Levin is referring to McCarthy
Posted on 06/14/2023 4:24:58 PM PDT by randita
Michael Bekesha, the ‘Clinton sock drawer’ lawyer, misses the distinction between agency records and presidential records.
I’ve already extensively addressed why the Presidential Records Act (PRA) is not a viable defense against charges that President Trump unlawfully and willfully retained national-defense information under Section 793(e) of the federal criminal code (which, in hope of avoiding Senator Lindsey Graham’s conniptions, I’ll refrain from calling the Espionage Act). So I’ll state the main point as succinctly as I can: Agency records are not presidential records.
Trump’s case is about agency records regarding the national defense — mainly, classified intelligence reporting generated by U.S. spy agencies. The PRA, by contrast, addresses documents and other records generated by and for the president in the carrying out of his duties.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
What he is saying is that he can’t be charged with a crime under the Espionage Act when the “sensitive material” in question is a set of personal letters — and the PRA reinforces his view that the letters are PERSONAL in nature.
He can’t “plead guilty” to violations of the PRA. The PRA is not a criminal statute.
Incorrect. It's clearly spelled out in the law what is Presidential, and what is Personal. And the scope of what is Personal is extremely limited. See post 74 for the exact text.
No.
For starters, the PRA is NOT a criminal statute. It's a civil statute. Trump's actions which are covered under this statute are NOT indictable. The raid was bogus. The indictment is bogus.
About Trump's actions and the PRA civil statute, the PRA says that the designation of records as "personal" versus "presidential" is a decision made by the president during the president's term of office.
This issue was already litigated, in CIVIL COURT, by Judge Amy Jackson, in the Clinton Socks Draw Case. She ruled:
And it makes sense too, because Article II Section 1 of the Constitution says that all executive branch power is vested in the president.
As I correctly said the first time, the president, decides what documents are presidential documents and what documents are personal documents.
I bet, especially if you saw what he tried to claim in that video.
What he is saying is that he can’t be charged with a crime under the Espionage Act when the “sensitive material” in question is a set of personal letters — and the PRA reinforces his view that the letters are PERSONAL in nature."
Sorry, but that doesn't match my reading of the law, as posted in #74 above. The scope of what is "personal" is extremely limited, and mostly contained within things such as notes he created himself (as in the Clinton tapes?), or campaign materials, etc. Here's that text again of what constitutes "personal." You'll see this mentioned more than once - "having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
The same aspects that would make the PRA unconstitutional would also make the Espionage Act unconstitutional.
See US Constitution Article II Section 1.
And the correspondence between Trump and Kim Jong Un apparently included Trump’s promise to stop posting silly nicknames of the guy on Twitter. Official records? LOL.
Sure, there are other arguments on Trump’s behalf, and I hope he’s able to successfully use them.
*****
“BS”
You want Trump injured or taken out of the campaign because you think it’ll benefit your boy DeSantis. So you play up this case, which is an unprecedented step against a President, a precedent that hasn’t ever happened in our history.
“Good Luck.”
The raid was with regard to whether the documents were classified, or not, which is still in dispute. Trump has since brought out the PRA, claiming it protects him, but that law clearly defines that the government controls Presidential records, AND "official records of an agency" which these documents may ultimately decided to be.
But the law explicitly spells out the scope of "personal records" as extremely limited, and personal records specifically do NOT include documents that "relate to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."
the PRA says that the designation of records as "personal" versus "presidential" is a decision made by the president during the president's term of office.
No it doesn't. Show me those words. I have posted and referred to the text of the law countless times here already, when it appears you still haven't even read it yet. The law itself makes that determination, in explicit terms. It does not cede that authority to any President, past or present.
And if Trump only took copies of these records, as I've seen reported, then the Archivist has a presidential record copy of these records and Trump has a "personal" copy of these records.
No it doesn't. Show me those words. I have posted and referred to the text of the law countless times here already, when it appears you still haven't even read it yet. The law itself makes that determination, in explicit terms. It does not cede that authority to any President, past or present.
I've seen you post definitions. I've not seen you post "in explicit terms" in the PRA, who's decision it is to designate a record as being "personal" or "presidential".
[But if they get the PRA declared unconstitutional, they lose the argument that the PRA should be the law that applies to Trump taking the documents as opposed to the Espionage Act.]
You missed a step. The issue is who decides.
See post 74. It contains an excerpt of the relevant portions, as well as a link to the full text of the law. THAT is where it is clearly defined what is Presidential, and what is Personal. Personal documents are extremely limited, as in, actually personal, or related to political party actions, and nothing to do with the operation of government.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4160931/posts?page=74#74
I’ve pointed you to this repeatedly. Yet you’ve at least twice now claimed that the President makes that determination, per the law, and you still haven’t posted any text in support of your claim. I don’t think it exists, but out of respect I’ll continue to wait.
ALL “government” records are presidential records. This is garbage from TDS sufferer McCarthey.
Was that a joke? Because it's nowhere near correct. And the kicker is the Presidential Records Act actually says "Presidential Records" belong to the government, not the President, especially when he leaves office. He is only entitled to "Personal Records" which are extremely limited in scope.
You need to understand the difference.
And I gave you the judge's ruling that contains the citation:
She's getting that from section 2203. Are you saying that you looked and it's not in section 2203?
The judge is clearly saying that her court will not override the president's decision.
Question……concerning the time line.
First, do we agree that PRA and NARA issues are not criminal?
If so, what was the reason for a raid?
What was the criminal probable cause?
Thus, they raid Maralago and grab everything in every room so to speak, no defined area or goal.
They later rifle through everything and determine what?
That Trump had agency documents?
And that becomes a criminal probe?
I’m asking these questions because it seems like the raid was not legal.
Of course the obvious is double standards and if indeed Presidents can only take with them their own notes and similar items, how did Obama have 30,000 documents that still haven’t been reviewed by anyone other than himself?
As a side note, who packed the boxes for shipment to MaraLago?
Who made the list of what to take?
Did staffers know what was legal to pack and what wasn’t?
.
Wow, such an Intimidating Law.
I wonder why Drone Strike plans in Huma’s and Hillary’s houses were no big deal?
Comey had Classified National Security Docs at his home. He cited convenience.
Joe Biden - per CNN - has Iran and Ukraine US Intel Assessments classified as Top Secret.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had Counter Intelligence Docs of the highest Classification on their personal devices, and used Public Email to store them - a big No-No.
Petreaus distributed the highest level of Classified National Security Docs, and the DoJ recommended a 40k fine.
Huma Weiner said she kept Classified Docs in the passenger side of her car, and someone told her after they stayed there forever, that she should be careful.
We know they haven’t cared about these types of Docs for some time, so it’s odd peeps are arguing hyper-technicalities in order to make it fit for a Trump Conviction.
Peeps purposely going into forest so they can’t see those trees.
There are numerous photos of Biden (as VP) holding Classfied Docs outside of a SCIF, with people holding cell phones next to him. An Obvious Violation of the Espionage Act.
I'm not missing the point at all. My first response to you was contesting your claim that the President determines what are Presidential Records, and what are Personal Records. I've since cited the exact law multiple times, known as the Presidential Records Act, that makes these determinations, not the President. You've continued to repeat your claim that it's the President's discretion, in direct contrast to the relevant law, without providing any text from the actual law to support your claim.
You documented the definitions. You did not document who determines if a document meets those definitions. It just doesn't happen by magic.
I did not document or define anything. I simply cited the law, which is extremely clear in defining those terms. It still doesn't appear you've even reviewed the link I provided to the actual law, yet.
I gave you the judge's ruling
One activist judge making a non-precedent ruling in a civil circuit court does not define what the law says. I am citing, and posting, the law, itself. Have you read it yet? Where does it say the President is allowed to determine what is Presidential and Personal, as you have claimed.
She's getting that from section 2203. Are you saying that you looked and it's not in section 2203?
LOL! That's the same law I've been posting, over and over. Except my link comes direct from the government, where the definitions are included. Further proof you've still never even looked at that link to the actual law I've given you, and have based your entire argument on the bogus interpretation of a Clinton activist judge, and some link to a university that doesn't even contain the full contents of the law.
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.