Posted on 06/28/2023 6:05:18 AM PDT by ConservativeInPA
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
What???? You are replying to yourself?????
Lemmee fix that for ya...
How does he think he can do that since there is no declassification process for the president?
Trump also has audio and video saying that he has declassified all the (presumably) Crossfire Hurricane documents.
The release of those documents was deferred to the AG at the time (Barr).
‘I’ll repeat:
“the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of the President’s constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented”’
Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, a law merely passed by Congress cannot limit the powers granted to the President by the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that the President is granted plenary powers by the Constitution over any matters regarding document classification, national security information, etc. The law itself clearly notes something along these lines here:
“(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confirm, limit, or expand any constitutionally-based privilege which may be available to an incumbent or former President.”
And even the law itself seems to acknowledge that it is toothless in this regard, since it prescribes no penalties for a President disregarding it.
In fact, the only penalties described in that statute at all are “disciplinary actions” (administrative, not legal penalties) for using non-official channels to hide official communications, like Obama and Hillary did, and they only apply to “covered employees”, who are:
“(b) Adverse Actions- The intentional violation of subsection (a) by a covered employee (including any rules, regulations, or other implementing guidelines), as determined by the appropriate supervisor, shall be a basis for disciplinary action in accordance with subchapter I, II, or V of chapter 75 of title 5, as the case may be.
(c) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) COVERED EMPLOYEE- The term `covered employee’ means—
(A) the immediate staff of the President;
(B) the immediate staff of the Vice President;
(C) a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President; and
(D) a unit or individual of the Office of the Vice President whose function is to advise and assist the Vice President.”
Notice the one person exclude from the “covered employee” designation is the President himself. So there are not even any “disciplinary actions” defined by the statute that might apply to him.
Yes, laws can, and do, limit Presidential power every day. And laws are not merely passed by Congress, they only became actual laws after a President signs them. Which I’m sure you already knew, but it does matter here, especially with regard to how laws hold power over sitting Presidents.
“A former president is not authorized to possess national defense information.”
LOL. That’s quite a pretzel of logic you are constructing.
After all, he was authorized at the time he received the information. Let’s presume he paid attention to his briefings and actually read the documents. He now possesses the information. It’s in his brain. Does that information disappear from his brain when he leaves office?
So in reality you are arguing that ALL former Presidents are now in violation of the law, unless they somehow can have their memories erased upon leaving office.
“Yes, laws can, and do, limit Presidential power every day.”
False. A law passed by Congress has zero power to limit the powers granted to the President by the Constitution. They are co-equal branches. The President cannot issue Executive Orders to modify the powers granted to Congress, and Congress cannot pass law to modify the powers granted to the President. That’s what Constitutional Amendments are for.
“And laws are not merely passed by Congress, they only became actual laws after a President signs them.”
False again, since the President can veto a law and Congress can override it and pass it without his signature.
That’s clearly not what I said. And the Constitution does not address what are Presidential records or not, for example. But laws do. And Presidents must abide by laws, even while in office.
I view the second problem as a thought crime. I cannot comprehend how anyone can prove what another actually thinks without action. I exclude speech as action since speech might be hyperbolic, sarcastic, just plain joking or intentional deception and lying. I’m no lawyer, but I assume this gets argued all the time, and still exists in our legal code.
Re: 10 - Knock off being a pig.
Just disgusting.
“That’s clearly not what I said.”
But that is what I originally said, that you piped up to argue against. Yes, you cut off my quote mid-sentence to exclude the part about the Constitution, but I will not participate in that little shenanigan. You can argue against what I said, or you can concede it was correct. But you can’t whine that I am misrepresenting your argument when you are the one who tried to misrepresent mine.
“And the Constitution does not address what are Presidential records or not, for example.”
The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, and, as I already said, the Supreme Court has rule on this matter. So deal with it, or take the case up with them.
“And Presidents must abide by laws, even while in office.”
Not unconstitutional ones.
“I’m no lawyer, but I assume this gets argued all the time, and still exists in our legal code.”
Oh yes, it gets argued in lots of criminal cases. What is in someone’s mind is the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or a legitimate case of self defense. And we can’t just dissect someone’s brain to see what is in it, so the jury has to weigh all sorts of things; the actions of the defendant, statements they made, testimony as to their general character, etc.
I didn’t say he can’t be convicted, but he did not violate the law.
It literally impossible to conclude that the prosecution can prove the elements of the crime to any degree of probability, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.
But in a Soviet style show trial, all you need to prove is that the defendant has been accused.
That I can agree. I’m pretty strict with the idea of actions are a result of thought. I use that to evaluate people all the time, and particularly politicians in FR threads.
Absurd straw man fallacy.
I can set up a similar fallacy mocking your argument by claiming Congress can legislate away all presidential powers and decisions and order by law, that Trump take that same absurd joy ride in Air Force One. That's to believe your theory.
Both examples are absurd.
The question is, does the legislative branch have the constitutional power to tell the executive branch, by legislating, what is and what isn't a personal record?
The question is, where do you draw the line?
Certainly there can be competing constitutional rights and powers.
The legislative branch certainly has the constitutional power to make constitutional laws. The legislative branch certainly doesn't have the constitutional power to legislate away the constitutional powers of the executive branch, turning the Chief Executive onto an automaton.
I believe in my heart of hearts that Trump has learned his lesson and will use the utmost care when handling classified documents. He should be given the opportunity to prove himself.
Laws have to be followed, even by sitting Presidents.
If President feels the laws are unfairly harsh, or unConstitutional, he can petition a court to decide the results. Courts are the THIRD branch of government, where disputes are settled.
But a President cannot just ignore the laws, at the behest of his personal whims, as you keep repeating. He must follow the law, or claim grievance in a court of law, or suffer the penalties.
“So there are not even any “disciplinary actions” defined by the statute that might apply to him.”
Why not? Because the president is the chief executive and can make the rules as he goes.
Yes, and Congress has no power to make the exercise of the President’s constitutional powers criminal.
TDSers are disgusting.
Show me where in the law it says that former presidents are authorized to possess national defense information. Not their presidential library, but the person himself. I’ll wait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.