Posted on 06/20/2023 10:02:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If former president Donald Trump’s case ever makes it to court, federal prosecutors will use his own words against him — spoken on national TV to Fox News host Bret Baier on Monday. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even play one on internet video. So when it comes to stories like this one, there are a few people I turn to for sharp analysis and good advice.
On the surface at least, what Trump said could cause him trouble in court.
When Baier asked, “Why not just hand [the documents] over then?” Trump replied, “Because I had boxes — I wanted to go through the boxes and get all my personal things out. I don’t want to hand that over to NARA yet. And I was very busy, as you’ve sort of seen.”
“These boxes were interspersed with all sorts of [personal] things.”
You can read more of the transcript here and decide for yourself.
I’m not here to pass judgment on the many indictments against Trump… except that I can’t let the opportunity entirely go. If we’re going to start prosecuting high-level executive branch people for keeping classified documents they shouldn’t have had, let’s start with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, neither of whom, as secretary of state or (then) as vice president, had any legal power to declassify those documents. Trump did, which is maybe a strong mitigating factor.
That out of the way, it’s both easy and proper to dismiss Twitter hot takes like this one from Erick Erickson:
Guys, Trump admitted on TV tonight he withheld documents from the grand jury. Game over, legally. What an idiot.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 20, 2023
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
I don’t know the answer, only that this was the first time in forty years NARA/GA hadn’t handled the packing and shipping.
“The problem with your logic is, no criminal case was ever filed against Hillary, therefore she would not be in any law books.”
And the problem with your logic is that she is mentionend in Trump’s indictment.
Getting mentioned in a case has nothing to do with being listed in a law book as a similar case, it’s not that hard.
The other thing, I could be wrong, but I don’t think a current or former POTUS has ever been charged with crimes and taken to trial, so a similar case would not be in any law book.
Trump is on trial for mishandling classified documents, since the President has the ultimate authority to declassify any document he wants, there is no case anywhere similar to that.
“Getting mentioned in a case has nothing to do with being listed in a law book as a similar case, it’s not that hard.”
For crying out loud, I was not making an all-encompassing legal distinction. Someone made a point that bringing up the Witch’s case would move the jury. It would. Any sentient being would take notice. And, my point was that lawyers bring up previous cases to establish their narrative.
Representative Gaetz, a lawyer, said that the mentioning of the witch in the indictment would enable Trump’s lawyers to bring in all the pertinent facts of her event.
Go take it up with Gaetz.
It makes a difference as far as I am concerned, because if you haven't had to abide by all of the limits and constraints of keeping National Secrets, you have no right to make a sound or have an opinion about it.
As you might have guessed, I was a 30770-Telecommunications Systems Control Technician and in my day-to-day work I did operate Top Secret NSA equipment that had large placards on every device that indicated Property of the NSA and utilized Top Secret Documents during every shift.
Only the POTUS has no Constraints or Limits. When President Eisenhower responded to the Soviets regarding Francis Gary Powers, facts were bandied about without the President having to be concerned with anyone's opinion of giving up National Secrets. It was the same with JFK and the the Cuban Missile Crisis, he could do or say whatever he needed because the buck stops there.
Armchair legal beagles are clueless.
🤣🤣🤣
But Fox edited the tape.
“Your word choice may be revealing.”
Your obsession may be revealing.
“Will the Kraken finally be unleashed then?”
Insult somebody else, asshole.
I don’t do Kraken or Q.
And it takes a pretty stupid person to think I do.
Classification is not the sticking point.
Any document prepared for a president in the course of his constitutional duties is, by definition, a Presidential Record, and is the property of the American people to be held in custody by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Per the Presidential Records Act, 1977.
There was a subpoena for these documents. Upon receipt of subpoena, recipient has two choices: 1) challenge the subpoena in court, or 2) comply with the subpoena.
“The documents were in boxes with my golf shirts was not a good answer.
________________
Between that and “I’m a busy man and didn’t have time...” kind of sounds like “the dog ate my homework.”
“All these people arguing with me the case is political, it’s not legitimate, comparing the issues to Hillary’s issues, etc. are all completely missing the point.
Trump is in serious legal trouble, all that other stuff is not important right now, especially if he’s convicted of multiple felonies.”
The obsessed refuse to accept that it’s possible for him to hand his persecutors a club that they’ll happily beat him with. I support Trump, and I’d very much prefer not to vote for him as the resident of a federal prison (although I’d consider it).
The Presidential Records Act AND the Courts have determined that The President is the lone determinant of which records he can keep.
____________________________
Actually, that’s not what the Presidential Records Act says.
Materials created for the President (by agencies like DoD, NSA, etc... or his staff) for use in his constitutional duties are “Presidential Records” and are to remain in the custody of the U.S. Government (National Archives and Records Administration) when he leaves office.
THAT’S what the PRA says.
Actually, because the documents were co-mingled w/ his personal stuff, they were allowed to take his personal stuff.
I saw the un-redacted search warrant.
His personal stuff was returned.
Thanks
“From the Eisenhower administration through the Obama administration, NARA and GSA have sent people to the out-going White House to sort out and box the documents destined for National Archives. They did not do that for Trump. He was left on his own to do the job. Why???”
Sincere question: Did they not do that, or did they try to do that and Trump told them to go away? Knowing Trump (so to speak), either answer seems plausible.
______________________
Did NARA provide archival assistance to the Trump Administration during the transition of records at the end of his administration?
Yes. As explained in NARA’s April 23, 2023, press statement, NARA’s General Counsel sent a letter on February 10, 2023, to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, clarifying a prior response he had given to the Committee. The letter explained that NARA did send staff members to the White House in the final weeks of the Trump Administration to assist with the move of the physical records (including artifacts), which was similar to the assistance that NARA had provided to the White House during the three previous Presidential transitions.
The old— “but officer there is no LAW which has been broken for this indictment”
Judge: this filing is a false indictment based on NO, ZERO Constitutional Law or finding of one. To wit: 1917 Espionage Act does not apply to Presidents nor to former Presidents, whose possession of any documents is covered under a LAW not cited in the indictment, namely the Presidential Records Act.
The DOJ cannot make up a “law” nor can their “prosecutor” cite any— except one section of the 1917 Espionage Act- 106 year old
“Act” used against civilians and others during WWI US involvement, ie enemies of President Wilson (late of the VA KLAN).
For your reference this is NOT “other people speeded” because the “other people cited” do NOT and never did have the power to possess the documents they are known by this same NatSec Division DOJ squad to still have in their possession- without ANY Security Clearance at all- that is— a FELONY offense under several existing National Security Statutes. You understand?
“Trump was slowly going through his things and sending items to the National Archives as he deemed appropriate. Supposedly they had been negotiating and the National Archives decided a civil lawsuit wasn’t enough so decided a criminal referral was appropriate for a former president.”
______________________________
So what is the story w/ him supposedly having his lawyers certify that a thorough search had been completed and that PDJT did not have any more documents (pertinent to the subpoena) in his possession?
Erick Erickson was eating Cheetohs one day, reading a Playboy mag. He looked down at his crotch and exclaimed, “Orange Man Bad!”
Ever since, Eric Erickson’s vocal range has move up two octaves.
Thank you.
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.