Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Anti-Trump Narrative Implodes — Conveniently After Election Day
TFP ^ | 11/17/2022 | Liam Edgar

Posted on 11/17/2022 10:57:06 AM PST by Conservativetpa

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: soozla

It says unfettered access. Not unfettered custodial maintenance.


41 posted on 11/18/2022 12:15:04 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

That’s got to be the worst analogy I’ve ever read. You’re getting sloppy in your haste to relay your ‘Orange man bad’ all over FR.


42 posted on 11/18/2022 12:17:49 PM PST by CAluvdubya (<---Need to change my name to CAluvNV since I now live in NV. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: soozla

See presidential records act § 2203 (g)1.


43 posted on 11/18/2022 12:21:21 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

44 posted on 11/18/2022 12:53:17 PM PST by soozla (Truth prevails, regardless of who is willing to accept it ~ now or later. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

FYI, Mike Davis is a former Supreme Court law clerk.......I’m sure if you emailed him he would explain it to you.


45 posted on 11/18/2022 1:23:01 PM PST by soozla (Truth prevails, regardless of who is willing to accept it ~ now or later. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: soozla

I’ll let him contact me. He’ll reach out.


46 posted on 11/18/2022 1:26:58 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: soozla
Trump’s attorney made that claim (unfettered access) in a September 19th hearing, but caveated that he’s not yet in a position to make that case, which should be presented in connection with a property return motion under federal criminal rules.

Wonder why?

47 posted on 11/18/2022 1:32:56 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

As the Supreme Court ruled in Navy v. Eagan, the President’s plenary authority concerning classification and declassification of information flows directly from Article 2 of the US Constitution. He alone does not have to “play by any rules.” Furthermore, upon leaving office, he retains his highest level of security clearance forever, and is entitled to daily national intelligence briefings, also forever. Upon leaving office, he can take with him whatever he likes. While still in office, he can declassify anything simply by saying that he did – and he did “say.” He also left various written directives. These still have the force of law.

In short, it is impossible for the President or a Former President to “break the law” concerning whatever classified information he may have in his possession. Even if you speculate that he is “doing a Pelosi” by taking advantage of classified secrets, that’s just idle speculation.

The only people who might have broken the law are the FBI agents who pored through these documents and took them out of a secure facility (Mar-a-Lago …), even though they themselves did not have the appropriate levels of clearance to do so – namely, “the very highest.”

Mar-a-Lago has a “SCIF” secure conference room for the handling of classified information. Trump used it many times while in office and it’s still there. If some documents were locked in a storage room, instead of the SCIF, it implies that they had been declassified. But in any case, Mar-a-Lago, which is continuously protected by Secret Service, is “a secure facility” in its entirety: even a storage room is “secure” for classified information handling purposes. Even the hallway. All of the prescribed procedures were followed – except by those agents.


48 posted on 11/18/2022 3:05:43 PM PST by soozla (Truth prevails, regardless of who is willing to accept it ~ now or later. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: soozla
You’re focusing on the classification of the documents. Just having the documents after being in office violates the statute.

You would think Trump’s attorney would have brought up Navy v Eagan in his Sept appearance before the court.

49 posted on 11/18/2022 3:47:37 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

He did....see p.33 at index. But YOU knew that!! LOL https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A283/242439/20221004150805615_22-%20Application%20for%20Stay.pdf


50 posted on 11/18/2022 4:46:43 PM PST by soozla (Truth prevails, regardless of who is willing to accept it ~ now or later. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: soozla
Page 33 is their argument about classification, not general documents and their treatment/storage post administration.

Agsin, no matter the classification, the national archives is the legal repository of presidential papers, not a former president’s residence.

51 posted on 11/18/2022 5:16:26 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

NARA is an independent agency under the Executive Branch of government. The President heads the Executive Branch one of THREE co-equal branches of government.....NARA operates UNDER the Executive Branch, headed by a Presidential Cabinet appointee. NARA is not a Fourth co-equal branch of government.


52 posted on 11/19/2022 7:20:10 AM PST by soozla (Truth prevails, regardless of who is willing to accept it ~ now or later. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: soozla

While it is under the executive, there are laws that govern it. A past president doesn’t get to avoid or be governed by those laws.


53 posted on 11/19/2022 8:27:32 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: soozla

If you’ll recall, Trump actually had the laws strengthened while in office.


54 posted on 11/19/2022 8:51:17 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson