Posted on 06/13/2023 9:21:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
SCREENSHOT: CNN
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan broke down the major “flaw” in the indictment against former President Donald Trump Sunday on CNN with Dana Bash.
Trump announced the indictment Thursday, ahead of the official indictment being unsealed Friday. The charges against Trump include 31 counts of alleged violation of the Espionage Act or the willful retention of national security information, as well as one count of “conspiracy to obstruct justice,” one count of “withholding a document or record,” one count of corruptly concealing a documents or record,” one count of “concealing a documents in a deferral investigation,” one count of “scheme to conceal” and one count of “false statements and representations.”
Bash asked Jordan to comment on part of the indictment.
“The indictment said: ‘TRUMP directed NAUTA,’ who’s his personal aide, ‘to move boxes before Trump Attorney 1’s June 2 review, so that many boxes were not searched and many documents responsive to the May 11 Subpoena could not be found and were in fact not found by Trump Attorney 1.’ [sic] In plain English, this alleges that Trump instructed his aide to help him remove sensitive documents in defiance of a federal subpoena. A), Does that trouble you? And B) If he thought he had the right to have these documents, why was he trying so hard to hide them?” Bash asked.
“No, it doesn’t bother me because again, you can’t have obstruction of something when there was no underlying crime. The standard is set. The standard is what the Constitution says. The commander-in-chief — the president of the United States — has the ability to classify and control access to information. That’s what the Constitution and the court have said. So you can’t obstruct when there is — you can’t obstruct when there is no underlying crime,” said Jordan.
“He is not the president of the United States — ”
“That is the fundamental flaw,” Jordan shot back.
“And you’re just taking him at his word?” Dana asked.
“And when he was president, he declassified the material. He’s been — he’s been very clear about that.”
“He says point-blank, on tape, ‘As president I could have declassified it. Now I can’t.’ He says, in his own words, it’s on tape as part of this indictment, that he did not declassify the material. Therefore, it is classified.”
“Dana … saying he could have, saying he could have is not the same as saying he didn’t,” Jordan pushed back.
“He said, ‘now I can’t’,” Bash said.
“Now he can’t — right — because he’s not president now. But when he was president, he did declassify it. He said that,” Jordan said.
“Which means that what he was holding was classified,” Bash argued.
“Not if he declassified it when he was president of the United States, for goodness sake!”
“But he’s saying point-blank in this audio tape that he did not declassify it,” Bash said. “What you’re saying just doesn’t make sense on its face.”
“Dana, what this truly is, Dana, is an affront to the rule of law. It’s an affront to consistent application of the law. You have Secretary Clinton — who had classified material on a server — she was not president of the United States. She was Secretary Clinton. You have that happen, nothing happens to her,” Jordan continued before the duo moved on to other issues.
Bash was referencing was a July 2021 call which alleged Trump showed a “plan of attack” to a writer, a publisher and two staffers, which he said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense, according to the indictment. “As president, I could have declassified it,” Trump allegedly said at the time, and “now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
“As I recall, Obama ratted out the Israelis for planning an attack.”
The Israelis were stupid to share ANY info with the Obama/Soros regime. But the Israelis have their own problems, just like we do, of snakes in the grass traitors.
We’ll just have to go get him out.
Certain powers granted to the President of the United States are absolute
From the article:
“No, it doesn’t bother me because again, you can’t have obstruction of something when there was no underlying crime.”
That’s not actually the case. If the police have a search warrant for my home because they received a bad tip that I was distributing drugs and I refuse to let them search, I will still be charged with obstruction even though the basis for that warrant was founded on misinformation.
The president can declassify with a thought.
Thankfully that's not how declassification works or else Biden would have declassified half our military secrets by now.
What do they think will happen if they actually put PDJT in prison?
Very likely the same thing that happened after Trump was indicted: nothing. Lots of folks learned from January 6th that protesting for Trump doesn't get you anywhere but the inside of a jail cell. It didn't stop Biden from occupying the White House and it's telling that Trump didn't issue any last-minute pardons to those arrested.
Also, there is a formal process for the POTUS to declassify involving at least an executive order. If Trump declassified the documents, all he has to do is call their bluff and produce the EOs. If he didn't, well, then he has some explaining to do.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/
ca conservative
almost an oxymoron
I'd recommend not telling JimRob he's "almost an oxymoron". We get enough flak from our leftist neighbors. We don't need it from other Freepers based on where we live.
I don’t believe they’re close to the same. It’s on another level.
Here we’re going from the P.R.A., allowing documents to be kept by a former POTUS, where many others have done the same thing, straight to “ESPIONAGE!!!” and an indictment.
That is nuts and a radical departure from anything historical.
Here’s the case text: https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin
“. 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, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b)” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 295 n.2 (D.D.C. 2012)
And here’s another statement by Jackson in the ruling:
The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records ... neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95–1487, at 13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. 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.
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 296-97 (D.D.C. 2012)
“In the case of improperly taking classified documents America’s interests as a whole are harmed, not just one man.”
In theory, that makes sense. But then you would have to prove a few things. You would have to prove America’s interests were harmed. Did Trump sell strategic info to the enemy? No. You would have to prove equal justice under the law. Was Trump’s taking and treatment of classified documents so much more harmful than what every past POTUS, VP, SoS did - as to justify prosecuting him and letting all of them slide? No.
“Also, there is a formal process for the POTUS to declassify involving at least an executive order.”
I don’t think so. Can you back that up?
Look, we all know this is just another bullshit witch hunt. Even if the kangaroo court finds against him - it’s still bullshit - do you not agree?
I don’t think so. Can you back that up?
From the American Bar Association link I provided in my last comment: "Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders...In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized."
Yes, Biden could do that. In fact, he already has, many times over.
That doesn’t change the fact that as Commander in Chief he has that power.
The remedy?
Don’t elect a known criminal President.
Or rather, don’t rig a Presidential election for a known criminal.
And don’t throw the honest candidates in prison to protect the corrupt ones.
“Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers….”
That much is true.
“…to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders...In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized.”
The rest of the ABA statement - regarding classification, declassification, formal processes, etc.. - is not in the Constitution as far as I can see.
I’m thinking the ABA preface “Under the U.S. Constitution..” was meant to apply only to the first phrase regarding broad powers - and the rest was describing precedent - a summary of how things are usually done.
Please let me know if I missed something.
“And keep in mind that this is only 1 of the documents listed in the indictment.”
Wrong. This alleged document, (and the map), are not listed as one of the 31 documents. The indictment does not claim that they even have their hands on the alleged document/s. He could have been showing, (apparently from a distance from my reading of the indictment), a letter to his wife and a map of DC because it is not stated in the indictment exactly what the alleged document/s are nor their classification status.
A charge can not be made without specifying what the document/s are and having possession of it/them since they would have to be shared with the defense, (Trump).
At trial the government must place the document into evidence, call the person/s that the document/s were shown to to testify that that is the document they were shown and be cross examined on the testimony.
Since the document/s were supposedly revealed in New Jersey the venue for litigating this alleged violation/charge would need to be the subject of a Grand Jury in New Jersey and then an indictment in that venue. Once an indictment from New Jersey is issued Trump’s team will make a motion to consolidate the Florida and New Jersey case in Florida, (and it will be granted). (Additionally, since the Florida indictment discusses this alleged event, any evidence/charges flowing from it must be tried in Florida where the allegation was formally made.)
Judge Jackson made it clear in her decision, (which was not appealed so it stands), stated that anything the President take with him from the White House is his “personal” papers, per the PRA, and the NARA has no authority to force the former president to return it. This dispute was about tape recordings that Clinton took with him, stored in his sock drawer, and refused Judicial Watch’s attempts to return them to the archive.
The tapes are reported to have national defense information, (same as Trump), of conversations with foreign leaders concerning numerous subjects including nuclear capabilities of allies and enemies.
I never said it was one of the documents he was charged for. I said it was one of the documents listed in the indictment. Perhaps it would be more correct to say it was one of the documents referenced in the indictment. As I have said in other posts, I think the map and this document were listed specifically to establish intent - that is that he knowingly shared classified data with people not authorized to receive it - and to establish that he recklessly handled classified documents.
But you raise another point and that is that this indictment might not be the end of Smith’s attack on Trump. If he actually does have these documents, you could see additional charges coming out of New Jersey. With possible charges related to J6 pending in DC and the charges in Georgia due to drop this summer, we could just be at the start of all of this.
Also, the issue of them being the former President’s “property” should have been raised as an objection to the subpoena.
The fact that steps were taken to avoid producing the subpoenaed material was what gave rise to the obstruction charges.
I’d say that President Trump is getting lousy advice from his lawyers, but apparently he was listening to a non-lawyer, Tom Fitton, instead.
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.