Trump Had More Than 300 Classified Documents at Mar-a-Lago

Pity Trumps dementia has him grasping mementos and screaming “mine mine mine!”


Btw
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/trump-v-biden-the-senility-stakes.603026/

 

I think you will find the law is a bit more specific than that

 

There is no other source, period, accurate or not. None-the-less government often errs as you say. They have also been known to fudge. But we have to take what they say for some things.

I agree it is a selective choosing, and one should have many sources -- if I'm searching for how to do something I never ever accept the first google hit or use just one. It is all based on experience, your own knowledge, and continuing assessment and reassessment, and all based on human thinking so it is less than perfect.

 

Explanation of what possession means in law

 

After reading up on it a little, even Obama must present himself, probably has to get approved ahead of time, and account for anyone with him with proper documentation, before he could view the documents. And, there aren't any records in the Chicago storage area that are classified, at least the higher levels of them.
ALL the documents moved for Obama'a library are reviewed by NARA before they are even moved.
There is a huge difference to me between how Obama and other presidents have handled this compared to Trump.
Even Trump's own aides were bothered by the way the boxes of documents were removed from the White House. They were trying to get him to return them, and even discussed how to get them back without his knowledge, according to some anonymous sources but reported.
Sounds like we are mostly in agreement, but can we agree there is few (if any)similarities between the way Obama handled it and the way Trump handled it?
Had Trump handled it like Obama did/is, there would have been no issues. No reason to have a search warrant.
This situation is solely on Trump's narcissism and foolishness.
My personal theory is that Trump had run off or lost most of his wiser advisors by the end, waited until the last minute to pack up and move, and listened to the advise of a complete idiot (name escapes me at the moment) telling him the documents were his property and he could do what he wanted with them.
It's been reported that Trump usually went with the advise he wanted to hear. One top official said if you wanted to get Trump to do something, be the last person to advise him.

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/guid...-archives-and-records-administration-2020.pdf

Ok tell us where NARA has it wrong?

 

Just reminding everybody that today is "Affidavit" day down in Florida... the DOJ redactions are due to the judge by noon.

Sounds like the end of a Batman TV episode from the 60's

What will the DOJ try to redact? Or better yet, what will the DOJ allow to be released?
Will the judge accept that or ask for fewer redactions?
Will the judge release anything in the end?

Tune in next week for the thrilling Bat conclusion

 

Can't say any of this is wrong but the main question i have is how the stuff initially approved to go to Mar a lago. This isn't a situation where Trump pulls a van to the door, and they load. Trump was under extreme scrutiny after Jan 6th, I assure you everyone was watching every move. Did the GSA do their role? Where was NARA in the initial transition, was their conflict then? Where these documents part of the GSA packing up the President, were they logged, was there discussion about these, were they declassified by Trump, or were the documents snuck out by somebody like Berger did when he got caught sticking TS documents down his pants.

We'll eventually get all sides but now it's a shame Garland is being quite as a mouse on such a huge development that has the country dividing even further. It's even worse that we're now getting the shocking Nuke secret leaks and such. That's so counter productive and creates major distrust because the leak can only come from one place, the government.

 

No, I would say they were mostly similar with some notable differences -- as one wag said something approaching an overdue library book. There was nothing approaching a reasonable suspicion of a crime that warranted a raid and attendant search warrant. If NARA or the DOJ/FBI thought there were still documents that he shouldn't have take after readily and willingly returning 15 boxes when asked, 3 or 4 FBI and/or NARA agents should have gone to Mar A Lago and gone through the documents still there. The FBI did go there two months prior to the raid mostly to check the security (they asked Trump's people to add another lock on the door to the storeroom) and generally check things out. At the conclusion of their inspection they met with Trump in the dining hall where Trump said if there is anything else you might need or look at just give me a call and come back down. Did they take him up on his offer? Not in the least. Instead the conducted a carefully planned and timed three dozen agent (some armed) raid with no advanced warning. They did that because they wanted to raid the residence of a despised ex-president and didn't really give a hoot about some documents improperly taken away.

BTW, there is not a chance in hell that Trump packed his own boxes though he probably said, "Take this stuff and all of that stuff......" .

 

NARA doesn’t have it wrong. You do. You said

“And although he can possess them, they wanted them back in Washington.”

That’s wrong. He can’t possess presidential records. Your own link states explicitly that NARA takes custody of presidential records at the end of the presidency.

 

Didn't say there was. What the article DID say is that is both Mueller and Barr's opinion of the law

You can go on all you want about Clinton and FELONIES. I could go on about the FELONIES brought against Trump when he was impeached.....twice. I don't because both of those are irrelevant. Impeachments are political exercises.

BTW the Starr investigation was about finances and all they came up with was Lewinsky. Do you want to talk about Stormy Daniels?

No......again, not relevant. You're taking an extreme example to make your case and it's a poor attempt. You're argument is that you think I'm saying the President is above the law. They aren't.......but both Clinton and Trump thought they were. Clinton case was setteled. Trump's case.....

 

Invalid reply, cop outs are invalid.

 

Any act arising out of presidential duties and responsibilities, has historical value.

Therefore such physical work products belong to history, these could be documents, photos, tapes and the like, and history belongs to America, the people.

For No other person in the United States but the President that that can be said, because there is only one president.

Therefore the 1978 law is not about 'rights'. It's about an existential and unique fact of the President and the President's relation to history.

And, the law of copyrights does apply to everyone in the arena of personal items. If a WH photographer takes a photo of the President's pooch, the photo belongs to 'the people'. But if Press photog takes it, it belongs to the press. If the President takes it, it belongs to the PResident. Here, we are dealing with something that has nothing to do with the President's duties and responsibilities upholding the constitution he is entrusted to maintain. So, there are grey areas, no doubt.

 

A couple of things. First, I, like you, do not want trump to run again. What do you think the dems want? Seems to me that trump might be their best bet to retain the WH. If that's the case then the best argument you can make is that the dems have weaponized the doj in an effort to smear trump but in reality have no intentions of prosecuting. Plausible but pretty unlikely imo.
Second, WRT the classified docs - presumably they are classified in the first place because their discovery by foreign nationals would cause damage to the USA. Does that sound like something you'd like a dolt like trump to declassify willy nilly? Seems to me that before any classified material is declassified there should be an analysis phase to ensure that classification is not longer needed. the potus is not our king and we, the people, should be protected from our leaders' incompetence.

 

This is just stupid. Beyond words. Do you think trump even knows the contents of the documents he is "blanket declassifying"? Why would anyone want someone so f**king irresponsible anywhere near a leadership position?

 

Thanks for the info. Of course it makes complete sense.

 

Actually it says "I regret I wasted the time to read this nonsense. or

Has any violation of eh espionage act been officially charged or are you regurgitating NYT and Wa Poo blather.

then you guys must be up to your arm pits in it.

That some folks go ape-squat over semi-informed pieces in Democratic Propaganda Ministry crap.

 

Revised affidavit submitted... Would love to be a fly on the wall for these negotiations...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doj-submits-redacted-mar-lago-161800405.html

No ETA on judges decision, but I'd bet tomorrow COB is the target he's shooting for...

 

Are you referring to Trump or Biden???

 

I'll be shocked if Biden runs. Face it, asshat trump may be the dems only chance to keep the Oval Office.

 

obviously trump but I wouldn't trust Biden to blanket declassify hundreds of documents for the same reason.

 

So you're saying that, in every case, Prosecutors have first gotten a judge's approval for an indictment, before the pretrial hearing, at which point a judge-- a different one, presumably-- can throw out an indictment, for lack of evidence? That seems a little bit of a convoluted way of doing things, which is not to say that it may not very well be the way it is done. But it makes me wonder what criteria then, the first, indictment- granting judge, is using to determine whether or not to issue an indictment. I appreciate your taking the time to give me this info, which is new to me, but would you, by chance, be able to supply some source on this point?

EDIT: Or were you saying that, at the pretrial hearing, no indictment has yet been issued? This is so, even though the person in question may have already been arrested, and held in custody for some time (during which, another judge would have needed to have been involved, in the setting of bail)?

Yet, you suggest the mere "filing of a charge," by a District Attorney, does not automatically result in any action by either police, or the court? Or is there some difference between the practices, when a U.S. District Attorney does this, as opposed to a State's Attorney?

Weeds-- and a lot of questions-- I know. So thanks again, RodB, if you can at all clarify this for me.

 

Pretrial hearings follow an indictment and they are to decide how the trial will proceed and what the protocols, processes, and any special rules might be. A judge can throw out an indictment during pretrial hearings but that would be the same judge who issued the indictment in the first place (ignoring that the defendant can sometimes file for an action to remove the indictment and that might be with a different higher court -- I don't know the details here.) I don't know if it is common or not but I think a prosecutor can confer with a judge while he is considering asking for an indictment if the judge agrees. Filing a charge requires action by a judge because the judge decides whether or not to indict. At this stage law enforcement has no involvement other than as the prosecutor wants to prepare them or get some assistance. These judicial rules are for both federal attorneys and courts and for state and local attorneys and courts, though there could be some specific variances under state laws.

No problem. This stuff is important, necessary, and very complex...... which is why lawyers get the big bucks. (I am not a lawyer!)

 

No charges, no smoking gun, no jail, just more wasted tax dollars.

 

Redacted Affidavit to be released by noon tomorrow (Friday) per breaking news on MSNBC...

Cool... I'm guessing this will turn out to be a single patty burger with no veggies or sauce...