Posted on 09/02/2022 1:45:54 PM PDT by cotton1706
Mark Levin has been on an absolute tear today!! After watch that utter disaster last night I think Mark has had ENOUGH of the BS from our own side!! Barr doesn’t give a shit about ANYTHING except selling his book!! He is SO STUPID to think that trashing Trump is going to increase book sales since when did Libs start reading?? They are the most STUPID people on the planet can’t imagine them EVER cracking a book!!
The homes of President are full of electronic sensing equipment, cameras, and bolted doors plus a bunch of Secret Service armed Agents. These facilities are like bunkers. What better place to store docs for quick references?
·
22m
Bill Barr had “no guts,” and got “no glory.” He was a weak and pathetic RINO, who was so afraid of being Impeached that he became a captive to the Radical Left Democrats - “Please, please, please don't impeach me,” he supposedly said. Barr never fought the way he should have for Election Integrity, and so much else. He started off OK as A.G., but faded fast - Didn't have courage or stamina. People like that will never Make America Great Again!
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/108930914585216422
He can stuff his bad pipes up his a$$.
Barr is a putz.
Hey Bill, have you ever been in a former presidents house?
Sure you have.
And what is there Billy Butt Boy(BBB)?
Secret Service agents and technology I won’t describe here.
There is also what BBB?
A sensitive compartmented information facility. Heck, even old Jummah Carter still has one.
Barr is another old leftist parasite pervert who has never worked in his whole life.
“The justified it by saying they were saving the country.”
That is total BS. They don’t give a crap about the country.
Also, when Trump first announced that he would declassify the Crossfire Hurricane stuff, he did it during a press cackle near his helicopter. It’s on video.
He said he declassified everything and sent it to the Attorney General for final disposition (paraphrasing).
Who was the Attorney General at that time? You guessed it - William Barr.
Barr was the first one to slow-walk the declassification and it never got done relative to DOJ procedures. The slow-walking continued into the Biden admin.
But there is no question that Trump lawfully declassified all of this. The DOJ is just trying everything possible to keep this stuff from public view. We’ll see if Trump can out fox them - I sure hope he can!
Holder’s mischief goes all the way back to WACO.
HE was an Asst AG to Janet Reno & HE called for the siege on the compound.
He also organized & ran “Fast & Furious” gun sales....
Scoundrel AG Holder....
Yes. He kept busy.
Photo of smiling elite Swamp dwellers....
If you lie down with dogs you will wake up with fleas.
As to Barr owing favors to those guys, old Japanese saying is “Creditors have better memories than debtors.”
If they were declassified why would they need to be guarded?That makes them accessible to the public via FOIA so there must not be anything sensitive there.
The FOIA only pertains to documents held by a government agency. The President, or ex-President, is not an agency.
The FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552) is part of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. 552a is the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. 552b is the Government in the Sunshine Act.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/924/282/224282/
See Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991),
[W]e find no expression whatsoever in the legislative history that Congress used the broader term in order to subject the President to the requirements of the APA.A conclusion that the President is not an "agency" under the APA is also supported by the longstanding practice of the executive branch. Even though the APA rulemaking provisions contain substantially the same "agency" definition as the judicial review provisions, the President has never been thought to have to comply with APA rulemaking procedures when issuing executive orders. Given the lack of any express legislative intent to the contrary, we are reluctant to hold that this longstanding presidential practice is contrary to the APA.
[...]
When Congress decides purposefully to enact legislation restricting or regulating presidential action, it must make its intent clear. The Supreme Court has recognized that "[i]n traditionally sensitive areas, such as legislation affecting the federal balance, the requirement of clear statement assures that the legislature has in fact faced, and intended to bring into issue, the critical matters involved in decision." United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 523, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). Although the "clear statement" rule was originally articulated to guide interpretation of statutes that significantly alter the federal-state balance, there are similar compelling reasons to apply the rule to statutes that significantly alter the balance between Congress and the President. Legislation regulating presidential action, no less than legislation altering the federal-state balance, raises "serious" practical, political, and constitutional questions that warrant careful congressional and presidential consideration. See id. at 350, 92 S.Ct. at 523. The answer to whether the APA should apply to the President depends on an analysis of several factors, including the President's "constitutional powers, the multifarious responsibilities of his office, and his direct political accountability as the only elected official with a national constituency." Bruff, Judicial Review and the President's Statutory Powers, 68 Va.L.Rev. 1, 22 (1982). In the absence of any affirmative evidence that these issues were considered in the legislative process and that Congress passed the APA with the understanding that it would regulate presidential as well as other executive branch action, we refuse to hold that the President is an "agency" within the meaning of the APA.
Regarding Presidential authority to declassify, see Judicial Watch, Inc. v. NARA, Civil Action No. 2010-1834, D.D.C. 2012. PRA is the Presidetial Records Act. FRA is the Federal Records Act.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-01834/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-01834-0.pdf
At 1-2:
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against defendant National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Plaintiff asks the Court to declare audiotapes created by former President William Jefferson Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during the Clinton administration to be “Presidential records” under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f), and to order defendant “to assume custody and control” of them and deposit them in the Clinton Presidential Library. Plaintiff contends that defendant has acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by failing to exercise control over the audiotapes and by not making them available in response to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. Defendant has moved to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.
At 13:
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.
At 15-16:
On a practical level, the possibility of judicial review raises a host of questions. If it is available, why is the PRA entirely silent on the subject? What standard of review would apply? Would there not be a high level of deference accorded to a president’s decision about which records are personal? How could a challenge to a president’s classification decision be litigated without the decision-maker participating as a party to the lawsuit? If a classification decision is reviewable, what is the statute of limitation that applies? And, would that period have expired in this case given that President Clinton has been out of office for over twelve years? Bearing in mind the Armstrong decisions and all of the considerations raised by the parties, the Court has seriously doubts about whether the former President’s retention of the audiotapes as personal is a matter that is subject to judicial review.
At 20-21:
Plaintiff contends that its factual allegations about the nature and substance of the audiotapes clearly establishes them to be Presidential records, regardless of how they were treated by President Clinton. Pl.’s Opp. at 12–13. The Court is not so sure. But even if the Court were inclined to agree with plaintiff’s reassessment of President Clinton’s decision, it would not alter the conclusion that the injury cannot be redressed: the PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)–(b). While the plaintiff casts this lawsuit as a challenge to a decision made by the National Archives, the PRA makes it clear that this is not a decision the Archivist can make, and in this particular case, it is not a decision the Archivist did make because President Clinton’s term ended in 2000, and the tapes were not provided to the Archives at that time. To the extent that there was a subsequent classification decision the Archivist purported to make, see supra note 2, or to be more accurate, a decision to decline to revisit the President’s classification decision, any injury plaintiff claims it suffered as a result would not be redressable because there is nothing under the statute that the Court can compel the Archivist to do.
At 26:
To the extent that plaintiff is seeking relief related to the availability of documents under FOIA, that claim is governed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980). In that case, the Court held that FOIA does not give rise to a private right of action to compel an agency to retrieve documents that are not in its possession, even if one assumes that the documents were wrongfully withheld under the Federal Records Act. Id. at 151–52. The Court explained in that case: “It is therefore clear that Congress never intended when it enacted the FOIA, to displace the statutory scheme embodied in the Federal Records Act and the Federal Records Disposal Act providing for administrative remedies to safeguard against wrongful removal of agency records as well as to retrieve wrongfully removed records.” Id. at 154. The same reasoning applies here. There is no indication in the record that Congress intended to supplant the limited remedies available in the PRA with FOIA.
Regarding the executive power of the Federal government, see U.S. Cost., Art. 2, Cl. 1
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
The entire executive power of the Federal government is vested in one person, the President. All other members of the Executive branch have powers derivitive of the President, being delegated downward via the chain of authority.
Regarding the authority of the President to classify and control information bearing on national security,
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep484518/
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)
The Court of Appeals' majority stated: "The absence of any statutory provision precluding appellate review of security clearance denials in section 7512 removals creates a strong presumption in favor of appellate review," citing Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 141 (1967). 802 F. 2d, at 1569. One perhaps may accept this as a general proposition of administrative law, but the proposition is not without limit, and it runs aground when it encounters concerns of national security, as in this case, where the grant of security clearance to a particular employee, a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call, is committed by law to the appropriate agency of the Executive Branch. 6The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.
Don’t hold your breath.
So that means nothing should be done about it just like you didn’t do anything about the 2020 election theft? Because its criminality was unprecedented, too.
Regarding FOIA, my assumption is most or all of those documents originated with an agency so they would be subject.
As for your other points, as I understand it Trump's filings to date haven't contested that the documents were both official and classified.
Regardless, I don't think it matters to the Espionage Act.
Regarding FOIA, my assumption is most or all of those documents originated with an agency so they would be subject.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. An FOIA request for a document only succeeds if the document is in the possession of the agency. At this time the the instant documents are in possession of the FIB, so they are in possession of an agency, but an exemption could be claimed while an investigation/prosecution proceeds, or ownership is contested. If the court rules that they were properly seized as government property, then the unclassified documents may be subject to FOIA, but the FOIA itself contains exemptions from disclosure.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-01834/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-01834-0.pdf
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. NARA, Civil Action No. 2010-1834, D.D.C. 2012, at page 26.
To the extent that plaintiff is seeking relief related to the availability of documents under FOIA, that claim is governed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980). In that case, the Court held that FOIA does not give rise to a private right of action to compel an agency to retrieve documents that are not in its possession, even if one assumes that the documents were wrongfully withheld under the Federal Records Act. Id. at 151–52.
FOIA Exemptions:
5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(3)
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are—(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute—
(A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or
(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and
(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested;
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
- - - - - - - - - -
As for your other points, as I understand it Trump's filings to date haven't contested that the documents were both official and classified.Regardless, I don't think it matters to the Espionage Act.
The government avoided alleging anything that required any document to be classified. The Affidavit alleged probable cause to believe that some documents were at Mar-a-Lago which contained classification markings. Every marked document which is declassified will contain classification markings until somebody lines them out. That does not mean they are classified until the ministerial function has been performed.
As for the charges in general, I do not believe there is even an intent to bring an indictment or prosecution. I believe the object of the exercise is to know what Trump had, prevent him from publishing any of it, and to be able to selectively leak what they want for political purposes relative to the upcoming midterm elections. I should expect the matter to just go away after the midterms.
If it is determined that Trump did declassify documents, but they have not been released to the public, the current administration could reclassify them to prevent Trump publication. In such case, the documents would have been unclassified at the time of seizure.
An unclassified document may be released to the public. It is not considered to pose a threat to national security. While the Espionage Act does not require classified documents, it is not clear how holding unclassified documents could be a crime under the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793, endangering the national security. Unclassified documents can be published in a newspaper. Most can be obtained by Putin if he files an FOIA request. The FOIA provides that applicable records be made available to "any person."
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2020/title-18/part-i/chapter-37/sec-793/
Chapter 37 - Espionage and Censorship
Sec. 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information18 U.S.C. § 793 (2020)
§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation....
If it comes down to Trump allegedly wrongfully categorizing material as personal, rather than presidential, it should be an administrative matter rather than a criminal matter.
I would classify the warrant as an unconstitutional general warrant, without sufficient probable cause to believe a crime was committed. The nature of the search and seizure was not consistent with a search for specified fruits of a crime. The staged a photo prominently featured a cover of Time magazine. What could conceivably have been the probable cause to suspect that the cover of Time magazine was the fruit of a crime and justified its seizure? The staged photo precludes any claim that they did not know it was being seized. There are also the passports.
Officially, Trump has not been charged with anything. His legal team does not have to provide the government with a damn thing. As the government has not actually claimed that any of the documents are classified, Trump has no need to argue that they are not classified. The Affidavit only refers to documents with classified markings. Documents with classified markings do not substantiate a claim that they are classified. The Inventory lists things such as, "1. US Government Document with SECRET Classification Markings." It will give the general public the impression that classified documents were found, but it does not say that. The government phrasing was not accidental.
thank you
Yes. They think they are the patriots!
Truth! This is likely how it played out with Barr. He had no stamina nor stomach for doing the right thing for we the people!
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.