Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
I think we all need to reserve judgment until we know all the facts.
The President does not have unlimited authority to declassify documents. Some information is classified by statute, and the President does not have authority to declassify those types of documents.
Here's an interesting article on the subject:
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-trump...ll-1733230
In pursuing the unprecedented search of Donald Trump's residence on Monday, the FBI was seeking to retrieve Top Secret and "compartmented" documents dealing with intelligence "sources and methods," two federal government sources tell Newsweek—documents with the potential to reveal U.S. intelligence sources, including human sources on the American government payroll.
"Compartmented" is a specific term meaning "classified information concerning or derived from intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes, which is required to be handled within formal access control systems established by the Director of National Intelligence." It includes a variety of different access categories—for example, human, intercept, satellite sources—each of which limits how many people can know the nature of the compartment. One of the government sources says that "special access program" information was involved in the Mar-a-Lago case, a further category of information limited to an even smaller group of people.
The former president does not have authority to declassify such documents, intelligence sources say, because they are classified under statute rather than by executive order. Trump's possession of those documents and the fact that he was secreting them away came to light in the course of a multi-month federal government investigation that focused on the status of presidential records taken from the White House.
In the aftermath of the search, the Trump camp insists that President Trump had the right to declassify information, and thus none of the records were classified. Kash Patel, a Trump loyalist who served in intelligence and defense positions in the administration (and who also identifies himself as one of Donald Trump's representatives to the National Archives), told the Just The News podcast that Trump was the "ultimate arbiter" of the classification of a document and thus there could be no wrongdoing.
That characterization is incorrect, experts say, because
documents that are covered by statute, and not classified under presidential executive order, cannot be classified or declassified by the president. That includes nuclear secrets (under the Atomic Energy Act) and documents that might identify CIA case officers or agents (under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982).
Oh well if the Washington Compost says it’s true, then it’s true
Has anyone thought to research what the actual SOP is for this instead of relying on he media to tell us what it is? If I want to know how Senator Smith or Representative Jones voted on a specific bill brought before Congress I'm not going to trust Fox or MSNBC to tell me, I'm going to go to the White House website that has every bill proposed, who wrote it, who voted yay or nay and the outcome.
I'm fairly certain there is a similar way to find out how documents are classified, why they are, who or what decides the level of classification and who is allowed to change it. Y'all need to stop quoting media sources you know are biased one way or another and have no reason to be transparent or completely honest. Especially when it comes to information this important.
BTW, did you know every former POTUS is briefed on domestic and world affairs which means there are always classified materials in their possession? Clinton, Obama, Bush and Trump all get the same information. That's not what this current situation is about but it is an interesting bit of info.
(08-13-2022, 12:04 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone thought to research what the actual SOP is for this instead of relying on he media to tell us what it is? If I want to know how Senator Smith or Representative Jones voted on a specific bill brought before Congress I'm not going to trust Fox or MSNBC to tell me, I'm going to go to the White House website that has every bill proposed, who wrote it, who voted yay or nay and the outcome.
I'm fairly certain there is a similar way to find out how documents are classified, why they are, who or what decides the level of classification and who is allowed to change it. Y'all need to stop quoting media sources you know are biased one way or another and have no reason to be transparent or completely honest. Especially when it comes to information this important.
BTW, did you know every former POTUS is briefed on domestic and world affairs which means there are always classified materials in their possession? Clinton, Obama, Bush and Trump all get the same information. That's not what this current situation is about but it is an interesting bit of info.
Normally they fill out a form and it is unclassified. Trump did that and it was ignored. Previously they had fought it and I think they may have even taken it to court. The only caveat given was that they could remove some of the info like numbers and emails.
The former presidents even can have a scif put in their home to view and keep top secret documents. There is already one at the winter whitehouse.
If documents are deemed to be classified later, normally they just have the forms filled out and nothing is done about it.
Also Trump didn't pack the boxes, the national archive staff or other staff did that. If something was put in there, Trump wouldn't have a clue unless you think he is really packing his own boxes.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
All this really means is they know that the J6 nonsense had no teeth so, like Wile E. Coyote, they're picking themselves up off the ground and opening another ACME box in hopes of catching that Road Runner this time.
And the moderates will just follow the narrative, never questioning why their news is constantly wrong.
The narrative doesn't make much sense at this point. A grand conspiracy would make more sense than this does.
I don't understand Trump's motive for doing the document hoarding he has admitted to, let alone the parts he is alleged to have done.
Maybe he thought he could keep certain secrets from Biden’s people this way? That sounds unlikely, even for him. Yet we know he hoarded some documents he was supposed to give back. How much was it really, and why? We may never know. Is all of it too secret for us to have an open trial? Will there be some sort of FISA court trial for this stuff?
(08-14-2022, 03:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The narrative doesn't make much sense at this point. A grand conspiracy would make more sense than this does.
I don't understand Trump's motive for doing the document hoarding he has admitted to, let alone the parts he is alleged to have done.
Maybe he thought he could keep certain secrets from Biden’s people this way? That sounds unlikely, even for him. Yet we know he hoarded some documents he was supposed to give back. How much was it really, and why? We may never know. Is all of it too secret for us to have an open trial? Will there be some sort of FISA court trial for this stuff?
Maybe all of this is nonsensical gibberish that has zero basis in fact and just wishful thinking. Because NONE of this crap is close to being accurate. Don’t try and create your own tin foil hat narrative, it won’t fly here.
(08-14-2022, 03:41 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2022, 03:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The narrative doesn't make much sense at this point. A grand conspiracy would make more sense than this does.
I don't understand Trump's motive for doing the document hoarding he has admitted to, let alone the parts he is alleged to have done.
Maybe he thought he could keep certain secrets from Biden’s people this way? That sounds unlikely, even for him. Yet we know he hoarded some documents he was supposed to give back. How much was it really, and why? We may never know. Is all of it too secret for us to have an open trial? Will there be some sort of FISA court trial for this stuff?
Maybe all of this is nonsensical gibberish that has zero basis in fact and just wishful thinking. Because NONE of this crap is close to being accurate. Don’t try and create your own tin foil hat narrative, it won’t fly here.
Maybe. But one thing I've noticed is pretty much anything flies around here.
If Adam Schiff is anywhere in the vicinity of an investigation of Trump, you can be certain it's 95% bull [BLEEP].
(08-14-2022, 03:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2022, 03:41 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe all of this is nonsensical gibberish that has zero basis in fact and just wishful thinking. Because NONE of this crap is close to being accurate. Don’t try and create your own tin foil hat narrative, it won’t fly here.
Maybe. But one thing I've noticed is pretty much anything flies around here.
Everything starts to make sense when you just admit we have a corrupt government that is willing to weaponize institutions to protect the establishment. This has become a reoccurring theme, and anyone who is willing to consider it should start to recognize the pattern.
(08-14-2022, 03:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2022, 03:41 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe all of this is nonsensical gibberish that has zero basis in fact and just wishful thinking. Because NONE of this crap is close to being accurate. Don’t try and create your own tin foil hat narrative, it won’t fly here.
Maybe. But one thing I've noticed is pretty much anything flies around here.
Everything starts to make sense when you just admit we have a corrupt government that is willing to weaponize institutions to protect the establishment. This has become a reoccurring theme, and anyone who is willing to consider it should start to recognize the pattern.
(08-14-2022, 04:59 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2022, 03:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe. But one thing I've noticed is pretty much anything flies around here.
Everything starts to make sense when you just admit we have a corrupt government that is willing to weaponize institutions to protect the establishment. This has become a reoccurring theme, and anyone who is willing to consider it should start to recognize the pattern.
This! This! This! 100% This! +1000
(08-14-2022, 04:59 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2022, 03:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe. But one thing I've noticed is pretty much anything flies around here.
Everything starts to make sense when you just admit we have a corrupt government that is willing to weaponize institutions to protect the establishment. This has become a reoccurring theme, and anyone who is willing to consider it should start to recognize the pattern.
Exactly
Categorizing everyone in government that you don't like as "the establishment" is very intellectually lazy. Is Ted Cruz "establisment"? Is Bernie?
You're still looking at this the wrong way. Cruz or AOC or Bernie doesn't have to march in step with everyone in Washington. They can have their own opinions and cater to their base to some degree. They just have to be beholden to their donors. Let's be real for a sec: Ted Cruz and AOC aren't getting votes if they don't get money, and they don't get money if they don't vote a certain way from time to time.
Even still, Bernie, who I think is an idiot, is probably the closest thing we have in Congress to an ideologue and look how he was treated by the DNC and the media. They literally rigged the election and forced every person to drop out of the race, so he couldn't win, even with HUGE national support. Same with Rand Paul and his dad, Ron. Ron Paul had support from both sides of the isle and the media called him crazy until all you non-thinkers started believing it (which didn't take long). Our political class can separate themselves from the ruling elite, but they can't gain any traction in a system controlled by them. Well, not until Donald Trump came along.
(08-14-2022, 08:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Categorizing everyone in government that you don't like as "the establishment" is very intellectually lazy. Is Ted Cruz "establisment"? Is Bernie?
Are you just pretending to be this ignorant or is this the real you. I can’t tell sometimes
“The revelation that the FBI took boxes of privileged documents supports the theory that the raid was a pretext for the FBI to get into the house in search of other information. Former intelligence and federal law enforcement officials previously speculated that the FBI cited missing National Archives material as an excuse to obtain the warrant needed to raid Mar-a-Lago.
“I don’t think they’re that interested in classified information or the Presidential Records Act,” Andrew C. McCarthy, a former assistant attorney for the Southern District of New York, said. “They’re looking for evidence to try to make a case on Trump for Jan. 6.”
It looks like he was right.”
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/ma...n-n1620970
(08-15-2022, 07:18 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2022, 08:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Categorizing everyone in government that you don't like as "the establishment" is very intellectually lazy. Is Ted Cruz "establisment"? Is Bernie?
Are you just pretending to be this ignorant or is this the real you. I can’t tell sometimes
“The revelation that the FBI took boxes of privileged documents supports the theory that the raid was a pretext for the FBI to get into the house in search of other information. Former intelligence and federal law enforcement officials previously speculated that the FBI cited missing National Archives material as an excuse to obtain the warrant needed to raid Mar-a-Lago.
“I don’t think they’re that interested in classified information or the Presidential Records Act,” Andrew C. McCarthy, a former assistant attorney for the Southern District of New York, said. “They’re looking for evidence to try to make a case on Trump for Jan. 6.”
It looks like he was right.”
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/ma...n-n1620970
There is no "revelation that the FBI took boxes of privileged documents." It's an unproven claim, just like the unproven claim that "Trump took Nuclear secrets so he could sell them to the Saudis." People are just throwing stuff at the wall, hoping it will stick.
We know what was in the warrant, which spells out what they were looking for and why. And that's it. That's all we really know.
You guys remind me of BLM with your attacks on law enforcement. I've even seen some Trump defenders calling for the defunding of the FBI. Sounds like BLM, doesn't it?
Maybe we should all wait until the facts come out before we render a judgment. Just because I don't trust Trump, that doesn't mean he's guilty, and just because you don't trust the FBI, that doesn't mean he's innocent.
Yep, lots of conjecture and false accusations masquerading as fact right now. It’s very likely the public may never see it, but the affidavit which triggered the warrant would be the most revealing bit of truth. This will all shake out in court.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17