And like Wile E. they refuse to accept reality, so motivated by fear of Trump upsetting their corrupt apple cart.
Panic erupts when righteousness is over the target.
Posted on 06/10/2023 8:48:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Those conservatives rightly outraged at the Trump indictment keep comparing his treatment to that given to Hillary, Biden, and Pence, each of whom admitted to violating national security laws. That’s the wrong argument because Trump is not similarly situated to those lawbreakers. Instead, because he was president when he took possession of the documents, Trump cannot be guilty of the crimes with which he’s charged.
It starts with the Constitution, which created three equal branches of government: The legislative branch (Art. I), the executive (presidential) branch (Art. II), and the judiciary (Art. III). As part of his authority as the nation’s chief executive, the Art II president is also commander-in-chief of the military.
There are three analytical strands at work here. First, as Conservative Tree House explains, the Espionage Act of 1917, which is the basis for the charges against Trump, was enacted long before the document classification scheme began in 1951. CTH notes that isn’t arguing that the documents were classified; it’s arguing that the documents in Trump’s possession are “vital to the defense security of the United States.”
Mark Wauck sums up the problem:
CTH is absolutely correct that the Trump situation is NOT what the Espionage Act purports to be about. The use of the Espionage Act has regularly been prone to abuse, and it has always had its critics because of the very broad and vague language, such as “relating to”. Hopefully Trump’s lawyers will attack from this angle in pre-trial motions.
Second, the real issue in the indictment is whether Trump correctly handled documents under the Presidential Records Act, which is not a criminal violation (h/t Mark Wauck):
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Indictment confirms Garland's indictment of Trump is political:
1. Presidential Records Act, not Espionage Act, controls former president's handling of his presidential records
2. Generally, legally impossible to obstruct investigation into non-crime, per binding 2019 OLC memo — 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) June 9, 2023
Those are great arguments, but let me give both more heft with the third point, which applies whether the Espionage Act or the Presidential Records Act is at issue: A president’s power whether or not to treat documents as essential to national security supersedes anything either Congress or his own employees in the administrative state can do.
Normally, of course, the president is subject to the duly passed laws of the United States Congress. However, regarding national security, the president cannot be subject to Congress. He has plenary, or absolutely, power in that area.
The president’s authority over national security matters has been recognized at least since the end of WWII, when, as the court explained in National Federation of Employees v. United States, 688 F.Supp. 671 (D.D.C. 1988), Truman exercised that authority to classify documents:
Long before nuclear weapons, satellites, and orbiting laser defense systems, the President, pursuant to his Article II powers, undertook to defend national security by limiting access to and disclosure of sensitive information. See National Security and Civil Liberties, [citation]. After World War II, President Truman laid the foundation for the current system of classifying information possessed by the Executive Branch. [Citation.]
In other words, national security and the classification system are the president’s bailiwick, and Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, cannot constrain that authority.
They couldn’t find a crime so they had to invent one.
The documents in question were all in Trump’s possession while he was President, therefore he had full control over the documents when he took them to Mara Lago. Any secret documents “For Eyes Only” would have been first and foremost “For Trump’s Eyes Only.”
So it would be impossible for Trump to misuse the documents by holding them or even destroying them. He might be in trouble if he sold them to an enemy, but that would be treason, and Trump is not being accused of treason. He is being accused of mishandling documents which he alone had authority to possess.
Bringing these charges is Treason. We are dealing with domestic enemies of the United States.
This pretends to he a defense of Trump, bit it’s really a defense of Biden, the Clinton’s, and Obama.
Bill Clinton was president, but we don't know what he kept; ditto Obama.
Broad brush comments, some of which aren't factual,just don't help your argument/supposition.
If you read the indictment, most of it is focused on once Trump s out of office, not leaving.
Biden has no defense and neither does Hillary. Barack definitely does as the former Pres. But the other two had zero authority to have them to begin with and other people have been thrown in prison for doing less. See the submarine pictures a sailor took for his son. Because it was military it was ruled secret and he was thrown in prison l
We know that Clinton took the most documents of all, and many confidential FBI files. We know Obama took many files, and has not stored them securely.
Have you ever hear of Daniel Ellsberg?
President and ex presidents both have broad authority on what documents they have. After Nixon it was kinda like well you gotta work with us. But the President can tell the national archives to get bent and there isn’t anything they can do about it.
Yep and he wasn’t an ex president
I clearly stated that Bill and wee Barry took stuff; however, none of us know what they have. I was stating facts; your didn't.
It’s telling how often Sundance is right. He formerly was a member here. Care to elucidate, anyone, on how that changed?
Was/is Sundance in intelligence or something. He sure has inside information he puts out quick.
That has nothing to do with it. He was never prosecuted, because they couldn’t make the documents he stole public, which was required for the trial.
From the indictment: (capitaliztion done by me for emphasis) Page 27 of 49
74. On August 8, 2022, the FBI executed a court-authorized search warrant at The Mar-a-Lago Club. The search warrent authorized the FBI to search for and seize, among other things, all documents with CLASSIFICATION MARKINGS.
75. During the execution of the warrant at The Mar-a-Lago Club, the FBI seized 102 documents with CLASSIFICATION MARKINGS in TRUMP's office and the Storage Room.
CLASSIFICATION MARKINGS is NOT the same as CLASSIFIED. I have documents with classification markings on them right now on my computer (some Venona docs ). They were previously classified, but were then declassified. When something is declassified, the previous classification markings are not removed. So Trump has DECLASSIFIED documents with CLASSIFIED MARKINGS. Not surprising and not a crime
He was never prosecuted, because they couldn’t make the documents he stole public, which was required for the trial.
Your claim is mistaken. The charges aginst Ellberg were dismissed for government misconduct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
He and Russo faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years for Ellsberg, 35 years for Russo. Their trial commenced in Los Angeles on January 3, 1973, presided over by U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr. Ellsberg tried to claim that the documents were illegally classified to keep them not from an enemy but from the American public. However, that argument was ruled "irrelevant". Ellsberg was silenced before he could begin. Ellsberg said, in 2014, that his "lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: 'Well, you're hearing one now'. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment".In spite of being effectively denied a defense, Ellsberg began to see events turn in his favor when the break-in of Fielding's office was revealed to Judge Byrne in a memo on April 26; Byrne ordered it to be shared with the defense.
On May 9, further evidence of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg was revealed in court. The FBI had recorded numerous conversations between Morton Halperin and Ellsberg without a court order, and furthermore the prosecution had failed to share this evidence with the defense. During the trial, Byrne also revealed that he personally met twice with John Ehrlichman, who offered him directorship of the FBI. Byrne said he refused to consider the offer while the Ellsberg case was pending, though he was criticized for even agreeing to meet with Ehrlichman during the case.
Because of the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973, after the government claimed it had lost records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."
https://famous-trials.com/ellsberg/276-rule
Famous Trials By Professor Douglas O. LinderCase Dismissed: Judge Matthew Byrne's Ruling in the Trial of Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo (May 11, 1973)
Commencing on April 26, the government has made an extraordinary series of disclosures regarding the conduct of several governmental agencies regarding the defendants in this case. . . . Much information has been developed, but new information has produced new questions, and there remain more questions than answers.
The disclosures made by the government demonstrate that governmental agencies have taken an unprecedented series of actions with respect to these defendants. After the original indictment, at a time when the government's rights to investigate the defendants are narrowly circumscribed, White House officials established a special unit to investigate one of the defendants in this case. We have been given only a glimpse of what this special unit did regarding this case, but what we have seen is more than disquieting.
A continuation of the government's investigation is no solution with reference to this case. . . each passing day indicates that the investigation is further from completion as the jury waits. Moreover, no investigation is likely to provide satisfactory answers where improper government conduct has been shielded so long from public view and where the government advises the Court that pertinent files and records are missing or destroyed. . . .
. . . The charges against these defendants raise serious factual and legal issues that I would certainly prefer to have litigated to completion. . . . However. . . the conduct of the government has placed the case in such a posture that it precludes the fair dispassionate resolution of these issues by a jury. I have concluded that a mistrial alone would not be fair. Under all the circumstances, I believe that the defendants should not have to run the risk, present under existing authorities, that they might be tried again before a different jury.
The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend "a sense of justice." The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case. . . . I am of the opinion, in the present status of the case, that the only remedy available that would assure due process and the fair administration of justice is that this trial be terminated and the defendants' motion for dismissal be granted and the jury discharged.
The order of dismissal will be entered, the jurors will be advised of the dismissal, and the case is terminated. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your efforts.
And like Wile E. they refuse to accept reality, so motivated by fear of Trump upsetting their corrupt apple cart.
Panic erupts when righteousness is over the target.
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.