Having trouble understanding current events

MonacoMike said:
This post gets to the crux of the issue, you still believe in the integrity of the DOJ and FBI. I do not. They are going after a guy you fear and loathe so you are all good with it. The democrats are liars and you are just perpetuating their lies.

BTW, I fully expect, if this gets to judge Berman that she will rule differently this time, she is a proven ideologue not an impartial judge.
Click to expand...
Have you perused the Trump team response this morning?
 
Cdillerud said:
I guess all the DOJ lawyers don't understand the law at the same scholarly level as you do. #sad
Click to expand...
No, the Doj lawyers can be biased against Trump and push a position that is contrary to law a policy. That’s what the judges are for.
 
I was hoping you and Ollie would do it for us...you sexy legal minds!!!

Oh, and golfguy too. He clearly has all the legal experience necessary to parse this matter.
 
Legal eagles...what is the defense to the Trump team failing to fully comply with the grand jury subpoena? Especially in light of the declaration that all documents had been returned in June after “diligent” search was proven false?

I look forward to your insight.
 
More questions for you legal experts. Is declassification a defense to willfully retaining national defense information or concealing documents that fall under a grand jury subpoena? Please use small words, not elitist legal mumbo jumbo.
 
Cdillerud said:
More questions for you legal experts. Is declassification a defense to willfully retaining national defense information or concealing documents that fall under a grand jury subpoena? Please use small words, not elitist legal mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...
Here's small words however it incudes math. Now that I understand that the liberally ill lack reading comprehension skills, adding math may confuse you more. I'll make it as simple as possible tho.....
I give what Billy gave.

th-2480791032.jpeg
 
Cdillerud said:
More questions for you legal experts. Is declassification a defense to willfully retaining national defense information or concealing documents that fall under a grand jury subpoena? Please use small words, not elitist legal mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

Look up “broad discretion”, you may even find a fifth grade explanation of its meaning.

“Jackson ruled presidents have broad discretion to designate records such as the recordings as “personal,” with little, if any, recourse for the government or the public over those decisions, even though the 1978 law requires such personal records to be those without ongoing decision-making value for the Executive Branch.”
 
OllieC said:
Here's small words however it incudes math. Now that I understand that the liberally ill lack reading comprehension skills, adding math may confuse you more. I'll make it as simple as possible tho.....
I give what Billy gave.

View attachment 133649
Click to expand...
Awwwww. I was hoping for a real legal breakdown of the response this morning. You clearly understand these things at a much higher level than any of the silly lawyers I have heard explaining things.

Don't stop now!
 
MonacoMike said:
Look up “broad discretion”, you may even find a fifth grade explanation of its meaning.

“Jackson ruled presidents have broad discretion to designate records such as the recordings as “personal,” with little, if any, recourse for the government or the public over those decisions, even though the 1978 law requires such personal records to be those without ongoing decision-making value for the Executive Branch.”
Click to expand...

And so, your interpretation of the ruling is that ANY document created for the executive can then be designated personal by decree? No proof of de-classification necessary? And that none of the documents that were withheld from the grand jury subpoena and found during the legal execution of the search warrant would have fallen under the "ongoing decision-making value for the Executive Branch" requirement as quoted above?
 
Why won't the Trump legal team say he de-classified all the documents that are marked classified and higher in their responses to the court?

What is the legal reason for avoiding that in their responses? They have written that he has the power to de-classify but not that he actually has done so. They claim it an issue to be determined later? Sort of contradicts what their client and his surrogates have claimed, doesn't it?

I am confused. Learn me up people!
 
Last edited:
I am curious. Do you or I have access to the documents that they found in Mar A Lago? Can we go look at them anytime we want, maybe take them home for the weekend? Throw them in a desk drawer next to my passports and stuff?

If not, why not? I mean, I would like to read them. See what's happening.

Does FPOTUS maintain security clearance at present?
 
Last edited:
OllieC said:
Also under the judges decision.

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, as long as President Trump segregated the materials and documented them as personal during his administration, I believe he has a case.
OllieC said:
Also under the judges decision.

“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,” the judge wrote.
Click to expand...
Also: "The PRA does not bestow on the President the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review."

BTW, recommend you go read the actual full decision rather than pulling quotes out of a piece that is likely trying to make a one-sided case.



OllieC said:
....and in addition too Jacksons ruling.

“both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama signed executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government officials do.”
Click to expand...
Wrong. President Bush's EO was superseded by President Obama's, EO 12958. If it provides for any extraordinary authority only to presidents, I don't see it; rather, it reads to me that the president has to follow the same rules as any agency head with original classification authority. On the other hand, MM posted this same quote earlier but then declared it to be unconstitutional so maybe a moot point.
 
Last edited:
alnav said:
As I said earlier, as long as President Trump segregated the materials and documented them as personal during his administration, I believe he has a case.

Also: "The PRA does not bestow on the President the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review."

BTW, recommend you go read the actual full decision rather than pulling quotes out of a piece that is likely trying to make a one-sided case.




Wrong. President Bush's EO was superseded by President Obama's, EO 12958. If it provides for any extraordinary authority only to presidents, I don't see it; rather, it reads to me that the president has to follow the same rules as any agency head with original classification authority. On the other hand, MM thinks it's unconstitutional so maybe a moot point.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the argument in the Trump teams responses need to somehow at least allude to the fact that he made EVERY document they have found at Mar A Lago a personal record and correctly segregated and documented during his term for this argument to stand? Has he done that? I have not read that in any of the Trump teams responses to the court.
 
Cdillerud said:
I was hoping you and Ollie would do it for us...you sexy legal minds!!!

Oh, and golfguy too. He clearly has all the legal experience necessary to parse this matter.
Click to expand...
You just don't understand how the legal system works. Each party plus the judge has a role. Never once when arguing a case did my opponent say "you know what, he's right. You win." :)
 
Golfman25 said:
You just don't understand how the legal system works. Each party plus the judge has a role. Never once when arguing a case did my opponent say "you know what, he's right. You win." :)
Click to expand...
I don't. You are right. I need your help parsing these things. Please do so.

I am asking serious questions to those here that know more than I do. Obviously.
 
Cdillerud said:
And so, your interpretation of the ruling is that ANY document created for the executive can then be designated personal by decree? No proof of de-classification necessary? And that none of the documents that were withheld from the grand jury subpoena and found during the legal execution of the search warrant would have fallen under the "ongoing decision-making value for the Executive Branch" requirement as quoted above?
Click to expand...
“Broad discretion”, what does that mean?

Where in the constitution does it require a President to acquiesce to others his powers?

Who possesses that power over a President?

Who has the power to tell a president what is personal and what is not?

Who has the power to tell a President how they designate things personal?

Why do you assume the tapes in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer were personal and not nuclear discussions?

Why do you believe the very same departments that have been caught lying about Trump before are now telling the truth?
 
MonacoMike said:
“Broad discretion”, what does that mean?

Where in the constitution does it require a President to acquiesce to others his powers?

Who possesses that power over a President?

Who has the power to tell a president what is personal and what is not?

Who has the power to tell a President how they designate things personal?

Why do you assume the tapes in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer were personal and not nuclear discussions?

Why do you believe the very same departments that have been caught lying about Trump before are now telling the truth?
Click to expand...
I got pulled over for speeding yesterday. Where in the constitution does it require me to go the speed limit?
 
Cdillerud said:
I got pulled over for speeding yesterday. Where in the constitution does it require me to go the speed limit?
Click to expand...
Refer to the 10th Amendment & Federalism - then afterward Minnesota speeding laws and statutes. Glad I could help.
 
Cdillerud said:
Wouldn't the argument in the Trump teams responses need to somehow at least allude to the fact that he made EVERY document they have found at Mar A Lago a personal record and correctly segregated and documented during his term for this argument to stand? Has he done that? I have not read that in any of the Trump teams responses to the court.
Click to expand...
Here's a quote from an article about President Trump's legal filing just made today in response to the "Special Master" ruling:
"Trump's attorneys responded to a Department of Justice motion asking District Court judge Aileen Cannon to give the government access to classified materials seized in the search, and they suggested that he may have declassified or designated some of those items as personal records."
Full filing is here. The filing also admits that some of the material may be Presidential Records.
So, looks like they aren't ready to argue about specifics yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,164
Messages
1,427,640
Members
61,074
Latest member
Corders2
Back
Top