Mar-a-Lago raided
-
@Renauda said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
That’s odd. I read somewhere, can’t recall where mind you, but I am sure it was an unimpeachable source, that the POTUS does not have to follow a protocol in these matters. Not sure if this exemption included an accepted protocol as referenced above.
There seems to be a fair bit of controversy over this. Can POTUS, with the wave of his hand, declassify a document, or simply say, "That's not classified?"
Perhaps (though I doubt it).
And even if he could, shouldn't there be a record of said declassification?
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 16:31 last edited by@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Renauda said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
That’s odd. I read somewhere, can’t recall where mind you, but I am sure it was an unimpeachable source, that the POTUS does not have to follow a protocol in these matters. Not sure if this exemption included an accepted protocol as referenced above.
There seems to be a fair bit of controversy over this. Can POTUS, with the wave of his hand, declassify a document, or simply say, "That's not classified?"
Perhaps (though I doubt it).
And even if he could, shouldn't there be a record of said declassification?
Can a President declassify a classified document? Technically yes, although it is rare. And logically, without proof (which is usually a memorandum attached, and a stamp that declares a document declassified, by whom, their authority, and a date), then the document shall be treated as classified by all parties until said proof is rendered.
In short, this seems like Trump being pulled over for speeding but telling the cop "oh, I meant to slow down, so I'm not guilty".
-
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 16:58 last edited by
I thought you chaps didn't like having a King, because last time out you sure picked a bloke who thought he could act like one.
-
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 17:06 last edited by
Classified or declassified, these physical documents are still the property of the US Government that Trump has no business possessing once he left office.
-
I thought you chaps didn't like having a King, because last time out you sure picked a bloke who thought he could act like one.
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 17:18 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I thought you chaps didn't like having a King, because last time out you sure picked a bloke who thought he could act like one.
Indeed there are many people who are turning many, many blind eyes just because this guy has an R next to his name. Yes, he did many great things, but it doesn't mean he gets a free pass with trying to overturn an election and hoarding classified materials.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I thought you chaps didn't like having a King, because last time out you sure picked a bloke who thought he could act like one.
Indeed there are many people who are turning many, many blind eyes just because this guy has an R next to his name. Yes, he did many great things, but it doesn't mean he gets a free pass with trying to overturn an election and hoarding classified materials.
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 17:26 last edited by@89th said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I thought you chaps didn't like having a King, because last time out you sure picked a bloke who thought he could act like one.
Indeed there are many people who are turning many, many blind eyes just because this guy has an R next to his name. Yes, he did many great things, but it doesn't mean he gets a free pass with trying to overturn an election and hoarding classified materials.
The solid gold shitter should have given it away. Admittedly, that's more like Middle-Eastern fiefdom/brothel than actual royalty, but the mind-set's there....
-
@Mik said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Why would he want to cooperate with organizations that have tried to do nothing but harm him for six or seven years?
Forget about “cooperation.” Simply following the law would be nice.
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 17:27 last edited by@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Mik said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Why would he want to cooperate with organizations that have tried to do nothing but harm him for six or seven years?
Forget about “cooperation.” Simply following the law would be nice.
Do you have pom-poms to go along with that cheerleader outfit?
-
@Renauda said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Simply looking at what the rights of the accused are
As much as it sickens me to say so, I agree his rights must be safeguarded. But his rights as important as they are, are not as vital as the main thing: namely, those documents. They cannot be left out of federal custody, especially when their contents are not known.
Knowing Trump, they could be anything. It would not be surprising if they turned out to be of no importance. Boy, what fodder that would be for Trump, eh?
Why in hell did he even take them with him, anyway? Could it be for the purpose of embarrassing the feds and feeding his base's frenzy? At no cost to him?
The President can declassify whatever he wishes.
As long as he the sitting President, yes, he can declassify documents. He also must make note of those docs while he is sitting POTUS and follow prescribed protocols. He cannot declassify documents that he has in his possession when he is no longer POTUS.
Trump, of course, believes that he is still President. Presumably you and one or two others here, do as well.
For the President, there are no prescribed protocols.
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 18:04 last edited by@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Renauda said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Simply looking at what the rights of the accused are
As much as it sickens me to say so, I agree his rights must be safeguarded. But his rights as important as they are, are not as vital as the main thing: namely, those documents. They cannot be left out of federal custody, especially when their contents are not known.
Knowing Trump, they could be anything. It would not be surprising if they turned out to be of no importance. Boy, what fodder that would be for Trump, eh?
Why in hell did he even take them with him, anyway? Could it be for the purpose of embarrassing the feds and feeding his base's frenzy? At no cost to him?
The President can declassify whatever he wishes.
As long as he the sitting President, yes, he can declassify documents. He also must make note of those docs while he is sitting POTUS and follow prescribed protocols. He cannot declassify documents that he has in his possession when he is no longer POTUS.
Trump, of course, believes that he is still President. Presumably you and one or two others here, do as well.
For the President, there are no prescribed protocols.
I now remember where I read it.
Like I said, an unimpeachable source (of distraction).
-
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Renauda said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Simply looking at what the rights of the accused are
As much as it sickens me to say so, I agree his rights must be safeguarded. But his rights as important as they are, are not as vital as the main thing: namely, those documents. They cannot be left out of federal custody, especially when their contents are not known.
Knowing Trump, they could be anything. It would not be surprising if they turned out to be of no importance. Boy, what fodder that would be for Trump, eh?
Why in hell did he even take them with him, anyway? Could it be for the purpose of embarrassing the feds and feeding his base's frenzy? At no cost to him?
The President can declassify whatever he wishes.
As long as he the sitting President, yes, he can declassify documents. He also must make note of those docs while he is sitting POTUS and follow prescribed protocols. He cannot declassify documents that he has in his possession when he is no longer POTUS.
Trump, of course, believes that he is still President. Presumably you and one or two others here, do as well.
For the President, there are no prescribed protocols.
I now remember where I read it.
Like I said, an unimpeachable source (of distraction).
-
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 18:55 last edited by
This is so Trump.
There’s no grand conspiracy or much to gain for him with these docs.
He gets in trouble through ignorance and apathy.
-
@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Mik said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Why would he want to cooperate with organizations that have tried to do nothing but harm him for six or seven years?
Forget about “cooperation.” Simply following the law would be nice.
Do you have pom-poms to go along with that cheerleader outfit?
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 19:07 last edited by@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Mik said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Why would he want to cooperate with organizations that have tried to do nothing but harm him for six or seven years?
Forget about “cooperation.” Simply following the law would be nice.
Do you have pom-poms to go along with that cheerleader outfit?
Cheerleading is not illegal, unlike keeping US Government properties that you’re not allowed to keep.
-
I think that was me. I scratched around to find an accurate answer, and was surprised to learn there were no protocols for the president.
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 19:17 last edited by Renauda@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I think that was me. I scratched around to find an accurate answer, and was surprised to learn there were no protocols for the president.
Don’t think so. This was your link from that point in the argument:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/aug/11/could-trump-argue-declassified-documents/
The answer though lies somewhere between posts 316 and 350 of this thread.
-
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 19:43 last edited by
89th may not agree, but I still maintain that a President can declassify a document at will.
-
89th may not agree, but I still maintain that a President can declassify a document at will.
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 19:50 last edited by@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
89th may not agree, but I still maintain that a President can declassify a document at will.
They can, but there is still a process for it. Think of it like an executive order. A president can say an order, but he still needs to publish and sign and whatever an actual document.
-
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 20:26 last edited by xenon
-
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 22:38 last edited by
Bottom line from Andrew McCarthy:
"Based on its continuing investigation, particularly interviews of witnesses whom prosecutors do not want to identify, the FBI concluded that Trump persisted in storing top-secret intelligence at Mar-a-Lago. While some was likely to be in the boxes, other documents were apt to be found in his office space, among other places he frequented.
That is just what the August 8 search uncovered. As prosecutors point out, in addition to finding classified documents in Trump’s office, the FBI found 76 classified documents in storage room boxes — more than twice as many as Trump’s representatives produced on June 3 when they claimed there was nothing more to be found at the resort.
This is a serious obstruction case that appears as if it would not be difficult to prove. The Justice Department is under immense pressure from the Democratic base to indict Trump, and the jury pool in Washington, DC, where the government would file any indictment, is intensely anti-Trump. It is thus hard to imagine that Attorney General Merrick Garland will decide against filing charges."
-
Bottom line from Andrew McCarthy:
"Based on its continuing investigation, particularly interviews of witnesses whom prosecutors do not want to identify, the FBI concluded that Trump persisted in storing top-secret intelligence at Mar-a-Lago. While some was likely to be in the boxes, other documents were apt to be found in his office space, among other places he frequented.
That is just what the August 8 search uncovered. As prosecutors point out, in addition to finding classified documents in Trump’s office, the FBI found 76 classified documents in storage room boxes — more than twice as many as Trump’s representatives produced on June 3 when they claimed there was nothing more to be found at the resort.
This is a serious obstruction case that appears as if it would not be difficult to prove. The Justice Department is under immense pressure from the Democratic base to indict Trump, and the jury pool in Washington, DC, where the government would file any indictment, is intensely anti-Trump. It is thus hard to imagine that Attorney General Merrick Garland will decide against filing charges."
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 22:52 last edited by@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
the jury pool in Washington, DC, where the government would file any indictment, is intensely anti-Trump.
I don't know anything about grand jury selection, if that's what he's talking about. Do people ever file for a change of venue for a grand jury? Cuz that would be yet another delaying tactic for Trump.
-
wrote on 31 Aug 2022, 22:56 last edited by jon-nyc
That must have been a hard column for him to write. Though he phrased it as ‘does the DOJ have a case’, he’s really saying ‘did Donald Trump conceal these documents and lie about it’. And his conclusion is a resounding yes.
-
That must have been a hard column for him to write. Though he phrased it as ‘does the DOJ have a case’, he’s really saying ‘did Donald Trump conceal these documents and lie about it’. And his conclusion is a resounding yes.
wrote on 1 Sept 2022, 00:05 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
That must have been a hard column for him to write. Though he phrased it as ‘does the DOJ have a case’, he’s really saying ‘did Donald Trump conceal these documents and lie about it’. And his conclusion is a resounding yes.
Clearly he's become a RINO and a Very Bad Person. So bad.
-
wrote on 1 Sept 2022, 00:14 last edited by
-
wrote on 1 Sept 2022, 00:16 last edited by