The USSC has ruled on the subject of the President and his/her plenary powers over classification and there is an unchallenged Appeals court that provides the President with similar authority to declare something personal vs Presidential in disputes with the Archives...
I honestly believe as a matter of principal most Americans have no issues with the duly elected top gun executive commander in chief having plenary power over classification and authority with other documentation issues.
Ultimately someone has to be in charge. The buck stops somewhere.
The President is the most powerful person on the planet, the person who has all the responsibility and the weight of the world on their shoulders. The idea that this person supposedly answers to people in the bureaucracy in regards to our biggest national security issues of the day is a logical stretch that goes beyond any reason.
In reality, our President literally answers to nobody on executive decisions.
I don't believe that these same people believed that Barack Obama needed Bob from the document center to babysit his classification paperwork. I don't believe that any of these critics thought that Clinton needed to clear his classification decisions with an underling before moving forward on national security issues. In fact I would argue that most of these liberals would give this same benefit of the doubt to either of the Bushes and almost certainly would have trusted Reagan with national security decisions.
Because... well... that is the job of the commander in chief.
The issue for these critics is that they never "really" considered Trump to be a real President. In their minds he was a fraud. He was somebody well below the dignity of the office. They never believed he should be given the same authority, the same responsibility, or most certainly not the same benefit of the doubt as other Presidents. In their mind, he needed to be babysat, his decisions needed to be second guessed and even overridden if need be. Certainly on important national security decisions, the authority could not reside with the bad orange man. The very idea is inconceivable.
But the reality is that he was everybit a President as any other President. His authority is the same as any President. The laws should (and ultimately will) treat him as any other President would be treated.
The USSC has ruled on this issue. No amount of left wing media punditry overrides that. Ultimately neither does Garland. He tries to push a charge against a President on a classification issue, it will end up working its way through the courts and back to the USSC.
Does anyone believe that there are five justices sitting on this court willing to overturn this long standing precedent and undermine all future Presidents... just to get the bad orange man?
37 comments:
I didn't even have to read all that you wrote above to find myself objecting,
"So you are saying we should not be concerned about an former president whose lawyer spoke for him without contradiction in saying that he had provided to he FBI all the requested documents when he had not."
Many Americans, including principled Republicans, do not agree.
Ch says
In reality, our President literally answers to nobody on executive decisions.
_______
If those decisions violate the Constitution and the laws, the President certainly does.
I thought he was a fraud from the day he rolled down the escalator. He was somebody well below the dignity of the office. I never believed he should be given the same authority, the same responsibility, or most certainly not the same benefit of the doubt as other Presidents.
Any of the other candidates were qualified and were responsible conservative candidates.
Sorry Scott but he is still the most dangerous man in our history.
If those decisions violate the Constitution and the laws, the President certainly does.
Again with the silly statement.
Who decides if something violates the constitution?
Is it a journalist on CNN?
Is it a writer linked on Politicalwire.com?
Is it an Attorney General who refused to ask his own Office of Legal Counsel?
Or is it the USSC who opined that in terms of Presidential authority over classification that it: flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.
Can you explain why you believe that the USSC precedent on Presidential classification doesn't matter?
"Former President Donald Trump is threatening a “major motion” involving the Fourth Amendment over the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago home.
He offered no details, though he appeared to be referring to a court action. The Fourth Amendment provides protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
A federal judge approved a warrant for the FBI to search Trump’s Mar-a-Lago social club and residence based on information provided by the Department of Justice.
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman speculated in a Twitter post that Trump was likely referring to a motion to suppress evidence, which people do after — not before — charges are filed. “And he’ll surely lose,” Litman wrote.
University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck noted that it’s currently “virtually impossible to sue federal law enforcement officers for even egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment,” much less in Trump’s case.
University of California, Berkeley, law professor Orin Kerr quipped that he’s “hearing if Trump files a major motion, DOJ is planning a super mega opposition to the motion.
Lawyer George Conway suggested that Trump would be better off sticking to the “Fifth.”
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Executive orders have been overturned by the Judicial branch.
Or is it the USSC who opined that in terms of Presidential authority over classification that it: flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.
__________
Nobody is questioning that a president, along with other important government leaders and agencies, has the power to classify and declassify documents. The question is whether Trump illegally removed documents from government property that no one had declassified.
I asked Roger previously and I will ask you Reverend...
If Garland goes ahead with indicting Trump over documentation issues. Either over classification or some sort of Archives dispute...
Or even if Trump decides to actually challenge this whole raid on the basis that they were not there for any real breakage of law....
Will this current USSC overturn the previous precedent on Presidential power on classification? Do you believe that this USSC will side "against" this precedent and pull a law out of their asses (that currently doesn't exist) that just creates a new restriction on Presidential powers?
Even if it might be a close call (and I don't believe it is) - would any of the Trump appointees rule against Trump on a close call that falls both in line with constitutionalism, textualism, as well as with Trump?
It’s not difficult to see Republicans coming to view DeSantis as a more serious version of Trump — and potentially a more electable one.
This isn’t an easy call. But throw in the perhaps-undersold possibility that Trump won’t actually run in 2024, and we put DeSantis at No. 1 by a hair.
Below are our latest rankings, in ascending order of likeliness.
Also mentioned: Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.), Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.), Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cheney, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and former New Jersey governor Chris Christie
_____
Abbott no
Rubio No
DeSantis No
The rest of them are very conservative but not fucking liar and wannabe Dictators
Nobody is questioning that a president, along with other important government leaders and agencies, has the power to classify and declassify documents. The question is whether Trump illegally removed documents from government property that no one had declassified.
If Trump says they were declassified (and he does) then the burden of proof is on the DOJ to prove that he did not have the authority to declassify them.
They are not going to make a historic makeshift charge against a former President (and likely political opponent of the current President) over semantic parsing of the letter of a law.
Ti
They will need to prove quite literally that Trump could not have declassified them when he said he did. They will have to prove that whatever hoops they say he was supposed to jump through are legally and constitutionally valid and that he knowingly broke them with some intent to harm the country with this material.
This isn't a philosophical or legal debate... they have to prove a real crime with a real intent.
Garland will not be provided the "benefit of the doubt" that the papers Trump had were not declassified by Trump. They WILL NEED TO PROVE that as the underlying basis of the crime.
Then... and only then...
Can they apply the Comey Clinton rule to the decision.
As in was there a proven intent to harm the country? If they were just sitting in a storage locker in his residence being monitored by the Secret Service and video surveillance....
that will not be a crime.
Oh... and obstruction?
They cannot charge obstruction without having already at least told him he was a criminal target of a specific criminal case.
oh and lastly...
A President does not box up his own stuff. That is done by other people associated with the procedure. According to the records, there were 62 boxes of stuff "inadvertently" sent to his home. Will the DOJ be able to prove that Trump even knew what was in all of these boxes and that information they were looking for was not part of what was accidently shipped to his residency?
There are so many holes in this potential case...
it's like swiss cheese.
Ch says
In reality, our President literally answers to nobody on executive decisions.
Which is exactly what he wants....a dictator to tell us all how to act.....the sign of a mind that does not give a shit about freedom or democracy just following the leader through the portals of hell!!!!!!
No Denny...
The USSC decision ruled that Presidents have plenary authority over classification issues. That is not "my opinion" but literally a court decision.
Don't like it... take it up with them!
Executive orders have been overturned by the Judicial branch.
Yep...
and that has nothing to do with this situation... because there was no overturning of any executive order by Trump.
The question is whether Trump illegally removed documents from government property that no one had declassified.
Actually answered in Bubba’s sock drawer
“Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them," Jackson noted. "Defendant considers this to be an 'extraordinary request' that is unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law. The Court agrees."
LMAO
The USSC decision ruled that Presidents have plenary authority over classification issues.
BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! IOW's he can disclose the football launch codes according to your biased and ignorant positions....Sorry sport, you really need to keep up!!!!
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/
Ch SAYS:
If Trump says they were declassified (and he does) then the burden of proof is on the DOJ to prove that he did not have the authority to declassify them.
I SAY:
If Trump says they were declassified that does not mean they were declassified. Delcassified documents must be labled as such and those found in Trump's possession were still labeled classified and classified Top Secret including those at the highest level of Top Secret.
Many Reublicans are asking, Why did he take them with him? And why did he claim to have given them all back when he was asked if he had given them all back?
“Trump is now inclined to launch his candidacy after the November elections, in part to avoid blame should an early announcement undermine the GOP’s effort to win control of Congress, said one person close to him, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk more freely.”
Why did Trump take those files?
Where all of that material ended up is not clear. What is plain, though, is that Mr. Trump’s haphazard handling of government documents — a chronic problem — contributed to the chaos he created after he refused to accept his loss in November 2020, unleashed a mob on Congress and set the stage for his second impeachment. His unwillingness to let go of power, including refusing to return government documents collected while he was in office, has led to a potentially damaging, and entirely avoidable, legal battle that threatens to engulf the former president and some of his aides.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/20/us/politics/trump-fbi-search.html
On Thursday's Tucker Carlson, Tucker read Republican candidates the riot act for failing to campaign intelligently, something that may mean that Republicans lose the Senate a second time and do so by a significant margin. People focused on Tucker's point that Republican candidates are not talking about the single most important issue for most voters: community safety and a secure border. However, Tucker made another important point that we need to recognize: Republican leadership — I'm looking at you, Mitch RINO McConnell — would rather hand the country over to the Democrats than risk any leadership roles.
Trump focused on Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Trump-endorsed Republican candidate in Pennsylvania. His opponent, John Fetterman, is a radical leftist who lived off his family's wealth until he was almost 50 before getting in politics, has been part of the government that has presided over Pennsylvania's partial collapse into anarchy, and is only somewhat recovered from a stroke. Pennsylvania is a conservative state outside the cities, and, while the cities are (of course) Democrat, they are getting destroyed by the crime wave Democrat politics have unleashed!!!!!!!!!
The demographics are why!
If Trump says they were declassified that does not mean they were declassified. Delcassified documents must be labled as such and those found in Trump's possession were still labeled classified and classified Top Secret including those at the highest level of Top Secret.
Well you know more than the USSC then, huh?
In theory... classified documents the President takes out of the White House because he/she will be working from another location need to be declassified. Those documents would not automatically have classifications "removed" from them on the spot.
Likewise if a President decides that someone without proper security clearance needs to see a document, are you suggesting that he must wait until someone else comes along and removes the classifications off the document before he can show the document?
This seems awful childish, Reverend.
People are literally arguing points that make no sense because they don't want to accept points that do make sense.
If the President has plenary authority to declassify documents (especially for emergency purposes) - the idea that they are not declassified until someone else comes along and creates a new document that is not classified or if someone else comes along and crosses it off sort of defeats that purpose...
Wouldn't you agree?
Again... the problem isn't with the logic.
It's with your inherent disbelief that Trump (as President) could not possibly HAVE NOT been monitored like a child by some government oversight.
Get past those two ideas:
That Trump was not a real President - he was
That Presidents do not have inherent authorities as CIC - they do
The rest seems like childish paperwork arguments.
You think Garland wants to bring the most controversial and country splitting charge in the history of the country... and be arguing about whether or not the plenary authority of a President was or was not handled in a fashion that some would prefer?
The idea of prosecuting an ex-President over an alleged paperwork argument that really has no precedent would be not in anyone's best interest. It would just further prove to Trump supporters the the FBI and DOJ is suffering from Trump derangement syndrome and are just using any pretence to "get him".
Again... the problem isn't with the logic.
Your logic IS BS>..... The rev has you by your short ones......and once again you have no fucking idea what handling TS documents are. sorry sport, all the sensitive information remains in the document no matter what you think.......you were wondering why it took 5 years to review Obama's files.....every piece needs to be sanitized of secure data11111
Reverend....
Instead of doing what literally NOBODY besides your and Roger want to do... which is sending me a multiple comment Cut and Paste that quite frankly does not address anything I have suggested...
Why don't you address the topic of discussion.
The USSC decision.
I really don't give a bigger shit what some random former FBI people say that is in direct opposition to what he USSC states...
Because "opinions" of low level agents that contradict USSC RULINGS are irrelevant to the discussion.
What it sounds like to me is that some of these people want a law that doesn't exist specific to the President... and whatever "concerns" they might have are strange considering their concern is only with one person.
If you can show me where Asha Rangappa stated the same thing about Hillary Clinton having Top Secret classified materials on a private server (rather than saving all the angst for Trump) then maybe... maybe... I might consider it a valid opinion.
you were wondering why it took 5 years to review Obama's files.....every piece needs to be sanitized of secure data
So you are suggesting Obama took classified documents with him as well that had to be filtered through?
Why was there no 30 armed FBI agent raid on his stuff?
That Trump was not a real President - he was
That Presidents do not have inherent authorities as CIC - they do
Not to mention a judge has said if the items are in his possession, you can’t go after them
Bubba’s sock drawer is precedent
LOL
Why didn't Bill Barr investigate Obama?
Because he didn't have any reasonable evidence.
Barr didn't investigate Obama because he was not deranged with hatred for the man...
Reverend...
Why does this "continue" to be an issue.
I get complaint after complaint after complaint about you and Roger cutting and pasting every fucking thread to death...
and then...
amazingly...
You actually agree and claim that you and Roger should do better than just cut and paste stuff THAT NOBODY WANTS TO READ...
Then a couple weeks later...
You are back to spamming the comment moderation with more cut and pasting (pretty much all cutting and pasting) and demanding that I am a "coward" or demanding that "I let people decide for themselves".
Guess what Reverend.
They did decide.
And everyone but you and Roger prefers the format as it is right now. To the degree they are complaining is that they still believe I am allowing too much of it to still get through.
You two have completely destroyed what once was a blog of reasonable "discussions" that were actually "between people". Nobody wants to open up a comment thread and see cut and paste after cut and paste after cut and paste after cut and paste... half of them having little to even do with the thread.
Post my last two short posts and let readers decide whether they have anything to do with what you claim.
So you are suggesting Obama took classified documents with him as well that had to be filtered through?
Only you are suggesting that asshole......but in order for them to be released, the govmet reviews every piece to ensure nothing is classified....Surprised a genius like you Scotty are so naive to think otherwise!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Well Reverend....
They were not "short" - they were near the limit of characters... and if people want to read them...
They can ask for them to be published.
Or perhaps you could give a summary and tell people where to go if they are actually interested.
I mean... even if you had a paragraph AND THEN explained in your own words why something is relative.
But this is exactly why we cannot have an open forum anymore. What you said on the original thread about how you promised to conduct yourself moving forward is long gone... and you are now pretty much back to spamming.
Only you are suggesting that asshole......but in order for them to be released, the govmet reviews every piece to ensure nothing is classified..
Well since they didn't do that with Obama... Obama had 33 million pages shipped to him in Chicago... Nothing was reviewed prior to him taking that.
What exactly are you suggesting happened?
Fact Check: Did Barack Obama Illegally Take 30 Million Pages of Documents to Chicago?
Trump and his allies have attempted to distract Americans from an ongoing criminal investigation by pushing false claims about Obama. The facts reveal why the two presidents' actions aren't comparable.
https://people.com/politics/fact-check-did-barack-obama-illegally-take-30-million-pages-classified-documents-chicago/
Obama didn't send documents to his home.
Trump did.
What's the difference between Donald Trump and a bird?
A bird can tweet.
Cheney is as much a part of the swamp as anyone else in and around the beltway, and she clearly doesn’t care at all about operating the January 6th committee in a credible way. It’s just a partisan tool for her that serves as a way to get the bad orange man while letting everyone else on the other side of the equation off the hook, including those actually in charge of security at the Capitol Building.
Post a Comment