@sleepyguy saidOh !!
@sonhouse
Read it and weep:
Even if Trump took classified records, that isn't a crime. The president has the inherent constitutional power to declassify any record he wants, in any manner he wants, regardless of any otherwise-pertinent statute or regulation that applies to everyone else. The president does not need to obtain Congress' or a bureaucrat's permission—or j ...[text shortened]... tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fgarland-wray-must-impeached-unconscionable-trump-raid-opinion-1733523
But I declassified them 20 months ago.
Didn't I tell you ? 🤣
If there were any documents that were nuclear information or anything related to anything nuclear, this is very serious.
Especially if Putin has anything on Trump.
What if anything has already been passed over to a 3rd party ?
Why do you think the Espionage Act is in play here.
And GOP boneheads trying to abolish it.
Trump and those trying to protect him are scrambling to come up with anything at this point.
The FBI planted the evidence ? Really ?
The FBI has nuclear secrets documents ? Really ?
I as a member of the public have very little except what I've heard over the media.
Man, but it sure stinks !! 🤔
@techsouth saidIf loudmouth had "damning evidence" against the FBI he would have publicized it long ago.
Maybe he had even more damning evidence that the FBI deliberately falsified evidence to try to have Trump removed from office.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi-attorney-admits-altering-email-used-fisa-application-during-crossfire-hurricane
Which sounds more likely, he had damning evidence against the FBI or someone the FBI wanted to protect, or that he planned ...[text shortened]... nuclear secrets to Russia?
The former sounds at least possible. The later is totally laughable.
I'm not willing to speculate further.
@no1marauder saidYou know this for certain?
If loudmouth had "damning evidence" against the FBI he would have publicized it long ago.
In politics, none of us have access to all the raw data. Generally I consider those who recognize there are limits on what they can know to be of more credibility than those who don't recognize any limits.
@mghrn55 saidYou're worried about Putin having anything on Trump when Biden is in office?
If there were any documents that were nuclear information or anything related to anything nuclear, this is very serious.
Especially if Putin has anything on Trump.
What if anything has already been passed over to a 3rd party ?
Why do you think the Espionage Act is in play here.
And GOP boneheads trying to abolish it.
Trump and those trying to protect him are scrambl ...[text shortened]... of the public have very little except what I've heard over the media.
Man, but it sure stinks !! 🤔
Do you ever worry that Ukraine has something in the Biden family?
Can we know for sure that our extensive support for Ukraine is really in our best interest? I can't. I'd feel a lot better if I saw any hint that the FBI took that possibility as seriously as they are going after Trump.
"related to nuclear" could mean anything. It could be a note to Kim Jung saying "We'd like to find a compromise that result in you abandoning your pursuit of nuclear weapons."
That is "related to nuclear weapons" and the way the media likes to use weasel words, I wouldn't be surprised if it were something like that they fear Trump retained.
You say it sure stinks. So do I. With so many hoaxes against Trump, how can I be confident this isn't another? And the media would never give Trump credit no matter what good he does (e.g. Abraham Accords). You think they're objective?
@techsouth saidYou wildly speculated and that wild speculation is inherently improbable. You think it isn't based solely on your partisan beliefs as your posts here make clear.
You know this for certain?
In politics, none of us have access to all the raw data. Generally I consider those who recognize there are limits on what they can know to be of more credibility than those who don't recognize any limits.
I won't wildly speculate like you do.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
What can the president declassify?
Well,,,Harry Truman told Joe Stalin about the A-Bomb, he never took any heat for it.
Then he told the whole world over the radio the day after Hiroshima.
The Japanese hierarchy didn't believe Hiroshima was from a single bomb blast and insisted it took an armada of B-29's to do that much damage.....
But Harry had already spilled the beans to Russia, so I guess it didn't make any difference.
Imagine if he had kept it secret and just let everyone guess how we managed to obliterate cities with a single aircraft!
@no1marauder saidI have not wildly speculated. I have put forth a few not too far-fetched possibilities that are not meant to prove anything, but merely to suggest we should have humility in what we think we "know". I think it is a useful exercise in developing healthy skepticism.
You wildly speculated and that wild speculation is inherently improbable. You think it isn't based solely on your partisan beliefs as your posts here make clear.
I won't wildly speculate like you do.
Curious. Did you consider the idea of "Russian Collusion" wild speculation?
Edit: As far as wild speculation goes. You presumably have never met Trump personally, yet you are able to ascertain as "fact" that if he knew "X" he would have revealed that to us. Perhaps Trump is using that as insurance because he knows they have something on him. That's just one possibility. There is no guarantee we can even imagine all the possibilities. Some possibilities can still allow the possibility that Trump is highly corrupt. Some do not require that stipulation. I submit to you that you do not "know" what Trump would do with some hypothetical dirt he has on someone in the FBI (or someone they want to protect).
I am not claiming to "know" anything about this. But it is helpful to consider possibilities that are more complex than just the cartoonishly simplistic ones.
@sleepyguy saidAlways watch out for the "................." when someone quotes a SCOTUS or other judicial opinion. Here's the full quote with the part left out in bold:
@sonhouse
Read it and weep:
Even if Trump took classified records, that isn't a crime. The president has the inherent constitutional power to declassify any record he wants, in any manner he wants, regardless of any otherwise-pertinent statute or regulation that applies to everyone else. The president does not need to obtain Congress' or a bureaucrat's permission—or j ...[text shortened]... tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fgarland-wray-must-impeached-unconscionable-trump-raid-opinion-1733523
"The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."
The case was limited to whether someone could get judicial review of the denial of a security clearance. This is hardly the same as a claim that the President has some unilateral power to declassify materials without telling anyone. The opinion continues:
See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 444 U. S. 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 389 U. S. 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 345 U. S. 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, 92 U. S. 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief."
That the President has a responsibility to protect top secret information from falling in the hands of unauthorized persons is hardly consistent with the idea that he can retain top secret documents after his term of office is over without informing those in the new administration responsible for keeping such information from "unauthorized persons".
From the folks at Lawfare a salient point:
"part and parcel of any act of declassification is communicating that act to all others who possess the same information, across all federal agencies. This point holds true regardless of whether the information exists in a document, an email, a power point presentation, and even in a government official's mental awareness. Otherwise, what would be the point of a legitimate declassification?"
https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-mar-lago-search-and-presidents-classification-and-declassification-authority
This is common sense; why in God's name would a President "declassify" something without the knowledge that the secret is no longer classified being shared with others who also know the secret information? It's absurd as the article continues with an analogy:
"in light of all this, the defense asserted by Trump's team—that while in office Trump issued "standing orders" that any "documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them"—is nothing short of laughable. It's a little like saying that the speed limit on the New Jersey Turnpike is whatever speed the governor chooses to drive at in any given moment. "
@techsouth saidThat's the behavior of someone trying to hide something.
So we're all worked up because Trump forgot to say "mother may I"? THAT'S the crime of the century?
This is especially true given the myriad criminal and civil cases pending against Trump, not to mention past cases of Trump being found liable for fraud; someone so untrustworthy, Republicans would not let Trump speak to Mueller out of fear he'd commit perjury. This is a man who worked with the mafia to build his business.
If Trump was afraid to declare to the government agencies what documents he planned to take, it's clearly shady behavior from a man proven to be dishonest. Remember: Trump leaked classified intel to Russian diplomats at the White House.
@techsouth
From the raid on ML, trump revealed the names of the FBI agents involved.
He did that so his army would know who to attack if they run into them.
Like I already said, how many more will die DIRECTLY because of Trump? One has already, it matters little that it was the perp himself, there is still one death on the hands of Trump.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@sleepyguy saidHe wasn't prezzie any more when he copied them and gave them to Russia and the Saudis.
It's not magic. It's called being President of the United States.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@jj-adams saidThere's just a little, slight difference between announcing that you have a power, and selling several dictatorships the details of how that power can be obtained.
What can the president declassify?
Well,,,Harry Truman told Joe Stalin about the A-Bomb, he never took any heat for it.
Then he told the whole world over the radio the day after Hiroshima.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@shallow-blue saidFine. Let us know when you can prove Trump has done that.
There's just a little, slight difference between announcing that you have a power, and selling several dictatorships the details of how that power can be obtained.