Donald Trump Indicted on Seven Counts......

57,225 Views | 663 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Oldbear83
Fre3dombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 5:44p, 6/13/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
It's possible to both not like Trump and to not want to live in a Stalinist banana republic.


I agree with you. I defended Trump and his criminal role for 6th issues, I do not believe he had direct culpability for that mess. I also thought the Jan 6th Coalition was ridiculous.

Here, we have a Special Counsel that got a Grand Jury indictment. This is a different animal than the other stuff.

Let me be clear, I don't like Trump, believe he is central to the rise of Biden and the destruction of America. Wish he would go back to reality TV. One dose from 2016-18 is enough Trump for me. The fact he won, represents all things wrong with our elections. Money andefia too much influence.
one ******* is not the problem.

the reaction of institutions to that ******* is the problem.

once we tolerate that, then politics devolves to nothing more than an argument about the definition of *******s.
The last real President was Bush 41. After that, it became this crap of demonizing the other side and one-up-man-ship. It started with Clinton and has continued, it is reaching a critical mass with Trump. We can't go on like this and HAVE to get back to running serious candidates or China will dominate us. Haley, DeSantis, Pompeo, Scott, and even Christie have serious experience governing. We need to get away from clowns like Trump.

I agree it started with Clinton, but in other respects you are badly mis-assessing the situation.

We were in "normal politics" under Bush 41, politics where we broadly agreed on the purpose of government, the problems we faced, and primarily disagreed about the best ways to use government (or not) to solve the problems. To some degree, the Cold War forced that upon us. The divide did start with Clinton, who did indeed do things that had always been considered unacceptable - sex with interns in his office, multiple counts of obstruction & conspiracy. Then disbarred. Republicans were hardly unreasonable for impeaching him. But choosing the political route for defense, to ride it out, Democrats set in motion the post-modernist dynamic, betraying their true philosophical colors. Merit hierarchies be damned. It's all about power.

The problem has gotten worse with each successive admin. Dems made Bush 43 pay dearly. Then Obama engaged in purposefully divisive racial policies, and consolidated Democrat hold on governmental institutions by using Stimlus monies to build public sector unions as blue grassroots. Trump was a reaction to all that, and of course the reaction on him was Democrats dropping all pretenses about common good, embracing "regime politics" with gusto. Today, the two sides do not agree on the definitions of basic things, even what are boys and what are girls. And the left controls at least parts of most societal institutions, to include the federal bureaucracy, which is clearly being used to coerce compliance from the center and right portions of the spectrum. So we wildly disagree on the problems AND how to use government (or not) to solve them. We believe spending and the border and....so many things are literally "state sponsored chaos." Meanwhile, Dems are moving in to overdrive defining everything before it to be extirpated as either white supremacy or an existential threat to the climate.

All of that to say is, the "serious experience" argument, no matter how practical it might be, t is going to get drowned out by as an irrelevancy given the situation - we are in a defacto civil war. Conservatives are looking for someone to fight, no matter what, because they correctly perceive the consequences of NOT defending Trump - it will only ratify that Dems have the right to use their power to intimidate their political opponents.

This dynamic until one side gives up and the other one wins.

Wish it wasn't that way, but it is what it is. And I am frankly concerned that so many on the center right work so hard NOT to see it. Dems do not have that limitation. They are all in that they are surrounded by fascists and anything goes to destroy them.

outstanding article here, five years old now, current events proving it more prescient with each passing year.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/americas-cold-civil-war/
I do agree with the fight, but I disagree with your choice of Champion. He does more damage, much of it self-inflicted, than forward the cause. Goldwater, Reagan, Bush, and even the Dems at least had real experience. Dislike him, but Clinton had real administrative skills. Obama had real oratory political skills. Bush 45 had real governing skills. We are not seeing that with Trump. He is a reality TV guy and media personality and acting like it. He is damaging the situation more than helping because he cannot win a General Election. He hasn't had a positive impact since 2016!


Obama read story time. If you think he was an orator, man he duped you
Reply Quote
Fre3dombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 6:16p, 6/13/23
whiterock said:
FLBea said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's the champion we have. As long as he has the kind of support he commands, it is simply not possible to make the case that another is clearly stronger.

Not advocating anything. Just reading the tea leaves.
Well, I do not think he will be an issue by election time. He will have bigger issues to deal with.
he will make those bigger issues THE issue, and they may well become a positive for him.


Primary, yes. He may just have enough to win nomination. Win a General Election, he is done. GOP foolish hooking their wagon to a candidate no Dem, women or independent moderate would vote. Not only that, he guarantees record turnout for Dems. He is not a winning strategy for GOP.
Pretty sure that's a good RDS campaign meme which probably isn't real-life true. To the extent that the political middle sees "dual standards of justice" as a serious issue (and by good margin they do), only Trump can fully exploit it.
No, the GOP can exploit it. Haley, using it as an example of Dem over-reach. I think you are dead-on right.

Trump? I think Trump is distasteful to the point of them just not voting. Also the number of Dems voting will make the point moot. No way they let Trump win. Biden gets 100 million...
That part in bold is the strongest case there is for Trump.

And there is wisdom in it. When your adversaries tell you what you cannot do, transgress immediately.
""If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him."
--Sun Tzu



There are more registered Dems (48 million to 36 million), if they get enough turnout there is nothing the GOP can do. You run Trump, you guarentee they all show up... Nothing nefarious about it. He is just that polarizing. Best thing GOP can do is run someone that the Dem's don't care. I think Haley fits that bill best
And Conservatives outnumber Liberals......so that point while valid is not dispositive.

The solution is to go register more Republicans.

That's how Dems are winning. They are just flat out out-working us on nuts & bolts. Candidates have nothing to do with it. Look how many Dems now don't even bother to campaign.

So thinking we can pick some kind of "acceptable" candidate that won't inflame or alienate is not a new idea. I have heard COUNTY level GOP chairman say "we don't want to go register in blue precincts" or "we don't want to recruit minority candidates" because "it will only increase DEM turnout which might cost us some down ballot races" (Constables, JPs, etc...) The non-inflammatory/centrist-appealing GOP candidate also has the inherent problem of motivating turnout on the GOP side. So you point here is not invalid, but rather quite tangential to the problems we have.


Most people I know that vote R and never vote D, per their words, claim they aren't registered as R
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fre3dombear • 6:22p, 6/13/23
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
It's possible to both not like Trump and to not want to live in a Stalinist banana republic.


I agree with you. I defended Trump and his criminal role for 6th issues, I do not believe he had direct culpability for that mess. I also thought the Jan 6th Coalition was ridiculous.

Here, we have a Special Counsel that got a Grand Jury indictment. This is a different animal than the other stuff.

Let me be clear, I don't like Trump, believe he is central to the rise of Biden and the destruction of America. Wish he would go back to reality TV. One dose from 2016-18 is enough Trump for me. The fact he won, represents all things wrong with our elections. Money andefia too much influence.
one ******* is not the problem.

the reaction of institutions to that ******* is the problem.

once we tolerate that, then politics devolves to nothing more than an argument about the definition of *******s.
The last real President was Bush 41. After that, it became this crap of demonizing the other side and one-up-man-ship. It started with Clinton and has continued, it is reaching a critical mass with Trump. We can't go on like this and HAVE to get back to running serious candidates or China will dominate us. Haley, DeSantis, Pompeo, Scott, and even Christie have serious experience governing. We need to get away from clowns like Trump.

I agree it started with Clinton, but in other respects you are badly mis-assessing the situation.

We were in "normal politics" under Bush 41, politics where we broadly agreed on the purpose of government, the problems we faced, and primarily disagreed about the best ways to use government (or not) to solve the problems. To some degree, the Cold War forced that upon us. The divide did start with Clinton, who did indeed do things that had always been considered unacceptable - sex with interns in his office, multiple counts of obstruction & conspiracy. Then disbarred. Republicans were hardly unreasonable for impeaching him. But choosing the political route for defense, to ride it out, Democrats set in motion the post-modernist dynamic, betraying their true philosophical colors. Merit hierarchies be damned. It's all about power.

The problem has gotten worse with each successive admin. Dems made Bush 43 pay dearly. Then Obama engaged in purposefully divisive racial policies, and consolidated Democrat hold on governmental institutions by using Stimlus monies to build public sector unions as blue grassroots. Trump was a reaction to all that, and of course the reaction on him was Democrats dropping all pretenses about common good, embracing "regime politics" with gusto. Today, the two sides do not agree on the definitions of basic things, even what are boys and what are girls. And the left controls at least parts of most societal institutions, to include the federal bureaucracy, which is clearly being used to coerce compliance from the center and right portions of the spectrum. So we wildly disagree on the problems AND how to use government (or not) to solve them. We believe spending and the border and....so many things are literally "state sponsored chaos." Meanwhile, Dems are moving in to overdrive defining everything before it to be extirpated as either white supremacy or an existential threat to the climate.

All of that to say is, the "serious experience" argument, no matter how practical it might be, t is going to get drowned out by as an irrelevancy given the situation - we are in a defacto civil war. Conservatives are looking for someone to fight, no matter what, because they correctly perceive the consequences of NOT defending Trump - it will only ratify that Dems have the right to use their power to intimidate their political opponents.

This dynamic until one side gives up and the other one wins.

Wish it wasn't that way, but it is what it is. And I am frankly concerned that so many on the center right work so hard NOT to see it. Dems do not have that limitation. They are all in that they are surrounded by fascists and anything goes to destroy them.

outstanding article here, five years old now, current events proving it more prescient with each passing year.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/americas-cold-civil-war/
I do agree with the fight, but I disagree with your choice of Champion. He does more damage, much of it self-inflicted, than forward the cause. Goldwater, Reagan, Bush, and even the Dems at least had real experience. Dislike him, but Clinton had real administrative skills. Obama had real oratory political skills. Bush 45 had real governing skills. We are not seeing that with Trump. He is a reality TV guy and media personality and acting like it. He is damaging the situation more than helping because he cannot win a General Election. He hasn't had a positive impact since 2016!


Obama read story time. If you think he was an orator, man he duped you


Ok, he was a good storyteller. I have yet to find anything Trump or Biden do well.
Reply Quote
Fre3dombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 6:23p, 6/13/23
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fre3dombear • 6:31p, 6/13/23
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!
Reply Quote
Fre3dombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 6:39p, 6/13/23
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!


They aren't saying trump is a faith leader. Interestingly enough 1) assuming based on your posts you have judged trump and find him vile and dispocable, 2) you would recognize he is exactly who Jesus would have been spending all his time with

Reply Quote
3 edits
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fre3dombear • 6:49p, 6/13/23
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!


They aren't saying trump is a faith leader. Interestingly enough 1) assuming based on your posts you have judged trump and find him vile and dispocable, 2) you would recognize he is exactly who Jesus would have been spending all his time with



I don't find him vile or despicable, to each his own. What I don't find him is a public sector leader. Private sector sure, no problem. Public, no way.


Or, he is a false prophet...
Reply Quote
1 edit
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fre3dombear • 7:16p, 6/13/23
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


Apparently that was not Melania

Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:11p, 6/13/23
Just got his legal briefs boxes mixed up with his briefs boxes...happens

Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:23p, 6/13/23
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 6:43a, 6/14/23
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear: "Have you read the indictment?"

Yes.

Don't you find it important to note how quickly the indictment was unsealed by the prosecutor, and don't you see how hard the prosecutor is pushing the effort to find Trump guilty in the media well ahead of the actual trial?

That is not the behavior of a confident prosecutor. And yes, the whole point is whether the charges are true.

There are myriad legal issues in play here, ranging from who has primacy in control of Presidential Records, including classified documents, the conflict between the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act (no one should seriously expect Espionage charges against Trump to continue, those are going to get whacked early on, the prosecution is just hoping to negotiate and get something for removing them), and other elements of the chain of possession.

It's going to be difficult to prove Trump had knowledge of the location of all the documents concerned, or even that he directed his staff to interfere with the return of those documents.

A lot of people are building opinions on assumptions and nothing more than what they want to think of Trump. As others have observed, it's very possible for Trump to be an ass but not guilty of the charges.
All fair points, and, again, I have not defended any prior gov legal actions against Trump, nor have I claimed even in this case that the gov's motives have been pure. I've focused on the allegations themselves.

I do disagree with you on releasing the indictment. It was going to become public this week anyways. Smith knew there would be major backlash (obviously) and knew the best thing to do was provide detail in the indictment and release it early. I would have done the exact same thing, and I don't find that suspicious at all.
Trump could have shut all of this down if he had just been willing to use the boxes to also store his socks.
He just needed to give back what they asked for. This is a self-created mess. Sometimes in life, you have to follow rules. And sometimes it is advantageous to go along EVEN if you believe that you don't need to. Trump created this mess, this is all a Trump created mess.
An Obama-appointed judge allowed Clinton to skate on having hundreds of hours of tapes of official WH business stored in his sock drawer, citing the presidential records act.

Trump has an affirmative statutory defense against the charges.


Link?

Big story back in the day. Google it.


I want to be fair. Every defense offered up then was refuted.
DJT said he could declassify after he left - no
The papers were his - no
They weren't classified - yes

Anything else?
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.

The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.

In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.

EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.

The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.

That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.

So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.

To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.

Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:16a, 6/14/23
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear: "Have you read the indictment?"

Yes.

Don't you find it important to note how quickly the indictment was unsealed by the prosecutor, and don't you see how hard the prosecutor is pushing the effort to find Trump guilty in the media well ahead of the actual trial?

That is not the behavior of a confident prosecutor. And yes, the whole point is whether the charges are true.

There are myriad legal issues in play here, ranging from who has primacy in control of Presidential Records, including classified documents, the conflict between the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act (no one should seriously expect Espionage charges against Trump to continue, those are going to get whacked early on, the prosecution is just hoping to negotiate and get something for removing them), and other elements of the chain of possession.

It's going to be difficult to prove Trump had knowledge of the location of all the documents concerned, or even that he directed his staff to interfere with the return of those documents.

A lot of people are building opinions on assumptions and nothing more than what they want to think of Trump. As others have observed, it's very possible for Trump to be an ass but not guilty of the charges.
All fair points, and, again, I have not defended any prior gov legal actions against Trump, nor have I claimed even in this case that the gov's motives have been pure. I've focused on the allegations themselves.

I do disagree with you on releasing the indictment. It was going to become public this week anyways. Smith knew there would be major backlash (obviously) and knew the best thing to do was provide detail in the indictment and release it early. I would have done the exact same thing, and I don't find that suspicious at all.
Trump could have shut all of this down if he had just been willing to use the boxes to also store his socks.
He just needed to give back what they asked for. This is a self-created mess. Sometimes in life, you have to follow rules. And sometimes it is advantageous to go along EVEN if you believe that you don't need to. Trump created this mess, this is all a Trump created mess.
An Obama-appointed judge allowed Clinton to skate on having hundreds of hours of tapes of official WH business stored in his sock drawer, citing the presidential records act.

Trump has an affirmative statutory defense against the charges.


Link?

Big story back in the day. Google it.


I want to be fair. Every defense offered up then was refuted.
DJT said he could declassify after he left - no
The papers were his - no
They weren't classified - yes

Anything else?
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.

The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.

In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.

EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.

The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.

That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.

So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.

To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.

Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
The one issue I see Trump having problems with in the Presidential Records Act is that the default for "Presidential Records" is the National Archives, not the President. The National Archives gets everything Presidential and then comes to agreement on what the President determines is personal and what is not. Trump went the opposite, he took everything and then he made that determination. That is not how the Act works... The General Counsel should have determined "Personal Documents" while he was in Office. As of Jan 20th, NARA is the legal custodian. This is from the Guidance:

"NARA takes legal custody of records at the end of the President's term On January 20th at the end of the President's final term, the Presidential records of the Administration are automatically transferred to the legal custody of the Archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration. The records are eventually housed in a Presidential Library maintained by NARA. The National Archives and Records Administration preserves, reviews, arranges, describes, and makes available these records in its role as legal custodian."

Every document is not personal, which is what this is about. They did not give back Presidential Records and were not cooperative. To be honest, reading the Guidance and the Records Act I don't think any ever thought that a situation like this would occur. It is usually a cooperative action.



Reply Quote
2 edits
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fre3dombear • 7:25a, 6/14/23
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!


They aren't saying trump is a faith leader. Interestingly enough 1) assuming based on your posts you have judged trump and find him vile and dispocable, 2) you would recognize he is exactly who Jesus would have been spending all his time with



Jesus may have hung out with hos. He didn't hand out with re-hos, re-liars and re-crooks.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:27a, 6/14/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear: "Have you read the indictment?"

Yes.

Don't you find it important to note how quickly the indictment was unsealed by the prosecutor, and don't you see how hard the prosecutor is pushing the effort to find Trump guilty in the media well ahead of the actual trial?

That is not the behavior of a confident prosecutor. And yes, the whole point is whether the charges are true.

There are myriad legal issues in play here, ranging from who has primacy in control of Presidential Records, including classified documents, the conflict between the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act (no one should seriously expect Espionage charges against Trump to continue, those are going to get whacked early on, the prosecution is just hoping to negotiate and get something for removing them), and other elements of the chain of possession.

It's going to be difficult to prove Trump had knowledge of the location of all the documents concerned, or even that he directed his staff to interfere with the return of those documents.

A lot of people are building opinions on assumptions and nothing more than what they want to think of Trump. As others have observed, it's very possible for Trump to be an ass but not guilty of the charges.
All fair points, and, again, I have not defended any prior gov legal actions against Trump, nor have I claimed even in this case that the gov's motives have been pure. I've focused on the allegations themselves.

I do disagree with you on releasing the indictment. It was going to become public this week anyways. Smith knew there would be major backlash (obviously) and knew the best thing to do was provide detail in the indictment and release it early. I would have done the exact same thing, and I don't find that suspicious at all.
Trump could have shut all of this down if he had just been willing to use the boxes to also store his socks.
He just needed to give back what they asked for. This is a self-created mess. Sometimes in life, you have to follow rules. And sometimes it is advantageous to go along EVEN if you believe that you don't need to. Trump created this mess, this is all a Trump created mess.
An Obama-appointed judge allowed Clinton to skate on having hundreds of hours of tapes of official WH business stored in his sock drawer, citing the presidential records act.

Trump has an affirmative statutory defense against the charges.


Link?

Big story back in the day. Google it.


I want to be fair. Every defense offered up then was refuted.
DJT said he could declassify after he left - no
The papers were his - no
They weren't classified - yes

Anything else?
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.

The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.

In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.

EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.

The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.

That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.

So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.

To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.

Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
The one issue I see Trump having problems with in the Presidential Records Act is that the default for "Presidential Records" is the National Archives, not the President. The National Archives gets everything Presidential and then comes to agreement on what the President determines is personal and what is not. Trump went the opposite, he took everything and then he made that determination. That is not how the Act works... The General Counsel should have determined "Personal Documents" while he was in Office. As of Jan 20th, NARA is the legal custodian. This is from the Guidance:

"NARA takes legal custody of records at the end of the President's term On January 20th at the end of the President's final term, the Presidential records of the Administration are automatically transferred to the legal custody of the Archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration. The records are eventually housed in a Presidential Library maintained by NARA. The National Archives and Records Administration preserves, reviews, arranges, describes, and makes available these records in its role as legal custodian."

Every document is not personal, which is what this is about. They did not give back Presidential Records and were not cooperative. To be honest, reading the Guidance and the Records Act I don't think any ever thought that a situation like this would occur. It is usually a cooperative action.



....but a disagreement over what is personal or official is not a very good basis for criminal charges.....
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 7:29a, 6/14/23
Mitch Blood Green said:
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!


They aren't saying trump is a faith leader. Interestingly enough 1) assuming based on your posts you have judged trump and find him vile and dispocable, 2) you would recognize he is exactly who Jesus would have been spending all his time with



Jesus may have hung out with hos. He didn't hand out with re-hos, re-liars and re-crooks.
You don't know Jesus very well, apparently.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:37a, 6/14/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear: "Have you read the indictment?"

Yes.

Don't you find it important to note how quickly the indictment was unsealed by the prosecutor, and don't you see how hard the prosecutor is pushing the effort to find Trump guilty in the media well ahead of the actual trial?

That is not the behavior of a confident prosecutor. And yes, the whole point is whether the charges are true.

There are myriad legal issues in play here, ranging from who has primacy in control of Presidential Records, including classified documents, the conflict between the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act (no one should seriously expect Espionage charges against Trump to continue, those are going to get whacked early on, the prosecution is just hoping to negotiate and get something for removing them), and other elements of the chain of possession.

It's going to be difficult to prove Trump had knowledge of the location of all the documents concerned, or even that he directed his staff to interfere with the return of those documents.

A lot of people are building opinions on assumptions and nothing more than what they want to think of Trump. As others have observed, it's very possible for Trump to be an ass but not guilty of the charges.
All fair points, and, again, I have not defended any prior gov legal actions against Trump, nor have I claimed even in this case that the gov's motives have been pure. I've focused on the allegations themselves.

I do disagree with you on releasing the indictment. It was going to become public this week anyways. Smith knew there would be major backlash (obviously) and knew the best thing to do was provide detail in the indictment and release it early. I would have done the exact same thing, and I don't find that suspicious at all.
Trump could have shut all of this down if he had just been willing to use the boxes to also store his socks.
He just needed to give back what they asked for. This is a self-created mess. Sometimes in life, you have to follow rules. And sometimes it is advantageous to go along EVEN if you believe that you don't need to. Trump created this mess, this is all a Trump created mess.
An Obama-appointed judge allowed Clinton to skate on having hundreds of hours of tapes of official WH business stored in his sock drawer, citing the presidential records act.

Trump has an affirmative statutory defense against the charges.


Link?

Big story back in the day. Google it.


I want to be fair. Every defense offered up then was refuted.
DJT said he could declassify after he left - no
The papers were his - no
They weren't classified - yes

Anything else?
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.

The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.

In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.

EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.

The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.

That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.

So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.

To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.

Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
The one issue I see Trump having problems with in the Presidential Records Act is that the default for "Presidential Records" is the National Archives, not the President. The National Archives gets everything Presidential and then comes to agreement on what the President determines is personal and what is not. Trump went the opposite, he took everything and then he made that determination. That is not how the Act works... The General Counsel should have determined "Personal Documents" while he was in Office. As of Jan 20th, NARA is the legal custodian. This is from the Guidance:

"NARA takes legal custody of records at the end of the President's term On January 20th at the end of the President's final term, the Presidential records of the Administration are automatically transferred to the legal custody of the Archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration. The records are eventually housed in a Presidential Library maintained by NARA. The National Archives and Records Administration preserves, reviews, arranges, describes, and makes available these records in its role as legal custodian."

Every document is not personal, which is what this is about. They did not give back Presidential Records and were not cooperative. To be honest, reading the Guidance and the Records Act I don't think any ever thought that a situation like this would occur. It is usually a cooperative action.



....but a disagreement over what is personal or official is not a very good basis for criminal charges.....
True, but this is 3 years later. Going to be hard to show you cooperated. Also, Act Guidance is pretty clear on definitions.

"Presidential records are defined as: "documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." [44 U.S.C. 2201(2)]. These records can be in any media, including textual, audiovisual, and electronic.

"Who creates Presidential records?

The PRA applies to records created by components of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) that solely advise and assist the President. These components are not covered by the Federal Records Act. Even within the EOP, some components generate Federal records, while others generate Presidential records. Among the components of the Executive Office of the President that create Presidential records are:
  • The White House Office
  • The Office of the Vice President
  • The Office of Policy Development
  • The Council of Economic Advisors
  • The National Security Council
  • The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
  • The President's Intelligence Oversight Board
  • The National Economic Council
  • The Office of Administration"

This is pretty cut and dry which documents need to be agreed upon. Also 5 other Administrations had no problem complying, once again it is just Donald being treated unfair or not wanting to follow the rules. It is just either laziness or a desire to not follow the law. We are not talking 6 months after leaving the White House, we are going into the NEXT election cycle. I just don't see him getting much sympathy from the Courts on this. That is why I am shocked he let this get to this point, he does not have a leg to stand on for Presidential Records as those 37 or so are listed. Maybe a legal loophole gets him off.




Reply Quote
1 edit
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 8:17a, 6/14/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear: "Have you read the indictment?"

Yes.

Don't you find it important to note how quickly the indictment was unsealed by the prosecutor, and don't you see how hard the prosecutor is pushing the effort to find Trump guilty in the media well ahead of the actual trial?

That is not the behavior of a confident prosecutor. And yes, the whole point is whether the charges are true.

There are myriad legal issues in play here, ranging from who has primacy in control of Presidential Records, including classified documents, the conflict between the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act (no one should seriously expect Espionage charges against Trump to continue, those are going to get whacked early on, the prosecution is just hoping to negotiate and get something for removing them), and other elements of the chain of possession.

It's going to be difficult to prove Trump had knowledge of the location of all the documents concerned, or even that he directed his staff to interfere with the return of those documents.

A lot of people are building opinions on assumptions and nothing more than what they want to think of Trump. As others have observed, it's very possible for Trump to be an ass but not guilty of the charges.
All fair points, and, again, I have not defended any prior gov legal actions against Trump, nor have I claimed even in this case that the gov's motives have been pure. I've focused on the allegations themselves.

I do disagree with you on releasing the indictment. It was going to become public this week anyways. Smith knew there would be major backlash (obviously) and knew the best thing to do was provide detail in the indictment and release it early. I would have done the exact same thing, and I don't find that suspicious at all.
Trump could have shut all of this down if he had just been willing to use the boxes to also store his socks.
He just needed to give back what they asked for. This is a self-created mess. Sometimes in life, you have to follow rules. And sometimes it is advantageous to go along EVEN if you believe that you don't need to. Trump created this mess, this is all a Trump created mess.
An Obama-appointed judge allowed Clinton to skate on having hundreds of hours of tapes of official WH business stored in his sock drawer, citing the presidential records act.

Trump has an affirmative statutory defense against the charges.


Link?

Big story back in the day. Google it.


I want to be fair. Every defense offered up then was refuted.
DJT said he could declassify after he left - no
The papers were his - no
They weren't classified - yes

Anything else?
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.

The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.

In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.

EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.

The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.

That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.

So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.

To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.

Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
The one issue I see Trump having problems with in the Presidential Records Act is that the default for "Presidential Records" is the National Archives, not the President. The National Archives gets everything Presidential and then comes to agreement on what the President determines is personal and what is not. Trump went the opposite, he took everything and then he made that determination. That is not how the Act works... The General Counsel should have determined "Personal Documents" while he was in Office. As of Jan 20th, NARA is the legal custodian. This is from the Guidance:

"NARA takes legal custody of records at the end of the President's term On January 20th at the end of the President's final term, the Presidential records of the Administration are automatically transferred to the legal custody of the Archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration. The records are eventually housed in a Presidential Library maintained by NARA. The National Archives and Records Administration preserves, reviews, arranges, describes, and makes available these records in its role as legal custodian."

Every document is not personal, which is what this is about. They did not give back Presidential Records and were not cooperative. To be honest, reading the Guidance and the Records Act I don't think any ever thought that a situation like this would occur. It is usually a cooperative action.



....but a disagreement over what is personal or official is not a very good basis for criminal charges.....
True, but this is 3 years later. Going to be hard to show you cooperated. Also, Act Guidance is pretty clear on definitions.

"Presidential records are defined as: "documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." [44 U.S.C. 2201(2)]. These records can be in any media, including textual, audiovisual, and electronic.

"Who creates Presidential records?

The PRA applies to records created by components of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) that solely advise and assist the President. These components are not covered by the Federal Records Act. Even within the EOP, some components generate Federal records, while others generate Presidential records. Among the components of the Executive Office of the President that create Presidential records are:
  • The White House Office
  • The Office of the Vice President
  • The Office of Policy Development
  • The Council of Economic Advisors
  • The National Security Council
  • The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
  • The President's Intelligence Oversight Board
  • The National Economic Council
  • The Office of Administration"

This is pretty cut and dry which documents need to be agreed upon. Also 5 other Administrations had no problem complying, once again it is just Donald being treated unfair or not wanting to follow the rules. It is just either laziness or a desire to not follow the law. We are not talking 6 months after leaving the White House, we are going into the NEXT election cycle. I just don't see him getting much sympathy from the Courts on this. That is why I am shocked he let this get to this point, he does not have a leg to stand on for Presidential Records as those 37 or so are listed. Maybe a legal loophole gets him off.




You shouldn't be shocked at all. Trump was merely following precedent of the 2012 Sock Drawer case.

Clinton made a unilateral decision to keep the sock drawer tapes as personal records, and told Archives to go pound sand. The court affirmed that it was his right to make that determination, not Archives.

So now we're merely down to classficiation, and he's got a document saying he delasssed them.

Don't get led into thinking this is a real case. It will not go to trial before the election. Dems don't want it to go to trial before the election. They want it as an issue for the election.

Dems don't care whether he gets prosecuted or not. The process is the punishment. And also good politics for Democrats. Or so they think.
Reply Quote
1 edit
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 8:31a, 6/14/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear: "Have you read the indictment?"

Yes.

Don't you find it important to note how quickly the indictment was unsealed by the prosecutor, and don't you see how hard the prosecutor is pushing the effort to find Trump guilty in the media well ahead of the actual trial?

That is not the behavior of a confident prosecutor. And yes, the whole point is whether the charges are true.

There are myriad legal issues in play here, ranging from who has primacy in control of Presidential Records, including classified documents, the conflict between the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act (no one should seriously expect Espionage charges against Trump to continue, those are going to get whacked early on, the prosecution is just hoping to negotiate and get something for removing them), and other elements of the chain of possession.

It's going to be difficult to prove Trump had knowledge of the location of all the documents concerned, or even that he directed his staff to interfere with the return of those documents.

A lot of people are building opinions on assumptions and nothing more than what they want to think of Trump. As others have observed, it's very possible for Trump to be an ass but not guilty of the charges.
All fair points, and, again, I have not defended any prior gov legal actions against Trump, nor have I claimed even in this case that the gov's motives have been pure. I've focused on the allegations themselves.

I do disagree with you on releasing the indictment. It was going to become public this week anyways. Smith knew there would be major backlash (obviously) and knew the best thing to do was provide detail in the indictment and release it early. I would have done the exact same thing, and I don't find that suspicious at all.
Trump could have shut all of this down if he had just been willing to use the boxes to also store his socks.
He just needed to give back what they asked for. This is a self-created mess. Sometimes in life, you have to follow rules. And sometimes it is advantageous to go along EVEN if you believe that you don't need to. Trump created this mess, this is all a Trump created mess.
An Obama-appointed judge allowed Clinton to skate on having hundreds of hours of tapes of official WH business stored in his sock drawer, citing the presidential records act.

Trump has an affirmative statutory defense against the charges.


Link?

Big story back in the day. Google it.


I want to be fair. Every defense offered up then was refuted.
DJT said he could declassify after he left - no
The papers were his - no
They weren't classified - yes

Anything else?
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.

The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.

In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.

EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.

The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.

That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.

So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.

To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.

Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
The one issue I see Trump having problems with in the Presidential Records Act is that the default for "Presidential Records" is the National Archives, not the President. The National Archives gets everything Presidential and then comes to agreement on what the President determines is personal and what is not. Trump went the opposite, he took everything and then he made that determination. That is not how the Act works... The General Counsel should have determined "Personal Documents" while he was in Office. As of Jan 20th, NARA is the legal custodian. This is from the Guidance:

"NARA takes legal custody of records at the end of the President's term On January 20th at the end of the President's final term, the Presidential records of the Administration are automatically transferred to the legal custody of the Archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration. The records are eventually housed in a Presidential Library maintained by NARA. The National Archives and Records Administration preserves, reviews, arranges, describes, and makes available these records in its role as legal custodian."

Every document is not personal, which is what this is about. They did not give back Presidential Records and were not cooperative. To be honest, reading the Guidance and the Records Act I don't think any ever thought that a situation like this would occur. It is usually a cooperative action.



....but a disagreement over what is personal or official is not a very good basis for criminal charges.....
True, but this is 3 years later. Going to be hard to show you cooperated. Also, Act Guidance is pretty clear on definitions.

"Presidential records are defined as: "documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." [44 U.S.C. 2201(2)]. These records can be in any media, including textual, audiovisual, and electronic.

"Who creates Presidential records?

The PRA applies to records created by components of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) that solely advise and assist the President. These components are not covered by the Federal Records Act. Even within the EOP, some components generate Federal records, while others generate Presidential records. Among the components of the Executive Office of the President that create Presidential records are:
  • The White House Office
  • The Office of the Vice President
  • The Office of Policy Development
  • The Council of Economic Advisors
  • The National Security Council
  • The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
  • The President's Intelligence Oversight Board
  • The National Economic Council
  • The Office of Administration"

This is pretty cut and dry which documents need to be agreed upon. Also 5 other Administrations had no problem complying, once again it is just Donald being treated unfair or not wanting to follow the rules. It is just either laziness or a desire to not follow the law. We are not talking 6 months after leaving the White House, we are going into the NEXT election cycle. I just don't see him getting much sympathy from the Courts on this. That is why I am shocked he let this get to this point, he does not have a leg to stand on for Presidential Records as those 37 or so are listed. Maybe a legal loophole gets him off.




You shouldn't be shocked at all. Trump was merely following precedent of the 2012 Sock Drawer case.

Clinton made a unilateral decision to keep the sock drawer tapes as personal records, and told Archives to go pound sand. The court affirmed that it was his right to make that determination, not Archives.

So now we're merely down to classficiation, and he's got a document saying he delasssed them.

Don't get led into thinking this is a real case. It will not go to trial before the election. Dems don't want it to go to trial before the election. They want it as an issue for the election.

Dems don't care whether he gets prosecuted or not. The process is the punishment. And also good politics for Democrats. Or so they think.
Depends on what was on the "sock drawer tapes", since the Court ruled it was Personal. No issue.

The indictment here is talking about actual defense documents and info on our nuclear response. That is not personal. If Trump has those documents and would not return them, he should be prosecuted.

You are way too much into conspiracy theories. There are specifics of this case, the SC had standing and the Courts will determine if he was guilty. Whether or not Bill Clinton's tapes were determined to be personal is irrelevant to this case. It is about what is in the documents.

Sorry, you are not going to get any buy in to a conspiracy theory. They tried for years to resolve this and for some reason Trump wouldn't work with them. This is 100% on him, once again he caused the issue.

By the way, I love how you use the Clinton's as your precedent! The problem children of American Politics. Trump fits right in with Bill and Hillary, everything is always some gray area for them. Enough is enough.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 8:34a, 6/14/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear: "Have you read the indictment?"

Yes.

Don't you find it important to note how quickly the indictment was unsealed by the prosecutor, and don't you see how hard the prosecutor is pushing the effort to find Trump guilty in the media well ahead of the actual trial?

That is not the behavior of a confident prosecutor. And yes, the whole point is whether the charges are true.

There are myriad legal issues in play here, ranging from who has primacy in control of Presidential Records, including classified documents, the conflict between the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act (no one should seriously expect Espionage charges against Trump to continue, those are going to get whacked early on, the prosecution is just hoping to negotiate and get something for removing them), and other elements of the chain of possession.

It's going to be difficult to prove Trump had knowledge of the location of all the documents concerned, or even that he directed his staff to interfere with the return of those documents.

A lot of people are building opinions on assumptions and nothing more than what they want to think of Trump. As others have observed, it's very possible for Trump to be an ass but not guilty of the charges.
All fair points, and, again, I have not defended any prior gov legal actions against Trump, nor have I claimed even in this case that the gov's motives have been pure. I've focused on the allegations themselves.

I do disagree with you on releasing the indictment. It was going to become public this week anyways. Smith knew there would be major backlash (obviously) and knew the best thing to do was provide detail in the indictment and release it early. I would have done the exact same thing, and I don't find that suspicious at all.
Trump could have shut all of this down if he had just been willing to use the boxes to also store his socks.
He just needed to give back what they asked for. This is a self-created mess. Sometimes in life, you have to follow rules. And sometimes it is advantageous to go along EVEN if you believe that you don't need to. Trump created this mess, this is all a Trump created mess.
An Obama-appointed judge allowed Clinton to skate on having hundreds of hours of tapes of official WH business stored in his sock drawer, citing the presidential records act.

Trump has an affirmative statutory defense against the charges.


Link?

Big story back in the day. Google it.


I want to be fair. Every defense offered up then was refuted.
DJT said he could declassify after he left - no
The papers were his - no
They weren't classified - yes

Anything else?
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.

The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.

In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.

EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.

The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.

That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.

So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.

To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.

Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
The one issue I see Trump having problems with in the Presidential Records Act is that the default for "Presidential Records" is the National Archives, not the President. The National Archives gets everything Presidential and then comes to agreement on what the President determines is personal and what is not. Trump went the opposite, he took everything and then he made that determination. That is not how the Act works... The General Counsel should have determined "Personal Documents" while he was in Office. As of Jan 20th, NARA is the legal custodian. This is from the Guidance:

"NARA takes legal custody of records at the end of the President's term On January 20th at the end of the President's final term, the Presidential records of the Administration are automatically transferred to the legal custody of the Archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration. The records are eventually housed in a Presidential Library maintained by NARA. The National Archives and Records Administration preserves, reviews, arranges, describes, and makes available these records in its role as legal custodian."

Every document is not personal, which is what this is about. They did not give back Presidential Records and were not cooperative. To be honest, reading the Guidance and the Records Act I don't think any ever thought that a situation like this would occur. It is usually a cooperative action.



....but a disagreement over what is personal or official is not a very good basis for criminal charges.....
True, but this is 3 years later. Going to be hard to show you cooperated. Also, Act Guidance is pretty clear on definitions.

"Presidential records are defined as: "documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." [44 U.S.C. 2201(2)]. These records can be in any media, including textual, audiovisual, and electronic.

"Who creates Presidential records?

The PRA applies to records created by components of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) that solely advise and assist the President. These components are not covered by the Federal Records Act. Even within the EOP, some components generate Federal records, while others generate Presidential records. Among the components of the Executive Office of the President that create Presidential records are:
  • The White House Office
  • The Office of the Vice President
  • The Office of Policy Development
  • The Council of Economic Advisors
  • The National Security Council
  • The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
  • The President's Intelligence Oversight Board
  • The National Economic Council
  • The Office of Administration"

This is pretty cut and dry which documents need to be agreed upon. Also 5 other Administrations had no problem complying, once again it is just Donald being treated unfair or not wanting to follow the rules. It is just either laziness or a desire to not follow the law. We are not talking 6 months after leaving the White House, we are going into the NEXT election cycle. I just don't see him getting much sympathy from the Courts on this. That is why I am shocked he let this get to this point, he does not have a leg to stand on for Presidential Records as those 37 or so are listed. Maybe a legal loophole gets him off.




You shouldn't be shocked at all. Trump was merely following precedent of the 2012 Sock Drawer case.

Clinton made a unilateral decision to keep the sock drawer tapes as personal records, and told Archives to go pound sand. The court affirmed that it was his right to make that determination, not Archives.
You might want to go back and re-read that case.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:35a, 6/14/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear: "Have you read the indictment?"

Yes.

Don't you find it important to note how quickly the indictment was unsealed by the prosecutor, and don't you see how hard the prosecutor is pushing the effort to find Trump guilty in the media well ahead of the actual trial?

That is not the behavior of a confident prosecutor. And yes, the whole point is whether the charges are true.

There are myriad legal issues in play here, ranging from who has primacy in control of Presidential Records, including classified documents, the conflict between the provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act (no one should seriously expect Espionage charges against Trump to continue, those are going to get whacked early on, the prosecution is just hoping to negotiate and get something for removing them), and other elements of the chain of possession.

It's going to be difficult to prove Trump had knowledge of the location of all the documents concerned, or even that he directed his staff to interfere with the return of those documents.

A lot of people are building opinions on assumptions and nothing more than what they want to think of Trump. As others have observed, it's very possible for Trump to be an ass but not guilty of the charges.
All fair points, and, again, I have not defended any prior gov legal actions against Trump, nor have I claimed even in this case that the gov's motives have been pure. I've focused on the allegations themselves.

I do disagree with you on releasing the indictment. It was going to become public this week anyways. Smith knew there would be major backlash (obviously) and knew the best thing to do was provide detail in the indictment and release it early. I would have done the exact same thing, and I don't find that suspicious at all.
Trump could have shut all of this down if he had just been willing to use the boxes to also store his socks.
He just needed to give back what they asked for. This is a self-created mess. Sometimes in life, you have to follow rules. And sometimes it is advantageous to go along EVEN if you believe that you don't need to. Trump created this mess, this is all a Trump created mess.
An Obama-appointed judge allowed Clinton to skate on having hundreds of hours of tapes of official WH business stored in his sock drawer, citing the presidential records act.

Trump has an affirmative statutory defense against the charges.


Link?

Big story back in the day. Google it.


I want to be fair. Every defense offered up then was refuted.
DJT said he could declassify after he left - no
The papers were his - no
They weren't classified - yes

Anything else?
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.

The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.

In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.

EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.

The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.

That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.

So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.

To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.

Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
The one issue I see Trump having problems with in the Presidential Records Act is that the default for "Presidential Records" is the National Archives, not the President. The National Archives gets everything Presidential and then comes to agreement on what the President determines is personal and what is not. Trump went the opposite, he took everything and then he made that determination. That is not how the Act works... The General Counsel should have determined "Personal Documents" while he was in Office. As of Jan 20th, NARA is the legal custodian. This is from the Guidance:

"NARA takes legal custody of records at the end of the President's term On January 20th at the end of the President's final term, the Presidential records of the Administration are automatically transferred to the legal custody of the Archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration. The records are eventually housed in a Presidential Library maintained by NARA. The National Archives and Records Administration preserves, reviews, arranges, describes, and makes available these records in its role as legal custodian."

Every document is not personal, which is what this is about. They did not give back Presidential Records and were not cooperative. To be honest, reading the Guidance and the Records Act I don't think any ever thought that a situation like this would occur. It is usually a cooperative action.



....but a disagreement over what is personal or official is not a very good basis for criminal charges.....
True, but this is 3 years later. Going to be hard to show you cooperated. Also, Act Guidance is pretty clear on definitions.

"Presidential records are defined as: "documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." [44 U.S.C. 2201(2)]. These records can be in any media, including textual, audiovisual, and electronic.

"Who creates Presidential records?

The PRA applies to records created by components of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) that solely advise and assist the President. These components are not covered by the Federal Records Act. Even within the EOP, some components generate Federal records, while others generate Presidential records. Among the components of the Executive Office of the President that create Presidential records are:
  • The White House Office
  • The Office of the Vice President
  • The Office of Policy Development
  • The Council of Economic Advisors
  • The National Security Council
  • The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
  • The President's Intelligence Oversight Board
  • The National Economic Council
  • The Office of Administration"

This is pretty cut and dry which documents need to be agreed upon. Also 5 other Administrations had no problem complying, once again it is just Donald being treated unfair or not wanting to follow the rules. It is just either laziness or a desire to not follow the law. We are not talking 6 months after leaving the White House, we are going into the NEXT election cycle. I just don't see him getting much sympathy from the Courts on this. That is why I am shocked he let this get to this point, he does not have a leg to stand on for Presidential Records as those 37 or so are listed. Maybe a legal loophole gets him off.




You shouldn't be shocked at all. Trump was merely following precedent of the 2012 Sock Drawer case.

Clinton made a unilateral decision to keep the sock drawer tapes as personal records, and told Archives to go pound sand. The court affirmed that it was his right to make that determination, not Archives.
You might want to go back and re-read that case.

Opinion from fmr clerk to Gorsuch

Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 8:48a, 6/14/23
Mitch Blood Green said:
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!


They aren't saying trump is a faith leader. Interestingly enough 1) assuming based on your posts you have judged trump and find him vile and dispocable, 2) you would recognize he is exactly who Jesus would have been spending all his time with



Jesus may have hung out with hos. He didn't hand out with re-hos, re-liars and re-crooks.
Playing Devil's Advocate here.

Where is your evidence that Donald has cheated on Melania from 2015 on?

This is not excusing his past, you understand, but what if he did change? What if Donald went from being a worthless git who only cared about himself, to caring about his wife and children and doing something worthwhile with his talents?

That would explain why Melania stayed with him after all the scandals.

That would explain a number of things.

The problem with hating people, is that the haters usually consider the target only as one-dimensional evil, a flat set of bad things with no redeeming qualities.

But what if Hillary Clinton really does love Bill? What if Barack Obama really did do what he thought was best for the country? I don't have to agree with their actions or agree with their opinions, to grant them personhood.

If, speaking hypothetically, Donald Trump did change, then he would need the help of faith leaders to know how to move forward. It's completely possible that Trump 2023 is a much better man than Trump 1996, say.

The lesson here is not even about Trump, you know. No one here is likely to personally have any deal with Trump, anymore than we will be likely to meet wand work with DeSantis, Biden, or any of the other POTUS candidates. But whether we grant the grace to people we don't like, to be considered persons with the whole set of good and bad qualities, speaks to our own character.
Reply Quote
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 8:56a, 6/14/23
whiterock said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!


They aren't saying trump is a faith leader. Interestingly enough 1) assuming based on your posts you have judged trump and find him vile and dispocable, 2) you would recognize he is exactly who Jesus would have been spending all his time with



Jesus may have hung out with hos. He didn't hand out with re-hos, re-liars and re-crooks.
You don't know Jesus very well, apparently.


You're probably right.

Mathew 19:21 let's hang out in the chandelier bathroom and enjoy your wealth.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:08a, 6/14/23
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 9:11a, 6/14/23
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:13a, 6/14/23
The case doesn't help Trump because there was no dispute between Clinton and NARA. A third party was suing NARA for access to the tapes, and NARA was defending Clinton's classification of the tapes as personal records. In Trump's case there was a dispute, and NARA appropriately referred it to the DOJ.
Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 9:59a, 6/14/23
Oldbear83 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!


They aren't saying trump is a faith leader. Interestingly enough 1) assuming based on your posts you have judged trump and find him vile and dispocable, 2) you would recognize he is exactly who Jesus would have been spending all his time with



Jesus may have hung out with hos. He didn't hand out with re-hos, re-liars and re-crooks.
Playing Devil's Advocate here.

Where is your evidence that Donald has cheated on Melania from 2015 on?

This is not excusing his past, you understand, but what if he did change? What if Donald went from being a worthless git who only cared about himself, to caring about his wife and children and doing something worthwhile with his talents?

That would explain why Melania stayed with him after all the scandals.

That would explain a number of things.

The problem with hating people, is that the haters usually consider the target only as one-dimensional evil, a flat set of bad things with no redeeming qualities.

But what if Hillary Clinton really does love Bill? What if Barack Obama really did do what he thought was best for the country? I don't have to agree with their actions or agree with their opinions, to grant them personhood.

If, speaking hypothetically, Donald Trump did change, then he would need the help of faith leaders to know how to move forward. It's completely possible that Trump 2023 is a much better man than Trump 1996, say.

The lesson here is not even about Trump, you know. No one here is likely to personally have any deal with Trump, anymore than we will be likely to meet wand work with DeSantis, Biden, or any of the other POTUS candidates. But whether we grant the grace to people we don't like, to be considered persons with the whole set of good and bad qualities, speaks to our own characte
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 12:21p, 6/14/23
Oldbear83 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
Fre3dombear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Fre3dombear said:
boognish_bear said:


I thought Melani left him?


This is what I find amazing, Trump a faith leader! Studio 54 playboy and stripper conosuer a faith leader!


They aren't saying trump is a faith leader. Interestingly enough 1) assuming based on your posts you have judged trump and find him vile and dispocable, 2) you would recognize he is exactly who Jesus would have been spending all his time with



Jesus may have hung out with hos. He didn't hand out with re-hos, re-liars and re-crooks.
Playing Devil's Advocate here.

Where is your evidence that Donald has cheated on Melania from 2015 on?

This is not excusing his past, you understand, but what if he did change? What if Donald went from being a worthless git who only cared about himself, to caring about his wife and children and doing something worthwhile with his talents?

That would explain why Melania stayed with him after all the scandals.

That would explain a number of things.

The problem with hating people, is that the haters usually consider the target only as one-dimensional evil, a flat set of bad things with no redeeming qualities.

But what if Hillary Clinton really does love Bill? What if Barack Obama really did do what he thought was best for the country? I don't have to agree with their actions or agree with their opinions, to grant them personhood.

If, speaking hypothetically, Donald Trump did change, then he would need the help of faith leaders to know how to move forward. It's completely possible that Trump 2023 is a much better man than Trump 1996, say.

The lesson here is not even about Trump, you know. No one here is likely to personally have any deal with Trump, anymore than we will be likely to meet wand work with DeSantis, Biden, or any of the other POTUS candidates. But whether we grant the grace to people we don't like, to be considered persons with the whole set of good and bad qualities, speaks to our own character.


I don't have proof that he's cheated since 2015. There are people who say he tried.

This cheetah won't change his stripes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/05/10/trump-white-house-aides-say-they-told-higher-ups-about-trumps-inappropriate-behavior-towards-women/
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 12:36p, 6/14/23
I hope you are comfortable being judged by your own standard, then.
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:58p, 6/14/23
Reply Quote
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 3:35p, 6/14/23
boognish_bear said:
We stopped caring about the quality of judges right around this time;
https://www.foxnews.com/media/usa-today-ketanji-brown-jackson-marsha-blackburn
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:41p, 6/14/23
Reply Quote
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 6:32p, 6/14/23
Oldbear83 said:
I hope you are comfortable being judged by your own standard, then.


I don't mind anyone calling balls and stripes on me. It's the not calling balls and strikes that I disagree with.

If you called me amoral because I cheated on my first wife with my second wife and my second wife with my third wife and my third wife with a stripper and porn star?

I'd own it. What's funny is not that he's a cheater. It's that you'd try to draw a line in the sand and give him the benefit of the doubt. No, 83. He's what he is and he's perfectly fine taking you good men and ****ting on your values.

What I bet you'd not do draw a line in the sand for me and say, "Hey, he's been faithful since June 9th."
Reply Quote
2 edits
EatMoreSalmon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 8:27p, 6/14/23
Then.....

also call out Biden for being a habitual liar

call out Sheila Jackson Lee for being an instigator of violent behavior

call out democrat legislators for being doofuses to flee the state in a charter jet during covid

call out the leaders of the FBI that kept pushing the garbage fisa court requests on Trump and his associates

call out the garbage that was the first impeachment of Trump

call out the garbage that was the second impeachment of Trump

call out the FBI doofuses that continue to sit on the investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden for several years after obtaining real evidence of wrongdoing (by Hunter for sure)

call out the public defamation of Gorsouch without any real proof but flimsy hearsay


Don't neglect your balls and strikes duty if you don't like others not calling balls and strikes. you may have some catching up to do.


D.C. Bear had it right. After all the shenanigans perpetrated against Trump while he was in office, the people leading this latest investigation and its press coverage have lost much credibility. Even if the charges are true, who could trust the sources to be good at this point. They have burned their credibility. Good people don't know what to believe.
Those types of political games against Trump during his presidency are how demagogues and dictators are given cred enough to come to power. Just ask the Germans and Italians.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EatMoreSalmon • 8:36p, 6/14/23
EatMoreSalmon said:
Then.....

also call out Biden for being a habitual liar

call out Sheila Jackson Lee for being an instigator of violent behavior

call out democrat legislators for being doofuses to flee the state in a charter jet during covid

call out the leaders of the FBI that kept pushing the garbage fisa court requests on Trump and his associates

call out the garbage that was the first impeachment of Trump

call out the garbage that was the second impeachment of Trump

call out the FBI doofuses that continue to sit on the investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden for several years after obtaining real evidence of wrongdoing (by Hunter for sure)

call out the public defamation of Gorsouch without any real proof but flimsy hearsay


Don't neglect your balls and strikes duty if you don't like others not calling balls and strikes. you may have some catching up to do.


D.C. Bear had it right. After all the shenanigans perpetrated against Trump while he was in office, the people leading this latest investigation and its press coverage have lost much credibility. Even if the charges are true, who could trust the sources to be good at this point. They have burned their credibility. Good people don't know what to believe.
Those types of political games against Trump during his presidency are how demagogues and dictators are given cred enough to come to power. Just ask the Germans and Italians.


And the idiot left himself wide-open to this by playing games with NARA. This is self inflicted. All he had to do was follow instructions.
Reply Quote
Aliceinbubbleland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to EatMoreSalmon • 8:38p, 6/14/23
EatMoreSalmon said:
Then.....

also call out Biden for being a habitual liar
1. Ok. Maybe he forgets but he doesn't come close to the liar Trump.

call out Sheila Jackson Lee for being an instigator of violent behavior
2. No one likes this woman more than more I but what did she instigate other then we are going to have that woman as our mayor. Oh Yeah, damnit.

call out democrat legislators for being doofuses to flee the state in a charter jet during covid
3. Was it just them or did Cruz? I can't recall. Something about Cancun?

call out the leaders of the FBI that kept pushing the garbage fisa court requests on Trump and his associates

4. Trump confirmed Comey

call out the garbage that was the first impeachment of Trump
5. He absolutely deserved it and the failure to complete his impeachment gives us todays mess.

call out the garbage that was the second impeachment of Trump
6. The no guts guys in Congress failed to carry thought what would have rid us of Trump Cancer.

call out the FBI doofuses that continue to sit on the investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden for several years after obtaining real evidence of wrongdoing (by Hunter for sure)
7. No one would love to see the Biden's with egg on their face more than I but we've been hearing this over and over and over without proof. It's like the "Mexico is going to pay for it" wall.

call out the public defamation of Gorsouch without any real proof but flimsy hearsay
8. I don't know much about him.


Don't neglect your balls and strikes duty if you don't like others not calling balls and strikes. you may have some catching up to do.
9. This kindergarten tit for tat must stop somewhere.


D.C. Bear had it right. After all the shenanigans perpetrated against Trump while he was in office, the people leading this latest investigation and its press coverage have lost much credibility. Even if the charges are true, who could trust the sources to be good at this point. They have burned their credibility. Good people don't know what to believe.
Those types of political games against Trump during his presidency are how demagogues and dictators are given cred enough to come to power. Just ask the Germans and Italians.
10. I respect D.C. Bear here as an outstanding contributor but I was a little taken back when he described credibility.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.