“Article II
....
SECTION 2. The President...may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices...”
Obviously, the President often needs to retain such writings after leaving office since backbiting by underlings is very likely after a President’s term in office ends.
Oh no Surrender Monkeys you’d better start accusing Judge Cannon of being a secret plant by Soros - this could get out of hand/s/.
Judge Cannon Is brilliant! She is forcing Jack Smith to either eliminate his case or the jury do it for him. Her hands will be clean.
The funny thing will be if the classified docs they are charging him on are Crossfire Hurricane docs.
If that’s the case, no jury is going to convict a man for retaining documents on his enemies’ illegal behavior.
bttt
The law is quite different for a President vs a VP….
“unauthorized possession” Why JOe Biden did not do that?
Tick, tick,
the classified documents seized may show that the DOJ, FBI, CIA, HOmeland Security,Pelosi, McConnell and the Washington Capitol police participated in a couter espionage operation designed to culminate in the assassination of President Trump on January 6th. ( The Secret Service giot wind of the plot through the presidents NSA assets and they avoided going to the Capitol with Trump even after they requested it.)
Cannon knows that these assassination proof documents are in the hands of a DOJ approved special master, and she will do all she can to get the to the jury.
If Jack Smith reveals the documents to the Jury, isn’t he GUILTY of Espionage for Illegally disclosing Top Secret Classified Information unless Biden grants him that authority through the Proper Channels???
“...explain which official and/or agency determines “unauthorized possession” of a document.”
~~~
I’m confused.
The judge wants to know, or find, which un-elected bureaucrats do (or should) have the power to determine who broke a law?
Isn’t that what judges and juries do?
If it’s not a clear law, then why would this power be given to some desk jockey somewhere?
BTTT
From the article:
“Keep in mind as she mentions Presidential Records Act—she has not yet ruled on Trump’s motion to dismiss based on protections of the PRA.”
Hopefully another bullet in the gun pointed at Jackov Smith
How can this case go further with this ruling?
‘explain which official and/or agency determines “unauthorized possession” of a document’
They can’t explain, because the ultimate answer is that the President makes that determination, or the President can overrule any of his subordinates who make similar decisions.
I hate this case, too much banana republic crap for me.
If Smith is waving the documents around in a manila envelope, then they are probably declassified, in which case what’s his case about. Also, does Smith have a clearance?
Julie Kelly on X is one of the best for multiple daily exposure on this.
Even if the Congress specifies procedures for classification and declassification and procedures for clearances, are the President and VP subject to such procedures? Isn't that a violation of the separation of powers? The absurdity is manifest: this would imply the bureaucrats could deny a President a clearance and therefore deny him the ability to know what executive departments nominally under his authority are doing.
Smith has to argue that as soon as Trump left office with docs he just read, he violated the law, something for which there is no precedent and which stinks like selective prosecution.
IMHO. There can be no such “unauthorized possession” in reference to a president or ex president.
We have active precedent, with Hillary’s private server and emails, the Clinton sock drawer, Joe’s stash in seven places, Sandy Burglar’s underpants.