ADVERTISEMENT

Trump indicted….again

Hmm, it appears the Presidential Records Act states that all official records are owned by the National Achives.

First sentence is "Presidential Records Act - States that the United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of all Presidential records".

Second paragraph:

Requires the Archivist to assume custody, control, and preservation of and access to the records of a President upon the conclusion of the President's term of office; making such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible. Requires the Archivist to place such records in a Presidential archival depository or another facility operated by the United States. Authorizes the Archivist to designate, after consultation with the President, a director for each depository or facility.​

If your take is true, why did he say he shouldn't have the one document (assuming the transcript is accurate)?
Especially, why would he say that when he also said he had mentally declassified all the records anyway?

Nonetheless, whether classified or declassified, the documents are still property of the U.S. government and he still shouldn't have them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
Especially, why would he say that when he also said he had mentally declassified all the records anyway?

Nonetheless, whether classified or declassified, the documents are still property of the U.S. government and he still shouldn't have them.

He was talking about the classified documents because he didn't think it would get out to the public.

I believe conservative media and posters on here (repeating it) say he could declassify stuff so Trump took that and ran with it hoping he could escape with that excuse. About the same time, he also went with the "i didn't know about the documents" excuse because he couldn't decide on which conflicting excuse he wanted to use.
 
He can take any Presidential Record he wants. If the National Archives wants something back that’s to be negotiated between them and the Trump team. There is no criminal component to the Presidential Records Act.

And say he had some highly important document they wanted back. Why did they wait until 18 months after he left office to request it back?
This isn't true: "Why did they wait until 18 months after he left office to request it back?"

The govt formally requested Trump return documents after only like 2-3 months after Trump left office, after the Archives had a chance to check their lists and inventories to see what documents were missing.
 
I've shown my hand, the actual law and the litigator for archives. Show me where an ex-president is allowed to keep what they want.
Hey dbmhoosier...
00d41ea8e5ce6f154647e32f92311201.jpg
 
The PRESIDENT can take records. All permissions are tied to the job, not to the man. The second he stopped being president, he lost all permissions and clearances.

Here is a sentence I put up before,

Requires the Archivist to assume custody, control, and preservation of and access to the records of a President upon the conclusion of the President's term of office;​
Once a President leaves office, the National Archives everything.

Now you mention the archives requesting things back, THEY DID. There were multiple letters sent.

The other part of that is classified, Donald Trump has NO security clearance. None. Zip, Zero. Nor does Joe Biden. POTUS has all the security. The second Donald Trump lost the presidency, he lost the ability to see or possess classified information. Now the current president can extend security clearance to a former president, and most times ex-presidents receive security briefings. Biden did not allow this for Trump.

If you don't like the actual act, the man who serves as litigator for the National Archives says this, "No president has the right to retain presidential records after he or she leaves office."



I've shown my hand, the actual law and the litigator for archives. Show me where an ex-president is allowed to keep what they want.

But he read it on Twitter!
 
None of your “fvcks” are a crime.
I was explaining why the dictator wannabe remains a threat to American democracy.

Yes, standing alone, they're not crimes. But they provide the basis for some/much of his extensive criminal activity.

Just an FYI - - obstruction of justice is a crime. So is election interference. So is racketeering.

We don't even know the half of it yet, but Jack Smith is not fvcking around. Neither is Fani Willis. Given Trump's history, it's not unreasonable to assume that the evidence is going to be devastating for him.
 
Destroying classified is a much worse offense. That's not even a question.

Senators who remove classified documents without authorization is a crime. That's not even a question. And don't say him turning them over - after decades - is an excuse. It's not - he knew removing classified docs violated the law.

Either charge everyone or charge no one. Just stop the 2-tier system of justice in this country.

I think there are problems with the system, but some of it I get. We want people who accidentally take material to return it. They won't do that if they face 10 years. So there is always going to be a reward for those who cooperate over those that do not. And people who do the incredibly stupid, Sandy Berger I am looking at you, will get hit particularly hard.

But there is a huge disparity between what would happen to a military officer or State employee and a politician. That needs to be closed. Mishandling documents is serious and all should face similar music.
 
I don't think you can evaluate this until we know whether there are any other co-conspirators or co-defendants.

It'll be hard for Trump to claim he is a martyr if other conspirators and defendants say, "Yeah, we did it."

"Yeah, that's right. That's exactly what that creep Sammy Gravano did to me."​
-- Signed John Gotti​
I don't know...there have been A LOT of people go down already that worked with Trump...many of them have publicly turned on him. He's still the leading candidate for the Republican nomination.
 
Destroying classified is a much worse offense. That's not even a question.

Senators who remove classified documents without authorization is a crime. That's not even a question. And don't say him turning them over - after decades - is an excuse. It's not - he knew removing classified docs violated the law.

Either charge everyone or charge no one. Just stop the 2-tier system of justice in this country.
You wrote, "stop the 2-tier system of justice in this country."

Nice to see that you're following the official Republican talking-points memo this morning.

I didn't realize Republicans want to end the "two-tier system of justice" that has historically favored old, fat, rich white men and corporations over the interests of low income average Joes.

Trump's goose is cooked if he doesn't keep receiving the favorable treatment the legal system usually gives people like him.
 
Last edited:
So now you're shaping the crime to fit the charge.

You don't think Biden knew he was taking classified docs as a Senator? He was always the doddering fool he is today.
You make it sound as though this stuff is already proven.

If this is so well-established, why didn't Trump's administration prosecute both Bidens and Hillary when he had the chance? After all, Trump was President four whole years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
Yes, seriously.

You said: "That's what people said to Sam Adams..... (not the beer maker)."

But, the Founding Father Sam Adams was a beer maker. That's why Boston Beer Co. chose the brand SAM ADAMS.
That is kind of questionable. His family was in the malt business. He worked for his family malt house which made the malt for beer, not really a brewhouse.

Close connection that is probably why the idea of him being a brewer sprung up, but still different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Really good breakdown here, just based on what we know from court filings/media reporters. Prosecution may have more.


Also this quote from Trump from 2016


And the tape of Trump saying this put together is pretty much game, set, match for anyone with a functioning brain.
“All sorts of stuff – pages long, look. Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this.”
 
This one is much more dangerous than the Stormy Daniels situation. Trump is going to have to make some major decisions like is he going to be a husband or a wife when he goes to prison.

Maybe he will get lucky and some of his Jan 6ers will be in there with him to offer protection.
 
That is kind of questionable. His family was in the malt business. He worked for his family malt house which made the malt for beer, not really a brewhouse.

Close connection that is probably why the idea of him being a brewer sprung up, but still different.
+1 Pedantry

Many here, including myself, appreciate a good pedant.
 
That is kind of questionable. His family was in the malt business. He worked for his family malt house which made the malt for beer, not really a brewhouse.

Close connection that is probably why the idea of him being a brewer sprung up, but still different.
I would not call it questionable, but rather it is unclear if his involvement extended beyond malting. From the article linked below:

It’s unclear if Adams himself was a brewer, but colonial records reveal that he was at least a maltster and involved in the beer business. A 1751 advertisement in the Boston Evening Post read, “Strong beer, or malt for those who incline to brew it themselves; to be sold by Samuel Adams, at a very reasonable rate.”​

 
This one is much more dangerous than the Stormy Daniels situation. Trump is going to have to make some major decisions like is he going to be a husband or a wife when he goes to prison.
If he keeps up the grift to raise enough Lil Debbies in there, he just may be able to keep himself prison-pure. Now make no mistake... he'll want to eat them all when the depression and tears set in as he learns from behind bars that he lost to Joe Biden again.

If half-way through his sentence, he's not smearing "witch hunt" and "I won" on the cell walls with his stink-hole finger paint, then he actually may do just fine in lock-up.
 
I would not call it questionable, but rather it is unclear if his involvement extended beyond malting. From the article linked below:

It’s unclear if Adams himself was a brewer, but colonial records reveal that he was at least a maltster and involved in the beer business. A 1751 advertisement in the Boston Evening Post read, “Strong beer, or malt for those who incline to brew it themselves; to be sold by Samuel Adams, at a very reasonable rate.”​

I can get with unclear, that was my intended meaning when using questionable.
 
Presumably that would be easy to figure out. Which primary you vote in isn't a confidential record, only who you voted for. If there were a large uptick in party switching that's statistically significant over normal years then it would be really easy to prove. The fact that it's been a conventional wisdom thing as opposed to being shown indicates to me that it's more legend than fact.
This doesn't say anything about switching votes but it's along the lines that i mentioned.

 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812 and TMFT
A felony conviction is not a disqualifier under the Constitution. I think it highly unlikely he goes to trial before the 2024 election, even though he should. Would have been funny had they figured out a way to file in the Eastern District of Virginia - the dreaded Rocket Docket.
They are fast-tracking this thing so that the trial will happen right in the middle of the general campaign.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge
I bet they'll get a change of judge or they will just end up appealing her rulings like they did before.
So even you believe she's hopelessly biased?

Better tell your SC nominee Garland who appointed her.
 
Yes, seriously.

You said: "That's what people said to Sam Adams..... (not the beer maker)."

But, the Founding Father Sam Adams was a beer maker. That's why Boston Beer Co. chose the brand SAM ADAMS.
Touche. I thought Sam Adams beer was just a marketing ploy.

Learn something new every day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noodle
That is kind of questionable. His family was in the malt business. He worked for his family malt house which made the malt for beer, not really a brewhouse.

Close connection that is probably why the idea of him being a brewer sprung up, but still different.
And now we know...... the REST of the story!
 
So even you believe she's hopelessly biased?

Better tell your SC nominee Garland who appointed her.

lol Trump appointed her and she got many of her rulings overturned last time Trump had her as a judge when she tried to rule in his favor.

Might want to use google before thinking you made a point ;).
 
I didn't say he will dump her. I said he should consider it. If you're going to blow shit at someone for what they said, try to make it what they actually, you know, said.
That’s fair. What’s the point in talking about what Biden should do? His intentions and priorities could not be more clear. He seemingly fumbled this on purpose. Take that America!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Interesting notes from the indictment:

1. Trump and his team were way more incompetent than could possibly have been imagined. The classified info that he wrongfully took to Mar-a-Lago sat in boxes on a stage in a ballroom for months while events were taking place in that ballroom. Like decorations.
2. Interestingly, Trump was not charged with disclosure of classified info, despite the indictment detailing two instances of him doing exactly that.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT