Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
RMF5630 said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
whiterock said:
https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/29/one-giant-problem-with-the-fbis-mar-a-lago-raid/
Link states status quo on the question of Presidential classification authority, giving an example I have cited here previously:
"...But in 2017, there were still a few adults at the Washington Post who felt the need to educate the public. Another headline read, "No, Trump did not break the law in talking classified details with the Russians," adding, "The president is essentially the ultimate arbiter of what is classified and what is not. While the heads of particular agencies also have original classification authoritythe power to deem material classified or not classifiedtheir authority is limited to their departments and bound by their departments' particular rules."
"When it comes to classification issues and those kinds of things, he's not above the law," defense attorney Edward B. MacMahon, Jr., told the Post. "He basically is the law."
In other words, Trump did not break the law by revealing classified information to the Russians because the president is the ultimate authority over what is classified. He can reveal or share anything with anyone regardless of its security classification. He doesn't need to follow any procedures or make the decision in writing. If the person with whom he shares the information is not "cleared" to access that classified information, then the classification is automatically modified to permit such access. All that's needed is something that clearly demonstrates the president's intent to share or otherwise dispose of the classified information. Thus, the moment the president told the Russians about the terrorist plot, those Russians were legally allowed to possess the information...."
...and then goes on to make the appropriate connection:
"....When those trucks arrived at Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump was still president. The decision to repose classified documents in Mar-a-Lago was a presidential decision. Joe Biden might not have agreed with Trump's decision keep these records after leaving office. But this situation is no different than Trump's decision to share intelligence with the Russians. He made an executive decision to repose classified documents in his personal residence...."
Garland chose to make a political issue out of this by not waiting until after the mid-terms. After the mid-terms are done, he might chose to de-escalate by announcing he will not seek indictment. That would be a step toward addressing growing public concern over politicization in the DOJ/FBI. Or he could proceed with indictment and set of a titanic constitutional crisis which would require SCOTUS to end. That is a high risk gamble, as it might or might not be settled by election day 2022. (HINT: this SCOTUS is not likely to allow a former POTUS to be prosecuted over something that has traditionally been an implicit power of the office.) So escalation to push this issue into the 2024 elections risks a humiliating defeat in an election year.
For those reasons, in normal politics, Garland could be expected to withdraw after the mid-terms.
But we are not in "normal politics."
We are in "regime politics."
Democrats genuinely appear to believe their own propaganda, that they are defending the realm from fascism.
Prepare for a bumpy ride.
Correct. The president is the ultimate arbiter of what is classified or not. That's why it has been obvious from day one it was a political stunt to get overdue library books to the National Archives, which is unprecedented in another act of authoritarian destruction of polity and protocol. Every president keeps records - let's name the last one to get raided by the FBI to return them.
The same Government, inventoried, packed the boxes and paid to have them shipped to the location that the FBI had to raid to protect National Security.
...at a location guarded by the United States Secret Service
Stop deluding these poor people. You know good and well the Secret Service isn't there to monitor what Trump does with his documents.
Neither are the Marine Security Guards (MSGs) at our Embassies abroad there to monitor what US diplomats do with their documents.
Both are, however, deployed to protect US Govt personnel and facilities, to specifically include preventing access by unauthorized individuals to facilities, thereby sharply limiting unauthorized access to classified materials at those facilities. Each has specific responsibility to defend the living as well as work spaces of POTUS or equivalent. (A US Ambassador is the PERSONAL representative to POTUS and the senior USG official in country, save for a designated theater commander of the US Military.)
So, actually, the only upgrade to the USSS for the purposes of protecting classified material from unauthorized use would be an armed US military detachment.
(Sorry, but you kinda walked into the proverbial tree limb on that one)
There's nothing to be sorry about except for that word salad you just spilled. None of it changes a thing, and you know it. Mar-a-Lago is a hotel, not a government facility. The Secret Service are there to keep out weapons and wiretaps. They have no real idea who's coming or going, let alone who's "authorized."
Wrong. MAL is also a personal residence and office. USSS was/is deployed there to protect the President of the United States, his person, his residence, and his office. Access does not happen without their approval. That is/was true at the Bush Ranch, at the Bush home in Dallas, at the Obama home, etc….exceedingly well defended. Access is logged in/out, cameras, armed patrols, etc….
Documents at the residence of a former POTUS are better defended than at any Embassy abroad.
You do not know what you are talking about and are saying demonstrably silly things.
You do know what you're talking about (presumably) and are saying demonstrably silly things...which is worse.
Ok. Elaborate.
You've talked at great length about safeguards in embassies and document storage facilities, safeguards on which your career depended. Now you're telling us none of that matters as long as a few Secret Service agents are around. Do you think SS is scouring rooms and looking behind filing cabinets for stray documents? Obviously not, if the FBI found loose documents in desk drawers as has been reported. Shouldn't be a surprise because it isn't their job.
Other ex-presidential homes don't have a steady stream of visitors like MAL does. Not just members, but guests of members, and people sponsored by members. The real point isn't that MAL is uniquely bad (even though it is, by all reports). The point is that it's not expected to have appropriate security for top secret material because former presidents aren't expected to take top secret material home with them. And no other president has, despite the lies still lingering in the air from Sen. Cruz.
Ok, Skippy. I also worked at Langley, behind armed guards, badge-key entry barriers, and combination locked doors securing entire office suites, and at other secure facilities in the No. Virginia area. Also trained in secure locations across the USA, to include facilities controlled by other govt agencies.
But here's the real hole in your argument: Camp David has max level physical and document security protocols. Why? Because Presidents occasionally handle matters of state there. When LBJ was alive, his ranch had all that. Why? Because he occasionally handled matters of state there. Same for Carter's residence. Reagan's ranch. Bush 41's Houston home. Bush 43's ranch in Crawford.
Need I go on?
in 2016, MAL was, like every other personal residence/retreat of a newly elected POTUS, retro-fitted with all necessary upgrades to make secure the sitting President of the United States and any official functions he performed there. Those remain in place after that POTUS leave office, with amendments to reflect reduced communication needs, USSS staffing, etc....
Don't be a doofus. The argument "MAL is insecure" is quite possibly the weakest argument you could make.
You literally do not know enough to realize how much you do not know.
