024 election as they did in the 2016.

No doubt they can count on some people to assume that Trump is guilty of crimes with which he has not been charged.

"There are reports?" You have to know how incredibly lame that sounds, right?

If the DOJ has something, they need to act on it now and get it done one way or another, so we can have a free and fair election this time. But clearly, that is the last thing that the DOJ/FBI/DNC wants.

What was the point in bringing Barr up?

Yes, point them out, that's what the board is about.

No, a request from NARA isn't proof of anything other than that NARA requested something

And yet they did ask for documents back that you... and you alone claim were just copies. You acknowledge that NARA can have legitimate reasons to ask certain stuff back.

If he had taken the one and only original of any document, then the NARA would have legitimate reason to ask for it back.

Yet when they do, you... and you alone ASSUME they didn't have the right. This without evidence or even reason to suspect.

"There are reports?" You have to know how incredibly lame that sounds, right?

Credible news sources, are a hell of a lot less lame a reason to believe something than making arguments up out of whole cloth.

f the DOJ has something, they need to act on it now and get it done one way or another

They are. There's a reason I was comfortable moving up my timetable by 4 months unprompted.

What was the point in bringing Barr up?

The point is that my arguments is not just supported by people on the left but also by people who were loyal to Trump. In a rational world. Being able to show that an argument is supported outside political affiliation gives it credit. Of course, I doubt that's not how you assess the veracity of an argument. In fact, I've seen no evidence that you are willing to accept any information that doesn't affirm what you already believe. Hence the strained arguments.

Yes, point them out. That's what this board is for.

I will, I doubt you will like the result.

As far as I know, the PRA says nothing about "stamping."

Neither did I. It is a strawman you put up. I asked for the WORD copy in a picture I showed.

That's the power of being a president. You may not like having so much power vested in one man, but that's what the constitution says

No, you aren't arguing for power for the president. You are arguing for power for a president, and an EX-PRESIDENT to simply make claims to have done something without anything to attest to the fact besides their word. What is stopping any ex-president from simply claiming their EO was different than the one written or that in their mind they decided when they were in office that the executive branch should work this way or that?

That is not proof. You are only allowing for one possible interpretation: That the government is telling the truth about what it found.

Yes, and since nobody claims otherwise it's the only possible interpretation.

This is Trump saying he took them.

What should happen to Wray for negotiating over the subpoena instead of immediately complying?

First off, Wray showed Gomer the documents.
Second, depends on his reasoning for not complying. This is a dispute between the executive and the legislative branch. Doubtless if they do it will have to adjudicated by the judicial branch who will claim it's between them and they can't interfere. As they did under Trump

Personally, I don't fear information. And I think he should comply. On the other hand, I'm not naive, and I won't pretend that I'm not convinced that that information will be abused no matter what it says by those requesting it. Wich is probably why Wray is fighting giving the whole document.

This is annoying for me, and more than a little embarassing for you

I don't know. You posted something out of a link. And you didn't even know it said that copies need to be clearly marked. Nor is what you say right.

You have in consecutive posts to me tried to do the same thing. EVEN when you get called on it every time.

You seem to say that I'm contesting the president's authority to declassify. An yet.

presidents have a theoretical power to handle classified material however they want

You fixate on the authority of declassifying that rests with the president

This is me acknowledging TWICE that a president has the right to declassify. It is another strawman. Isn't it embarrassing to you that you keep on pretending that I'm arguing something I'm not?

My point is and always has been that declassification is a procedure that has rules that even a president has to follow. He can change those rules, but people need to know they are changed. At the moment the determining document as to how declassification is done is Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

in it there is an entire array of steps described that the government (of which POTUS is the head) shall take. I bolded the word because it means those steps aren't optional. The government can't take those steps if the head of the government doesn't notify them of the act of declassification.

If you still don't know that Crossfire-Hurricane was a shameful sham led by corrupt and partisan maxed out donors to Democrats

This is the Mueller report. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html
In it you will find Mueller saying that he can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had a criminal conspiracy going.

It does however describe well over a hundred contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians or their proxies. Some of which are directly linked to the GRU and/or the Russian government. It runs the gamut from simple encounters at social functions. To meetings of people of the Trump campaign with people identifying themselves beforehand as part of the Russian government offering compromising information on Clinton. Drunken statement of people in the Trump campaign saying they are working with the Russian government. Roger Stone saying he's working with Assange to coordinate leaks provided by a GRU hack. To that coordination continuing even when the source of it was obvious. It secured more than 30 convictions.

All of this from the fruits of the FBI investigation.

This is a report from the select Committe on intelligence. 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats Rubio and Ron Johnson being 2

Press | Intelligence Committee

www.intelligence.senate.gov

In it all the information in the Mueller report is corroborated and expanded on including the fact that Manafort worked with Russian agents and gave them internal polling data. It also states that Trump likely lied to them. And it documents how everybody in the Trump campaign developed amnesia. It also documents lies that people close to Trump told that ultimately ended up in them getting convicted and with one exception pardoned.

This is Horowitz report that you cited. Read the full text: Justice Department watchdog report into origins of Russia probe In it he documents faults within the FBI in how they handled the investigation. It also concludes those faults were not because of bias against Trump. It also says the investigation was warranted.

This is the Durham report. https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

In it Durham IMPLIES that there was bias towards Trump. He does so, (much like you try do to me) by omitting the exculpatory and emphasizing the inculpatory evidence. Yet even he admits that an investigation was warranted (he just doesn't like the level of investigation) and HIS full investigation resulted in exactly one conviction on 1 felony and 2 acquittals, and for those trying to claim it's biased. He admits that he was free to conduct the investigation free from any influence from the Biden AG (he worked closely with Barr, very unusual and probably unethical for a special counsel.) Took him 4 years and he literally had his main prosecutor quit because she didn't agree how he was conducting the investigation.

This is very long I suggest you limit your response to what you really want to reply too.