(08-24-2022 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2022 11:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2022 11:20 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2022 11:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]For classified documents, that is exactly wrong. Presidents can declassify simply by sharing a classified document with someone without classification. The document is automatically declassified if he shares it with a foreign official. If a president takes a document from a secure to non-secure location, it is deemed declassified.
Classification statutes DO NOT APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT. There are no "rules" he has to follow.
Please show me where he can do this. You have not shown this is legal. This is the point I've made from the beginning. He can change the classification, but it still has to go through the official channels to be available for FOIA requests, that the departments it pertains to is aware of it now being declassified, etc. etc.. This is where you are getting hung up on things. He cannot just take it and say it is declassified without making people aware of the new classification of said document.
FFS, now he's claiming that he doesn't even have to SAY it's declassified, he just has to take it out of the SCIF!
What difference would it make? What if he says it and nobody is there to hear it? Here is what the slow witted fail to grasp. The president IS the Executive Branch. All the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch flow outward from the president. All the official bureaucrats who make up the Executive Branch derive their power via delegation from the President and they all serve at his pleasure. In other words, the president is imbued with ALL the constitutional powers of the of Executive Branch. That bureaucracy is just there as a logistical vehicle designed to efficiently carry out the presidents duties.
That's all well and good, but there's still procedures in place to make sure our sensitive information is properly protected...even with the broad powers the president has.
(08-24-2022 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2022 12:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Does it matter to ANY of you that the possession or removal of classified information was not part of the rationale listed for the search warrant??
Does it matter to you that you don't seem to have a grasp of what all the statutes cited in the warrant entail? Pretty sure the DOJ and the AG do.
I'm 100% confident that I have
AT LEAST the same grasp as you....
Let me help you.... From the NY Times.
l
Quote:While it is legally irrelevant, former President Donald J. Trump claims he had declassified the top secret files the F.B.I. seized at his Florida residence.
Legally irrelevant is the key phrase and it is in the byline of the article.... and if you read 'about the author', I'm convinced that he's got a pretty good idea of what he's saying... unlike ANY of us. Not that he can't have a bias, but he's sure putting his reputation out on a limb... and I see no reason for him to do so while reporting for a liberal paper.
Quote:In the unlikely event that the Justice Department were to charge him under the law that makes the unauthorized retention or removal of classified material a crime — despite not listing it as a focus of the investigation in the search warrant — a novel question would arise if Mr. Trump were then to repeat the claim as a defense.
Proponents of a strong view of presidential power have argued in other contexts that presidents are not personally bound by the rules and procedures that regulate the conduct of their subordinates in the executive branch — and that presidents can even disregard executive orders without first rescinding them. Others disagree with that vision of executive power.
So even the NY Times doesn't care about what you seem all worked up about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/14/us/po...ments.html
This is a paper that has made a FORTUNE off of bashing Trump for NY'ers... and even THEY say this aspect is a lot of smoke and no fire.
(08-24-2022 12:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2022 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2022 11:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2022 11:20 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (08-24-2022 11:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]For classified documents, that is exactly wrong. Presidents can declassify simply by sharing a classified document with someone without classification. The document is automatically declassified if he shares it with a foreign official. If a president takes a document from a secure to non-secure location, it is deemed declassified.
Classification statutes DO NOT APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT. There are no "rules" he has to follow.
Please show me where he can do this. You have not shown this is legal. This is the point I've made from the beginning. He can change the classification, but it still has to go through the official channels to be available for FOIA requests, that the departments it pertains to is aware of it now being declassified, etc. etc.. This is where you are getting hung up on things. He cannot just take it and say it is declassified without making people aware of the new classification of said document.
FFS, now he's claiming that he doesn't even have to SAY it's declassified, he just has to take it out of the SCIF!
What difference would it make? What if he says it and nobody is there to hear it? Here is what the slow witted fail to grasp. The president IS the Executive Branch. All the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch flow outward from the president. All the official bureaucrats who make up the Executive Branch derive their power via delegation from the President and they all serve at his pleasure. In other words, the president is imbued with ALL the constitutional powers of the of Executive Branch. That bureaucracy is just there as a logistical vehicle designed to efficiently carry out the presidents duties.
That's all well and good, but there's still procedures in place to make sure our sensitive information is properly protected...even with the broad powers the president has.
Read the Constitution. The power is the presidents. Bureaucratic procedures are well meaning and all---they certainly have their place---but they exist due to the delegated powers of the president and they do not override the direct powers of the president himself.
The follow-up question should have been. "Sir, if you weren't informed, who is actually running the country, then?"
That would be the logical follow up question if we actually had real journalists instead of activists writing "news."
So just stopping by to see if Trump has been arrested yet?
(08-25-2022 08:26 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote: [ -> ]So just stopping by to see if Trump has been arrested yet?
No, but we know more about the archivist. This is the dude that had no idea that HIllarys emails were missing, and when he found out they were on a private server, acted like it was no big deal and sent emails to her to see if he could get them.
Yet when Trump was leaving the whitehouse, he saw someone carrying out a white bankers box and he sh*t his pants in anger. This is the guy Garland relied on in his fake warrant.
Isn't today the day that they're suppose to turn over the redacted affadavit to show why they ordered the raid?
(08-22-2022 10:48 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2022 07:56 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ]When I was younger, I was the same way and disregarded the danger of what was the passing of the Patriot Act, because I believed in the absolute good of partisan politics and blind support of political party. Since then, I’ve grown up, experienced the world around, allow myself to be humored by people like Tanq instead of angered, and no longer blindly allow myself to support partisan politics for reasons of self preservation above all. That’s just my “Gomer” view though.
It is interesting you say that... When I was 21 years younger (I'm 43 now) I was appalled at the Patriot Act. The "conservatives" told me that I shouldn't be worried if I'm doing nothing wrong. But then again, as a libertarian I've been told I'm not conservative, nor am I smart because I vote for someone who has zero chance of winning.
As I've said multiple times, neither party is good for this country. They are fiscally liberal, and they both take away our rights with every administration. Time to get a new party in place that actually cares about our rights.
What people like you dont understand or cant see or let your hate of the personality get in the way of....
you had your 3rd party or as close to it in your lifetime as you'll get in the white house from 2016-2020.
You really dont want any 3rd party. What you want is no different than those that vote democrat or republican. That's someone you agree with on what you think is best for the country. Which makes you or your 3rd party no different than a democrat or republican ....
govern for a side and not all
Most people can't get over the fact that what's good for them might not be good for the country as a whole. It's why I vote issues, not party, which you clearly do and clearly said so. Its also why I dont need to agree with every little (sometimes even big) issues a president takes, to vote for them.
Personally I think most Americans can't see the forest because of the trees and most are ME ME ME and that's all that matters. BTW I dont disagree with the bold part and saw the Patriot Act for what it was/is. I hated it. But at the same time I also dont have a probably with a guilty man being set free if that means it helps that same system protects us all.
(08-22-2022 01:33 PM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2022 01:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-22-2022 10:50 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]And if Trump had classified/TS/national defense documents and didn't return them when he had the chance, he should be as well.
"If"
None of us know what he did or did not have in possession, nor pursuant to what authority, if any, he did so. I will wait for facts before forming opinions.
There's a reason why I have that key word in there. I am happy to wait for the investigation to close. I also don't think the affidavit needs to be released at this time either.
You point out that you said "if" all the time and also point out you are willing to wait and see....
after reading a number of your post that it bullshite. You clearly made up your mind that Trump is lying because you are willing to believe the leaks and want others to PROVE what Trump says is in fact the truth. You do it over and over and over. So stop with the "I will wait and see bullshite. No matter how many times you put "IF" into your post. Your other words clearly point to you took a side.
(08-25-2022 09:00 AM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't today the day that they're suppose to turn over the redacted affadavit to show why they ordered the raid?
I believe it was supposed to be turned in by yesterday evening so he could review it today.
(08-25-2022 09:24 AM)WKUYG Wrote: [ -> ]Most people can't get over the fact that what's good for them might not be good for the country as a whole. It's why I vote issues, not party, which you clearly do and clearly said so. Its also why I dont need to agree with every little (sometimes even big) issues a president takes, to vote for them.
I've always voted on issues. Number 1 issue is spending... I want to balance the budget. Both parties have shown that they cannot manage a budget (or don't care to manage one), and certainly don't want to balance one.
Quote:Personally I think most Americans can't see the forest because of the trees and most are ME ME ME and that's all that matters. BTW I dont disagree with the bold part and saw the Patriot Act for what it was/is. I hated it. But at the same time I also dont have a probably with a guilty man being set free if that means it helps that same system protects us all.
I am not looking for a handout to me. I'm looking for the government to balance their budget so that I'm not losing buying power with my savings/403b every day. The track that the 2 party system has put us on ends up rolling off a cliff at some point. Hence my point about wanting to get a legitimate 3rd party involved if, for nothing else, to start holding the other 2 accountable.
(08-25-2022 09:36 AM)WKUYG Wrote: [ -> ]You point out that you said "if" all the time and also point out you are willing to wait and see....
after reading a number of your post that it bullshite. You clearly made up your mind that Trump is lying because you are willing to believe the leaks and want others to PROVE what Trump says is in fact the truth. You do it over and over and over. So stop with the "I will wait and see bullshite. No matter how many times you put "IF" into your post. Your other words clearly point to you took a side.
First of all, he has been caught in lies in the past, so there is a history there. Second of all, I haven't made up my mind about anything. We have 2 years before the election, I want them to get things right one way or the other. If it takes them an extra month to fully comb through things then I'm okay with it.
On a side note, I am already on record saying that I don't think anything comes of this and he is never charged.
(08-25-2022 09:49 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2022 09:24 AM)WKUYG Wrote: [ -> ]Most people can't get over the fact that what's good for them might not be good for the country as a whole. It's why I vote issues, not party, which you clearly do and clearly said so. Its also why I dont need to agree with every little (sometimes even big) issues a president takes, to vote for them.
I've always voted on issues. Number 1 issue is spending... I want to balance the budget. Both parties have shown that they cannot manage a budget (or don't care to manage one), and certainly don't want to balance one.
Quote:Personally I think most Americans can't see the forest because of the trees and most are ME ME ME and that's all that matters. BTW I dont disagree with the bold part and saw the Patriot Act for what it was/is. I hated it. But at the same time I also dont have a probably with a guilty man being set free if that means it helps that same system protects us all.
I am not looking for a handout to me. I'm looking for the government to balance their budget so that I'm not losing buying power with my savings/403b every day. The track that the 2 party system has put us on ends up rolling off a cliff at some point. Hence my point about wanting to get a legitimate 3rd party involved if, for nothing else, to start holding the other 2 accountable.
among too many others to list, term limits will yield that third ‘party’ within a two party system … ref: #henceDJT
(08-25-2022 09:55 AM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]among too many others to list, term limits will yield that third ‘party’ within a two party system … ref: #henceDJT
Absolutely... how do we get there? The lawmakers themselves aren't going to pass that. We'd have to have a constitutional convention it seems to me.
(08-25-2022 09:00 AM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't today the day that they're suppose to turn over the redacted affadavit to show why they ordered the raid?
Deadline of noon, iirc, to submit the proposed redactions and brief detailing the reasons for the redactions to the court.
Also, if the affadavit has anything about Ferriero, that should be unredacted. The guy gave an interview where he basically said he did it.
(08-25-2022 09:59 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2022 09:55 AM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]among too many others to list, term limits will yield that third ‘party’ within a two party system … ref: #henceDJT
Absolutely... how do we get there? The lawmakers themselves aren't going to pass that. We'd have to have a constitutional convention it seems to me.
Exactly. I believe Ted Cruz even introduced a bill and it was shot down. I could be mistaken. The issue we have is there are rich people getting into those positions and make a career out of it to only enrich themselves so why put a limit on themselves.
But there has to be a way to get it done, that's like you going to a job and saying you can't fire me.
(08-25-2022 09:49 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2022 09:24 AM)WKUYG Wrote: [ -> ]Most people can't get over the fact that what's good for them might not be good for the country as a whole. It's why I vote issues, not party, which you clearly do and clearly said so. Its also why I dont need to agree with every little (sometimes even big) issues a president takes, to vote for them.
I've always voted on issues. Number 1 issue is spending... I want to balance the budget. Both parties have shown that they cannot manage a budget (or don't care to manage one), and certainly don't want to balance one.
Quote:Personally I think most Americans can't see the forest because of the trees and most are ME ME ME and that's all that matters. BTW I dont disagree with the bold part and saw the Patriot Act for what it was/is. I hated it. But at the same time I also dont have a probably with a guilty man being set free if that means it helps that same system protects us all.
I am not looking for a handout to me. I'm looking for the government to balance their budget so that I'm not losing buying power with my savings/403b every day. The track that the 2 party system has put us on ends up rolling off a cliff at some point. Hence my point about wanting to get a legitimate 3rd party involved if, for nothing else, to start holding the other 2 accountable.
Everything in the above post is about "ME" and what I think is best for the country. How is that different than the idiots that ran this country the 63 and 43 years of mine and your life?
I happen to agree with you to a point on both parties destroying this country. But I'm also willing to look at others and see some people do need a handout to help them at some point in life. So it's not about what I dont need. Sometimes its best to borrow and build now than waiting till you have money in hand. I have a feeling you or most people would never owned a house or car till late in their life or at all....if you waited till you had cash.
Example: borrowing money 5 years ago to build our roads and bridges would still be a lot cheaper than if you waited 5 years till you had the money in hand. Labor and materials only increase in cost (most cases).
I have a feeling even if the government worked with a balanced budget. you would still find something wrong with the way they spent the money. Or if someone was farther left or right than you think.
Your 3rd party which almost never takes a stand on anything other than balance budget. Will be no different than the two parties running this country. Dont want what's best for the country as whole....
only what you believe is best
You CLEARLY said you vote 3rd party so You only vote with issues you agree with.