whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

I'm analyzing, not campaigning. I know it's hard to remember the difference.

Doc Holliday said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Trump continues to out himself as a thundering dumbass and some of you continue to double down. Even Obama is amazed at that level of devotion.

Jesus, have some semblance of self-worth.

-2020 Trump voter

---

The only dumbasses are those that want Trump locked up and are completely fine if nobody else is held accountable.

---

I think most people on this site and in general are happy that if someone breaks the Law, they get punished for it, if Hilary or Biden broke the law, then yeah, they should be tried in a court of their peers and if found guilty, should be appropriately punished.

The fact that they haven't (despite the fact Hilary was investigated by the DoJ) implies at the very least that there isn't enough evidence to make a trial worthwhile and could at the other end of the spectrum mean they haven't done anything illegal.

The fact that Trump has been indicted/charged on several counts also implies that they feel there is sufficient evidence to find him guilty (Think what you like, but i seriously doubt that they would charge a former President with anything if they didnt have some kind of evidence that he did something illegal)

---

Comey said Hillary did break laws, so explain that.

---

Sure.

Comey is law enforcement.

That should be enough to answer the question but it probably isn't.

Comey is not a prosecutor, who decides whether there is enough evidence to put a case before a jury.

Comey is not the judge or jury who eventually decide whether laws were broken.

So what Comey thinks about Sen. Clinton is a few steps removed from where we are with Pres. Trump.

I wished this coud be ended by Christmas but that's like believing in Santa Claus.

Quote:

---

Settle in, America: This could take a while.

When Special Counsel Jack Smith announced last week that a federal grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump, he made a point of saying that the government would "seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest." Whether Trump gets one could determine whether he goes to prison for his alleged crimes.

In just over 18 months, Trump could be serving as president again, at which point he'd be in a position to attempt to pardon himself or instruct the Department of Justice to dismiss its case against him. That might seem like a long way away, but for the nation's tortoiselike federal-court system, it's not.

Complex, high-profile cases sometimes take years to get to trial, and former federal prosecutors told me that, even under the fastest scenarios, Trump's trial won't begin for several months and potentially for more than a year. Trump may well be waiting for a trial when voters cast their presidential ballots next fall. Although Smith will do all he can to hurry up the prosecution, the former president's legal team could move to dismiss the chargesthough that would almost certainly be futileand file other pretrial motions in order to bog down the process.

---

The Atlantic

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I wished this coud be ended by Christmas but that's like believing in Santa Claus.

Quote:

---

Settle in, America: This could take a while.

When Special Counsel Jack Smith announced last week that a federal grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump, he made a point of saying that the government would "seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest." Whether Trump gets one could determine whether he goes to prison for his alleged crimes.

In just over 18 months, Trump could be serving as president again, at which point he'd be in a position to attempt to pardon himself or instruct the Department of Justice to dismiss its case against him. That might seem like a long way away, but for the nation's tortoiselike federal-court system, it's not.

Complex, high-profile cases sometimes take years to get to trial, and former federal prosecutors told me that, even under the fastest scenarios, Trump's trial won't begin for several months and potentially for more than a year. Trump may well be waiting for a trial when voters cast their presidential ballots next fall. Although Smith will do all he can to hurry up the prosecution, the former president's legal team could move to dismiss the chargesthough that would almost certainly be futileand file other pretrial motions in order to bog down the process.

---

The Atlantic

---

Pretrial motions are not for bogging down the system, they are for asserting rights. The Atlantic should know better.

The next big trial going forward will be on CNN and FOX over the qualifications of the Judge. I can already see Wolf's eyes buldging in anger and Sean smiling.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

Amusing. Argue for political prosecution on grounds that weaponizing the DOJ is "principled".

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.

THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.

In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.

The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.

David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.

For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.

Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.

Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."

"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."

Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.

In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.

The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP

---

The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.

Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?

Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......

But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.

---

The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.

---

Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.

---

You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.

If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.

That is all.

We have always had a two-tiered justice system ... those with money have exponentially better outcomes than those without ... now we have added myraid new tiers:
- Republicans get prosecuted where Democrats do not
- White people get prosecuted when bleks do not
- Violent crime do not get prosecuted where paper crimes do

We have the world's largest banana republic run by affirmative action hires.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.

That is all.

---

Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

Amusing. Argue for political prosecution on grounds that weaponizing the DOJ is "principled".

---

People are principled, not institutions. You're arguing to be as unprincipled as the people you are angry about.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.

That is all.

---

Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.

---

Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.

It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,

Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.

The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

Amusing. Argue for political prosecution on grounds that weaponizing the DOJ is "principled".

---

People are principled, not institutions. You're arguing to be as unprincipled as the people you are angry about.

---

"Principled" is standing by someone's rights even when you don't like them. Folding and twisting law to go after people you don't like, that's unprincipled and you know it.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

We have always had a two-tiered justice system ... those with money have exponentially better outcomes than those without ... now we have added myraid new tiers:
- Republicans get prosecuted where Democrats do not
- White people get prosecuted when bleks do not
- Violent crime do not get prosecuted where paper crimes do

We have the world's largest banana republic run by affirmative action hires.

---

Nonsense

In a banana republic political elites are shielded from prosecution. And political opponents are disappeared, it executed or sent to a gulag or reeducation camp.

President Trump will get a trial where he will be represented by... I dunno, the last lawyer standing. As the one termer used to say, no one is above the law. He will have rights guaranteed under our Constitution, where his two impeachments will not be held against him. He will get a chance to testify and explain why he refused to turn over documents in response to subpoena that, look, look at this, he knew were classified.

But if making this about race makes you feel better then speak your fourteen words

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.

THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.

In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.

The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.

David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.

For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.

Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.

Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."

"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."

Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.

In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.

The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP

---

The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.

Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?

Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......

But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.

---

The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.

---

Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.

---

You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.

---

Well, I don't get how Democrats can not be prosecuted for keeping tens of thousands of official documents, hundreds of them classified, on a private server in a private residence then destroy them with hammer and chemicals when they fell under subpoena. But if we're going to let that slide for an appointed official, we have to let it slide for an elected official.

Good grief, man. ONE standard.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.

That is all.

---

Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.

---

Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.

It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,

Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.

The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.

---

It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.

You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?

"These are all simple yes and no answers."

Actually, that is not at all true. But Red Queens have no use for Due Process. They see punishment as the only acceptable outcome.

"I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out"

All this effort to put a man in prison for the rest of his life ... for a document argument. Look where you stand sir, it is the 'swamp'.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.

THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.

In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.

The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.

David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.

For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.

Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.

Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."

"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."

Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.

In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.

The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP

---

The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.

Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?

Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......

But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.

---

The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.

---

Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.

---

You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.

---

Well, I don't get how Democrats can not be prosecuted for keeping tens of thousands of official documents, hundreds of them classified, on a private server in a private residence then destroy them with hammer and chemicals when they fell under subpoena. But if we're going to let that slide for an appointed official, we have to let it slide for an elected official.

Good grief, man. ONE standard.

---

It was not an FBI/Grand Jury subpoena. The FBI and Republican Senate found her team destroyed them in the ordinary course of business and otherwise found no wrongdoing on Hillary's part. And, regardless, the info was only destroyed on her server. They remained on the government server, so they were not destroyed.

I believe the jury will rule in Trump's favor. But he will not win on the law, and his case is far different (and worse) than Hillary's and Biden's.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out"

All this effort to put a man in prison for the rest of his life ... for a document argument. Look where you stand sir, it is the 'swamp'.

---

Did he do it?

Put away for life? You really think this is going to end up with jail time? He has no record, it will be probation and a fine. No way he gets jail time, that is just an extremist view to not make him be accountable for his actions.

Accountable for actions and decisions, is a good thing right? Or, is that just for the poor kid who took out student loans and must live with their decision...

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out"

All this effort to put a man in prison for the rest of his life ... for a document argument. Look where you stand sir, it is the 'swamp'.

---

If that were Hillary you'd be all over her ass and for conviction but it's your parties creep so he can do as he pleases and I'll just complain the other side is guilty too.

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.

THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.

In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.

The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.

David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.

For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.

Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.

Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."

"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."

Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.

In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.

The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP

---

The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.

Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?

Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......

But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.

---

The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.

---

Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.

---

You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.

---

Well, I don't get how Democrats can not be prosecuted for keeping tens of thousands of official documents, hundreds of them classified, on a private server in a private residence then destroy them with hammer and chemicals when they fell under subpoena. But if we're going to let that slide for an appointed official, we have to let it slide for an elected official.

Good grief, man. ONE standard.

---

It was not an FBI/Grand Jury subpoena. The FBI and Republican Senate found her team destroyed them in the ordinary course of business and otherwise found no wrongdoing on Hillary's part. And, regardless, the info was only destroyed on her server. They remained on the government server, so they were not destroyed.

---

You won't get a response to this, but it's worth quoting in case anyone missed it.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.

THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.

In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.

The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.

David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.

For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.

Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.

Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."

"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."

Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.

In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.

The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP

---

The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.

Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?

Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......

But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.

---

The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.

---

Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.

---

You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.

---

Well, I don't get how Democrats can not be prosecuted for keeping tens of thousands of official documents, hundreds of them classified, on a private server in a private residence then destroy them with hammer and chemicals when they fell under subpoena. But if we're going to let that slide for an appointed official, we have to let it slide for an elected official.

Good grief, man. ONE standard.

---

Yet, Trump's DOJ didn't indict? Shouldn't Trump and Sessions be held accountable for that?

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out"

All this effort to put a man in prison for the rest of his life ... for a document argument. Look where you stand sir, it is the 'swamp'.

---

If that were Hillary you'd be all over her ass and for conviction but it's your parties creep so he can do as he pleases and I'll just complain the other side is guilty too.

---

So you're a psychic? Go open a 1-800 number but judging from this effort don't quit your day job.

Just admit you have a jones for going after Trump, and stop pretending you give a damn about Justice.

I cannot understand putting forth an argument that the other side gets away with it so my guy shouldn't be charged for breaking the law either..

All sidebar discussions aside, a trial is about guilt or innocent of the charges specific to a person, not a party.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I cannot understand putting forth an argument that the other side gets away with it so my guy shouldn't be charged for breaking the law either..

All sidebar discussions aside, a trial is about guilt or innocent of the charges specific to a person, not a party.

---

If a guy runs a red light, he belongs in traffic court, not charged with rape.

Same here, this is a PRA issue, not Espionage.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

Bingo!

Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to federal charges on Tuesday, with the typical array of supporters and opponents. It's depressing to think this could continue for another two years as the indictment and trial dominate the 2024 presidential campaign. Republican primary voters may be the last resort to spare the country this fate.
The shame is that this is exactly what both Mr. Trump and the White House want. Mr. Trump would rather not be charged, but he is already brandishing the indictments against him as a campaign credential. He's all but saying Republicans must nominate him as the only defense Americans have against Democrats and the deep state. Democrats want to run against Mr. Trump because they think he'd be the easiest Republican to beat, or to ruin in office if he does win again.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-indictment-classified-documents-mar-a-lago-merrick-garland-republican-party-f8c5776b?mod=hp_opin_pos_5#cxrecs_s

ATL Bear said:

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

Agree 100%

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"

The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.

Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc

---

Not a terribly germane argument you've made

I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.

The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.

But let’s get into the details.

Here are my 6 key points on the case:

— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023

---

Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.

You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

If you really care about accountability, that's absolutely right. You're not talking to people who really care about accountability.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.

That is all.

---

Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.

---

Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.

It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,

Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.

The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.

---

It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.

You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?

---

Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.

Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?

one standard, for all.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out"

All this effort to put a man in prison for the rest of his life ... for a document argument. Look where you stand sir, it is the 'swamp'.

---

If that were Hillary you'd be all over her ass and for conviction but it's your parties creep so he can do as he pleases and I'll just complain the other side is guilty too.

---

I was all over her ass for sure when she destroyed 30k subpoena'd government records later discovered to contain hundreds of classified documents, due to having done business for two years as SECSTATE on a personally owned server maintained in a closet in a restroom of her personal residence (over the protestations of DOS/SEC).

But "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue such a case.

Ok. If that's the standard....that's the standard. For everyone.