Breaking News FBI raids Trump's Mar-a-Largo Resort home

Megadeath

Well-known member

And, again, classification isn't the only or even main issue.

The sheer, absolute, complete bold faced lie on this woman. Amazing to see. Bonus points to all the NPCs and 101% real people in the comments agreeing and urging her to run again and how much they love her.
Whilst I do believe what she did was stupid, wrong and quite likey illegal, is that not technically accurate? I'm not aware of any allegations that her emails did contain specifically classified documents rather than simply being a case of of government records improperly stored. Which, ironically, is the problem with what trump did too even if we ignore the classification issue.

Well, Things may be unravelling for the FBI and DOJ.

That guy has made some fairly questionable claims in the past, I wouldn't trust him on this one. I mean, his belief that Trump is operating a shadow government, or his entire book "President Trump and Our Post-Secular Future: How the 2016 Election Signals the Dawning of a Conservative Nationalist Age" didn't really pan out.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Whilst I do believe what she did was stupid, wrong and quite likey illegal, is that not technically accurate? I'm not aware of any allegations that her emails did contain specifically classified documents rather than simply being a case of of government records improperly stored. Which, ironically, is the problem with what trump did too even if we ignore the classification issue.
Ummm...dude...the investigating agent stated to congress that there was indeed classified material on her email servers, and that it was indeed a crime, but it's OK because there was no intent for the crime. So they weren't going to pursue charges and the AG shouldn't either.

In fact, this statute specifically DOES NOT require intent. Merely the fact of you mishandling the classifed data is justification for you to lose your clearance, lose your job, and get time at Leavenworth.

As for Trump, you CAN'T ignore the classification issue. If it's no longer classified, then there are NO security requirements for the storage of that info. Despite this, Trump agreed to store the material per instructions from the National Archives (extra lock). The raid is complete bogus and an exercise political ass covering by the FBI and Biden Admin.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
Ummm...dude...the investigating agent stated to congress that there was indeed classified material on her email servers, and that it was indeed a crime, but it's OK because there was no intent for the crime. So they weren't going to pursue charges and the AG shouldn't either.

In fact, this statute specifically DOES NOT require intent. Merely the fact of you mishandling the classifed data is justification for you to lose your clearance, lose your job, and get time at Leavenworth.

As for Trump, you CAN'T ignore the classification issue. If it's no longer classified, then there are NO security requirements for the storage of that info. Despite this, Trump agreed to store the material per instructions from the National Archives (extra lock). The raid is complete bogus and an exercise political ass covering by the FBI and Biden Admin.
"In the recent coverage that references her emails, former FBI Director James Comey is sometimes quoted as saying that of the 33,000 Clinton emails examined by bureau investigators, three had classification markings. That’s less than one-hundredth of one percent, and not worth comparing to Trump’s malfeasance anyway, but it’s still false -- apparently meant to bolster Comey’s absurd claim that other Clinton emails were “classified” although never marked as such.

Those three State Department documents were “call sheets,” innocuous memos reminding Clinton to make scheduled phone calls. During her FBI interview, investigators showed her one of those memos, reminding her to place a condolence call to the president of Malawi--not exactly a top secret matter. As Comey himself later admitted, any classification marking on that sheet had been wrongly applied."

As for the classification mattering with Trump... It is not about the security standards for handling the documents. Or at least, not entirely. The more important issue (And I'm saying this for what has to be at least the 10th time.) is that they were government records. Trump was not the government. He should not have taken them. They asked for them back. He should have given them. Instead, he and his people hid them, obfuscated things, and outright lied that they didn't have any.

It should not be controversial, or even need saying, that the government has the right to possess government records. These were not notes trump wrote as reminders to himself, or polling figures from his election campaign. They were reports from government agencies. As soon as trump stopped being president, regardless of his clearance to know the information in them, he had absolutely no more right to possess or even access them than any other member of the public.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
The only reason she gets away with it is because, like the rest of the establishment, she exist within a seemingly-impenetrable echo chamber where nobody would even think to criticize or disagree with her. From her perspective, she is the god of her own little world; and our lot in life is to be her worshipers.
I mean, there were inquiries launched by two trump appointed secretaries of state. Both Rex tillerson and Mike pompeo had a go criticising and disagreeing with her. The first found that her actions were in keeping with proper security protocol but improper for being unethical which is the same as was the case for Colin Powell or Karl Rove, and better than was the case with Ivanka's own use of a personal email account.

Mike pompeo's cleared her on the grounds that she hadn't actually sent anything that was classified, but rather only things that had been classified at a later date.

Now, obviously neither she nor anyone else in government should be using personal email servers and the fact that situations can change such that stuff becomes more important later down the line is one part of why. It's ridiculous though to compare that to wandering out of office with several folders marked top secret, and also a misdemeanour which is hardly unique to Clinton.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
As for the classification mattering with Trump... It is not about the security standards for handling the documents. Or at least, not entirely. The more important issue (And I'm saying this for what has to be at least the 10th time.) is that they were government records. Trump was not the government. He should not have taken them. They asked for them back. He should have given them. Instead, he and his people hid them, obfuscated things, and outright lied that they didn't have any.

You can say it ten times, you can say it a hundred times, that does not make this true.

The president is allowed to take records with him when he leaves office. Not only that, but Trump is far from being the only President to do so; I believe every living president has such.

Here, I'll post this again:


Standing legal precedent is that the President gets to determine what is and is not a personal record. Why are you even posting on this thread if you aren't going to listen to anything anyone else says?
 

Blasterbot

Well-known member
You can say it ten times, you can say it a hundred times, that does not make this true.

The president is allowed to take records with him when he leaves office. Not only that, but Trump is far from being the only President to do so; I believe every living president has such.

Here, I'll post this again:


Standing legal precedent is that the President gets to determine what is and is not a personal record. Why are you even posting on this thread if you aren't going to listen to anything anyone else says?
hell Clinton took the silverware and more alongside some documents just because.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
You can say it ten times, you can say it a hundred times, that does not make this true.

The president is allowed to take records with him when he leaves office. Not only that, but Trump is far from being the only President to do so; I believe every living president has such.

Here, I'll post this again:


Standing legal precedent is that the President gets to determine what is and is not a personal record. Why are you even posting on this thread if you aren't going to listen to anything anyone else says?
Lol, that's pretty rich. Look back through, and how many times do you count me saying "It's not about the classification." and someone else replying with some variant of "But he did declassify them!"? As for the article, it's behind a pay wall. Since I've got no interest in giving money to the mouthpiece of some cultist nutjob, I guess we're at an impasse on debating that.

As for the rest, yes presidents fo typically take personal records with them when they leave office. Typically things like the agenda or minutes from meetings, memos between departments or individuals, visitor logs and official diaries. The kind of thing that's designed to serve as an aide de memoir when they write their autobiography down the line. I'm not aware of any other president deciding that agency reports to the government constituted their own personal records. There's also a correct procedure to follow to indicate records as such before actually leaving office and taking them with you. It hasn't necessarily always been strictly followed and that's typically drawn relatively mild admonishment, but then they're not typically talking about top secret reports that the former president lied to try and hide either.

Finally, AFAIK, trump isn't even trying to assert that claim in any legal sense. Hell, he doesn't even seem to be sticking by the "declassified" thing when it comes to the court since his legal team indicated that the "special master" who'd be reviewing the confiscated documents would need the relevant clearance. He literally hasn't made any legal contest on either the grounds of classification, nor on the personal records basis.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
"In the recent coverage that references her emails, former FBI Director James Comey is sometimes quoted as saying that of the 33,000 Clinton emails examined by bureau investigators, three had classification markings. That’s less than one-hundredth of one percent, and not worth comparing to Trump’s malfeasance anyway, but it’s still false -- apparently meant to bolster Comey’s absurd claim that other Clinton emails were “classified” although never marked as such.

Those three State Department documents were “call sheets,” innocuous memos reminding Clinton to make scheduled phone calls. During her FBI interview, investigators showed her one of those memos, reminding her to place a condolence call to the president of Malawi--not exactly a top secret matter. As Comey himself later admitted, any classification marking on that sheet had been wrongly applied."

As for the classification mattering with Trump... It is not about the security standards for handling the documents. Or at least, not entirely. The more important issue (And I'm saying this for what has to be at least the 10th time.) is that they were government records. Trump was not the government. He should not have taken them. They asked for them back. He should have given them. Instead, he and his people hid them, obfuscated things, and outright lied that they didn't have any.

It should not be controversial, or even need saying, that the government has the right to possess government records. These were not notes trump wrote as reminders to himself, or polling figures from his election campaign. They were reports from government agencies. As soon as trump stopped being president, regardless of his clearance to know the information in them, he had absolutely no more right to possess or even access them than any other member of the public.
Actually, Trump has every right to hold onto his personal records from his time in office, and anything else he declassified; his standing order that anything at MAL was declassed seems to be being ignored by you and the Biden Admin.

Also, where do you think Obama, Bush, and Clinton got all the stuff for their 'presidential libraries'; what Trump did is not out of the ordinary, most POTUS's do similar when leaving office.

Of course people like you do not care how many laws, legal precedents, and limits are broken to get at Trump, and you uncritically believe the mainstream lies about Trump, so you parrot the same bullshit talking points the other NPCs say.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Lol, that's pretty rich. Look back through, and how many times do you count me saying "It's not about the classification." and someone else replying with some variant of "But he did declassify them!"? As for the article, it's behind a pay wall. Since I've got no interest in giving money to the mouthpiece of some cultist nutjob, I guess we're at an impasse on debating that.

The relevant part of the article is above the paywall 'cover.'

Since apparently this is too hard for you though, I'll make it even simpler.


And here's the money quote:

"
"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.
"

To emphasize:
"In his sole discretion."
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Actually, Trump has every right to hold onto his personal records from his time in office, and anything else he declassified; his standing order that anything at MAL was declassed seems to be being ignored by you and the Biden Admin.

Also, where do you think Obama, Bush, and Clinton got all the stuff for their 'presidential libraries'; what Trump did is not out of the ordinary, most POTUS's do similar when leaving office.

Of course people like you do not care how many laws, legal precedents, and limits are broken to get at Trump, and you uncritically believe the mainstream lies about Trump, so you parrot the same bullshit talking points the other NPCs say.

People kinda forget that if a President decides to declassify everything, burn every single foreign asset/spy in the field. Out every single secret up too and including ordering no redactions from what I understand that President has the power to do so, irrespective of the national and international damage it would do.
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
people kinda forget that if a President decides to declassify everything, burn every single foreign asset/spy in the field. Out every single secret up too and including ordering no redactions from what I understand that President has the power to do so, irrespective of the national and international damage it would do.
Yep.

The POTUS has sole delassification authority, and while they are still POTUS, they can declass anything they want, at any time they wish. However a sitting POTUS does not have the power to reclassify things a previous president declassed, which seems to be what Biden is attempting to do with his raid and the bullshit the powers in DC are spinning to justify it.

And plenty of people who already hated Trump or just disliked him aren't going to be interested in the details of why what happened is illegal and a massive breach of US legal precedent, most will only hear the spin and look no farther or do not want to see anything saying they are wrong.

We are a banana republic because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and I doubt our old Constitutional republic will ever be restored so long as things continue as they are.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Yep.

The POTUS has sole delassification authority, and while they are still POTUS, they can declass anything they want, at any time they wish. However a sitting POTUS does not have the power to reclassify things a previous president declassed, which seems to be what Biden is attempting to do with his raid and the bullshit the powers in DC are spinning to justify it.

And plenty of people who already hated Trump or just disliked him aren't going to be interested in the details of why what happened is illegal and a massive breach of US legal precedent, most will only hear the spin and look no farther or do not want to see anything saying they are wrong.

We are a banana republic because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and I doubt our old Constitutional republic will ever be restored so long as things continue as they are.

We arn't a banna republic because of TDS, we are a banana republic because modernity or our part of the civilizational cycle is ending, and during that period what normally happens is that elites become cultlike and stupid. Same shit went down during the end of the roman republic.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
We arn't a banna republic because of TDS, we are a banana republic because modernity or our part of the civilizational cycle is ending, and during that period what normally happens is that elites become cultlike and stupid. Same shit went down during the end of the roman republic.
Again, we aren't Rome, and no 'modernaity' is not what has caused this mess.

Working under those assumptions is why the Right in the US keeps losing ground; it's makes them operate under false assumptions about sources and solutions to issues.

But I know you and many others on the Right have a boner for seeing the US as Rome and wanting to make predictions of it to cope with how things are spiraling out of control.

We are in uncharted civilizational waters because of the tech and weapons we as a nation and frankly species possess have removed many limits on how destructive one person's suicidal glory impulse can be, and you fools keep wanting to wax on about fucking lead drinkers like they were the height of human civilization and everyone is doomed to repeat their cycle.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Again, we aren't Rome, and no 'modernaity' is not what has caused this mess.

Working under those assumptions is why the Right in the US keeps losing ground; it's makes them operate under false assumptions about sources and solutions to issues.

But I know you and many others on the Right have a boner for seeing the US as Rome and wanting to make predictions of it to cope with how things are spiraling out of control.

We are in uncharted civilizational waters because of the tech and weapons we as a nation and frankly species possess, and you fools keep wanting to wax on about fucking lead drinkers like they were the height of human civilization and everyone is doomed to repeat their cycle.

We are not special, dispite our technology dispite our new tools we are not smarter then the peoples of the mediterarians civilization or the bronze age civilization that came before. We simply stand upon the shoulders of giants.

Everything in life is a series of actions and reactions. Western society after napoleon went into a phase of mass social experiementation. Some of this was good some of this was bad, but eventally you get to the point where the experiments must end and must be judged on their own merits. After this a civilization more or less reaches its final form.

That's why things have gone in sane, every one with a dream of totally remaking society instintively feels the ticking of a clock and sees that the time to try anything crazy is coming to an end and the people who just want things to be stable are provoked like hell because this will get worse and worse.

It will most likely end in violence and with a tramatized west swearing off any and all social experimentation for centuries.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
The relevant part of the article is above the paywall 'cover.'

Since apparently this is too hard for you though, I'll make it even simpler.


And here's the money quote:

"
"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.
"

To emphasize:
"In his sole discretion."
This is quite a fascinating topic, and I'm really glad it's been brought up. However, I have to say that upon reading the decision I don't think it's nearly as on point as you allege. [edit: this got super long so I'll put the quoted passages in spoilers, with minor exceptions.]

FIRST, the decision notes that
"The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” "

I suppose this would be the point at which the President or his agents make the said decision whether something is a Presidential or personal record. I would be very, very surprised if Trump or his administration determined at that time that the documents in question (that prompted the seizure) were personal. The decision is not made retrospectively.

SECOND, it notes that
"The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records."

The idea that the Trump documents in question fit this description is truly lolworthy. (As is, frankly, Judicial Watch's argument that NARA not disputing Clinton's designation of his tapes as [correction:] personal records was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and in violation of the PRA".)

(The description (of Presidential records) is:
"Documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."
It could be argued that Clinton's tapes fit this description, but I think the tapes, as described in the court's decision, fit the other definition also—and better.)

THIRD, regarding the "money quote", the first part continues,
"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion, see 44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), so the Deputy Archivist could not and did not make a classification decision that can be challenged here. When she posited that perhaps the plaintiff was asking NARA “to make a further determination that the materials in question ought to be considered ‘[P]residential records,’” she was, if anything, as counsel for the defendant suggested at the hearing, opining on the question of whether there were grounds for the Archivist to choose to invoke the enforcement mechanism embodied in the statute. Tr. at 8; 23–24. But, neither plaintiff nor defendant believes that is a decision that is at issue in this lawsuit, see id., at 8–9, 37, 42, and 50, and, as is discussed below, such a decision would not be reviewable in any event."

So, notwithstanding the President's "sole discretion", yet NARA can possibly have grounds to invoke the enforcement mechanism: 44 USC 2112(c)
"When the Archivist considers it to be in the public interest, he may exercise, with respect to papers, documents, or other historical materials deposited under this section, or otherwise, in a Presidential archival depository, all the functions and responsibilities otherwise vested in him pertaining to Federal records or other documentary materials in his custody or under his control. The Archivist, in negotiating for the deposit of Presidential historical materials, shall take steps to secure to the Government, as far as possible, the right to have continuous and permanent possession of the materials."

The decision refers to a prior set of decisions regarding Bush I whose money quote may be:
"[C]ourts are accorded the power to review guidelines outlining, what is, and what is not, a ‘presidential record’ under the terms of the PRA. The PRA does not bestow on the President the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review."

The second part of your money quote does not apply to the current situation, which depends on whether the records in question are Presidential or personal:
"The court stated that Armstrong I only barred judicial review of “creation, management, and disposal decisions” of the President and not “the initial classification of existing materials.” " Keeping in mind that the initial classification (as either Presidential or personal) is the only classification by the President. In other words, the President can do whatever he wants with his personal records, including destroy them; and he can do whatever he wants with his Presidential records, including destroy them if he notifies NARA 60 days in advance; but his ability to decide which of those things is which (and therefore which of them he gets to take home as personal property after his time in office) (1) must occur at the time of the document's creation or receipt and not retrospectively during or after his term, and is signified by how the documents are then treated; and (2) is not necessarily beyond the power of others to question—although "The thrust of the Armstrong II opinion was the differentiation between agency records and Presidential records – not, as in this case, between personal records and Presidential records."

In fact, and this is where I come closest to agreeing with you, this particular decision seems here to outline, but stop short of endorsing, a maximalist view that the President can arbitrarily declare whatever he wants as personal (but at the moment of creation):
"Notably, the D.C. Circuit did not insist: “We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as personal records.” In other words, Armstrong II did not announce that there was any limit to the President’s discretion to segregate materials as personal even though it did conclude that the courts could play some role in overseeing the decision to classify agency records as presidential. Thus, a close reading of the Armstrong II decision suggests that the limited judicial review authorized by the D.C. Circuit left untouched that portion of Armstrong I that gave the President unfettered control over his own documents. Some of the language in Armstrong II led another court in this district to comment that “Armstrong II does not necessarily foreclose judicial review of a decision to denominate certain materials ‘personal records’ of a former President.” Am. Historical Ass’n v. Peterson, 876 F. Supp. 1300, 1314 (D.D.C. 1995). While that may be true, the D.C. Circuit has not yet blessed it either."

The Court of this decision "has seriously [sic] doubts about whether the former President’s retention of the audiotapes as personal is a matter that is subject to judicial review. But the Court need not decide this question [...]" and therefore did not do so.

IN CLOSING: For me the real money quote of this decision is footnote 9:
"Presidential records are defined as those “documentary materials . . . which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the . . . official or ceremonial duties of the President,” 44 U.S.C. § 2201(2), and the statute defines personal records as those materials which do not, id. § 2201(3). Plaintiff’s suggestion that a verbatim recording of the President carrying out his duties “relates to” his carrying out of those duties has some force. But that is not the end of the inquiry. Section 2201(3)(A) goes on to specify that diaries or their functional equivalent, “which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business” are personal. Id. § 2201(3)(A). So the classification depends not upon what the tapes contain, but what the President prepared them for and what he did with them. Plaintiff has alleged no facts that would suggest that the tapes were circulated to anyone beyond the former President and the historian, or that they were used (as opposed to generated) in the course of transacting official business."

It strains credulity, to say the least, that the (currently, formerly, or un-) classified documents we saw in the FBI photos were not "prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business." It does not so strain credulity to say this of the Clinton tapes that were the subject of the JW lawsuit.

However, that is not directly on point to your argument that the court's decision reaffirms the President's sole (i.e. unreviewable) authority to determine whether a given record is personal or Presidential. I agree that the court seemed to lean towards that view, but it specifically did not make that determination. And on that question, I would argue (contrary to the suggestion of the court) that the Armstrong II precedent does assert the power of review over the guidelines and, implicitly in the case of personal records and explicitly in the case of presidential records, whether that guideline was followed.

THANK YOU for raising this topic.
 
Last edited:

Spartan303

In Captain America we Trust!
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Osaul
What do you mean undefeated?
-

What he's saying is that, 'Culturally', the Right has been absolutely winning on nearly every front. Where as for nearly 6 Decades the Left had been utterly dominating culture. In 2 years the Right has reversed a lot of their victories despite not having an honest media establishment. A pure grassroots movement has taken form in its absence. This is nothing short of incredible. It hasn't been without its setbacks, mind you. But the pendulum is swinging back to the Right. The Left knows this and so their responses are to get louder, meaner and escalation. It works in the short term but then consequences happen and the Right adapts and overcomes.

We are now in a network society where information is not controlled by the globalist elite few. The widespread use of the Internet has quite literally made this possible. Its out there for all to see. And people don't like what they are seeing and are taking action.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
What do you mean undefeated?
-

I mean everyone is turning on the left over pedoscceptance and troons. I mean the si called moderate right is losing more and more ground and more and more Americans are antiestablishment and mistrusting of the narrative

There's more and more pushback against woke entertainment and the response to the great boomer walkathon into the capitol building just enraged the public.

The right isn't losing.

The uniparty/monoculture is.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top