God gave you free will, & the ignore button. I assure you, you will be soothed if you use it. Otherwise, I assume you must enjoy beating your head against a wall. Cheers.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Donald Trump Indicted by special counsel
- Thread starter canadyjd
- Start date
- Status
God gave you free will, & the ignore button. I assure you, you will be soothed if you use it. Otherwise, I assume you must enjoy beating your head against a wall. Cheers.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Of course, it wasn't a false statement. You just won't accept reality. I was just going to let it go, but you are throwing around phrases like "the 'taint so' crowd" and accusing others of condescension for pointing our your unwarranted arrogance.
You have chosen to believe that the Constitution (which does not mention classified documents or state secrets at all) somehow gives the Executive Branch total control of the classification process and procedures. You offer no support for that view except for repeating the claim over and over, and stamping it with a "Full Stop" response.
You claim, in effect, that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (passed by Congress and signed by the President - the head of the Executive Branch) is unconstitutional based on the assumptions you place on the phrase, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" which has nothing to do with classified documents. The Constitution does not assign any branch of government control over the classification system, but it has been worked out within the last 75 years by all three branches of the US government.
The classification system was begun through an Executive Order issued by Harry Truman in 1951 (well after the passage of the Constitution), and then supplemented during Eisenhower's administration by working with Congress to protect nuclear secrets to create the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Former President Trump did not change anything about the classification system during his Presidency, so the prevailing system falls under Executive Order 13526 issued on December 29, 2009, which notes:
Sec. 6.2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" shall be handled, protected, classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulations issued under that Act.
Deal with it.
Last edited:
Yup. That happens when I obviously haven’t read half the posts, just making assumptions based on past experience. I’ll refrain from interjecting friendly advice in the future.
1) I am immune to your parade of insults. Deal with it.
2) The executive power is vested in the President. Deal with it.
3) As commander and chief, the President has authority to classify and declassify documents. Deal with it.
4) Executive Orders of a prior administration can be nullified by a subsequent administration. Deal with it.
You are immune to information you don't like.
Sure. But that's irrelevant to your assertion. The Constitution does not assign anything regarding classified documents or state secrets to the Executive Branch. The US system regulating state secrets is of recent origin. Regulation began during World War II.
In most cases, yes. But not all cases. I have provided extensive documentation. You have provided assertions with nothing to back it up but your arrogance. You are not the arbiter of reality. The sooner you learn that the better your life will be.
Yes, but they haven't been. Provide evidence that Trump modified or rescinded that Executive Order. And don't give me that Trump 'did it in his mind' garbage. That's not the way a nation works, unless you claim Trump was a dictator.
Let's see some evidence.
Baptist Believer said: You are immune to information you don't like.
Folks, note this poster is attacking me personally, rather than addressing my views.
Sure. But that's irrelevant to your assertion. The Constitution does not assign anything regarding classified documents or state secrets to the Executive Branch. The US system regulating state secrets is of recent origin. Regulation began during World War II.
Here we have a denial of the obvious, the Executive branch has been classifying and declassifying documents from the beginning.
In most cases, yes. But not all cases. I have provided extensive documentation. You have provided assertions with nothing to back it up but your arrogance. You are not the arbiter of reality. The sooner you learn that the better your life will be.
Note now my citation of Art. II is said not to have been posted. And I pointed out that laws passed and signed in the past that were ruled unconstitutional are a dime a dozen. The disenfranchisement of the President fits the mold.
Yes, but they haven't been. Provide evidence that Trump modified or rescinded that Executive Order. And don't give me that Trump 'did it in his mind' garbage. That's not the way a nation works, unless you claim Trump was a dictator.
Let's see some evidence.
Ever hear of the pocket veto, where inaction nullifies action?
1) The President has the power and Constitutional authority to declassify any and all documents.
2) When the President does not adhere to regulations formulated by the Executive Branch, his action nullified those requirements.
Folks, note this poster is attacking me personally, rather than addressing my views.
Sure. But that's irrelevant to your assertion. The Constitution does not assign anything regarding classified documents or state secrets to the Executive Branch. The US system regulating state secrets is of recent origin. Regulation began during World War II.
Here we have a denial of the obvious, the Executive branch has been classifying and declassifying documents from the beginning.
In most cases, yes. But not all cases. I have provided extensive documentation. You have provided assertions with nothing to back it up but your arrogance. You are not the arbiter of reality. The sooner you learn that the better your life will be.
Note now my citation of Art. II is said not to have been posted. And I pointed out that laws passed and signed in the past that were ruled unconstitutional are a dime a dozen. The disenfranchisement of the President fits the mold.
Yes, but they haven't been. Provide evidence that Trump modified or rescinded that Executive Order. And don't give me that Trump 'did it in his mind' garbage. That's not the way a nation works, unless you claim Trump was a dictator.
Let's see some evidence.
Ever hear of the pocket veto, where inaction nullifies action?
1) The President has the power and Constitutional authority to declassify any and all documents.
2) When the President does not adhere to regulations formulated by the Executive Branch, his action nullified those requirements.
I figured Trump would have no issues with the classified docs. But then he commented that he didn't declassify the docs when in office. So who knows how it will go.
It was a misdemeanor to mishandle classified documents, but in 2018 Trump signed into law a bill making it a felony.
Unfortunately this issue isn't really that interesting. Politics is usually more entertaining.
It was a misdemeanor to mishandle classified documents, but in 2018 Trump signed into law a bill making it a felony.
Unfortunately this issue isn't really that interesting. Politics is usually more entertaining.
A formal and legal system of classification began with a Executive Order 10290 in 1951, issued by President Truman. The latest version of the formal and legal system for the classification of documents and information is the basis of the indictment against Former President Trump.
The formal and legal system of classification does not rest ALL authority on the CURRENT President, because there are exceptions to the unilateral authority of the President, as I have repeatedly and painstakingly documented.
The indictment is NOT about whether or not state secrets existed at the time of the Constitution. Certainly, they did, but the Constitution DOES NOT address the issue, nor assign authority for state secrets to any branch of government.
Context is your friend. No such claim was made. An irrelevant reference to Article II is not evidence.
But we are talking about specific laws related to the classification of documents, not just any old law.
Sure. I even know what that is. It is clear you don’t know what it is because a “pocket veto” has nothing to do with existing Executive Orders. A “pocket veto” is a term used when Congress passes a bill and it goes to the President’s desk to be approved to become law. When the President doesn’t want to approve the bill, but also doesn’t want to make a big deal out of vetoing the bill, he or she simply ignores it and lets the time for approval expire at the end of the Congressional term.
Again, that has nothing to do with the preexisting Executive Orders. Again, show me evidence that Trump rescinded the existing Executive Order on classification.
False. Repeating a false statement doesn’t make it true.
The regulations were not formulated exclusively by the Executive Branch, nor were they assigned to the Executive Branch by the Constitution.
Even if what you claim is true, it is irrelevant to the indictment against Trump. Furthermore, if you had read the indictment, you would know that Trump knew that many of the documents he possessed were still classified and he did not have the authority to declassify them after Biden became President.
But you have declared the indictment a “nothing burger,” so facts don’t matter.
Absolutely correct. And neither Biden, Pence, or Trump are being prosecuted for the documents they returned. They are being treated the same for that issue.
Yes. At this point, he is being prosecuted for only the activities and attestations related to the documents he claimed not to have and refused to return.
If you read the indictment, you will see that Trump left hundreds of extremely confidential documents in publicly accessible places that has had a history of spies attempting to gain access. Those places included the stage of a ballroom, a maintenance closet, and a bathroom.
And Trump has not been charged for it, despite the way it is portrayed by Trump’s defenders.
Current defenses of Trump are designed for persons who have not read the indictment.
Last edited:
No matter how many times falsehoods are repeated, they remain falsehoods. The President has the power and authority to classify and declassify documents.
Any regulation, or statute that removes his or her power to declassify documents is unconstitutional, as executive power is vested in the President.
All regulations are formulated by the Excursive Branch. They impose them and rescind them. Do not confuse "statutory law with regulatory law.
Any regulation, or statute that removes his or her power to declassify documents is unconstitutional, as executive power is vested in the President.
All regulations are formulated by the Excursive Branch. They impose them and rescind them. Do not confuse "statutory law with regulatory law.
True.
You realize that Joe Biden is the President, not Trump...
Persons who have read the indictment know that Trump knew at least one of the documents he possessed remained classified and he did not have the authority to declassify it:
Beginning on page 15:
33. On July 21, 2021, when he was no longer president, TRUMP gave an interview in his office at The Bedminster Club to a writer and a publisher in connection with a then-forthcoming book. Two members of TRUMP's staff also attended the interview, which was recorded with TRUMP's knowledge and consent. Before the interview, the media had published reports that, at the end of TRUMP's term as president, a senior military official (the "Senior Military Official") purportedly feared that TRUMP might order an attack on Country A and that the Senior Military Official advised TRUMP against doing so.
34. Upon greeting the writer, publisher, and his two staff members, TRUMP stated, "Look what I found, this was [ the Senior Military Official's] plan of attack, read it and just show ... it's interesting." Later in the interview, TRUMP engaged in the following exchange:
TRUMP: Well, with [the Senior Military Official]-uh, let me see that, I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack [Country A]. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this-this is off the record, but-they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.
WRITER: Wow.
TRUMP: We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me, this was him. All sorts of stuff-pages long, look.
STAFFER: Mm.
TRUMP: Wait a minute, let's see here.
STAFFER: [Laughter] Yeah.
TRUMP: I just found, isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.
STAFFER: Mm-hm.
TRUMP: Except it is like, highly confidential.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
TRUMP: Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. You attack, and-
***
TRUMP: By the way. Isn't that incredible?
STAFFER: Yeah.
TRUMP: I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, "he wanted to attack [Country A], and what ... "
STAFFER: You did.
TRUMP: This was done by the military and given to me. Uh, I think we can probably, right?
STAFFER: I don't know, we'll, we'll have to see. Yeah, we'll have to try to-
TRUMP: Declassify it.
STAFFER: -figure out a-yeah.
TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
TRUMP: Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter] Now we have a problem.
TRUMP: Isn't that interesting?
At the time of this exchange, the writer, the publisher, and TRUMP's two staff members did not have security clearances or any need-to-know any classified information about a plan of attack on Country A.
34. Upon greeting the writer, publisher, and his two staff members, TRUMP stated, "Look what I found, this was [ the Senior Military Official's] plan of attack, read it and just show ... it's interesting." Later in the interview, TRUMP engaged in the following exchange:
TRUMP: Well, with [the Senior Military Official]-uh, let me see that, I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack [Country A]. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this-this is off the record, but-they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.
WRITER: Wow.
TRUMP: We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me, this was him. All sorts of stuff-pages long, look.
STAFFER: Mm.
TRUMP: Wait a minute, let's see here.
STAFFER: [Laughter] Yeah.
TRUMP: I just found, isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.
STAFFER: Mm-hm.
TRUMP: Except it is like, highly confidential.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
TRUMP: Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. You attack, and-
***
TRUMP: By the way. Isn't that incredible?
STAFFER: Yeah.
TRUMP: I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, "he wanted to attack [Country A], and what ... "
STAFFER: You did.
TRUMP: This was done by the military and given to me. Uh, I think we can probably, right?
STAFFER: I don't know, we'll, we'll have to see. Yeah, we'll have to try to-
TRUMP: Declassify it.
STAFFER: -figure out a-yeah.
TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
TRUMP: Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.
STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter] Now we have a problem.
TRUMP: Isn't that interesting?
At the time of this exchange, the writer, the publisher, and TRUMP's two staff members did not have security clearances or any need-to-know any classified information about a plan of attack on Country A.
The Special Counsel has multiple witness testimonies to verify this exchange AND an audio recording.
Your argument regarding former President Trump's ability to declassify documents, as well as the assertion that he declassified all the documents, is completely undermined by Trump himself.
I believe the indictment will be thrown out by our judicial system as a "ex post facto" charge, where you determine what was done then manufacture a charge making that action a crime.
This is similar to your “pocket veto” nonsense. It’s clear you don’t know what you are talking about.
“Ex post facto” is a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. In other words, it is a law that is passed AFTER an action is completed, then charged. That’s a little different than “manufactur[ing] a charge.”
Persons who have read the indictment know the exact criminal statutes that have been charged. A simple search on the history of each statute reveals the last time they were enacted or amended. The most recent statute amended was in 2004. All actions charged under this federal indictment occurred on or after January 20, 2021.
2021 is after 2004.
The counts:
COUNTS 1-31
Willful Retention of National Defense Information
(18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
Passed in 1917. Amended in 1940, 1950, 1986, 1994, and 1996.
COUNT 32
Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice
(18 U.S.C. § 1512(k))
Last major revision in 1982.
COUNT 33
Withholding a Document or Record
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2)
Last major revision in 1982.
COUNT 34
Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2)
Last major revision in 1982.
COUNT 35
Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation
(18 u.s.c. §§ 1519, 2)
Added in 2002.
COUNT 36
Scheme to Conceal
(18 U.S.C. §§ lO0l(a)(l), 2)
Added in 1951.
COUNT 37
False Statements and Representations
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2)
Last amended in 2004.
Give me a break.
If you concoct a charge by judicial malfeasance as this prosecutor has been found to do, it is tantamount to manufacturing an "Ex post facto" Law for the purpose of hindering the upcoming Presidential Election.
I've given you many breaks. You just don't realize it.
But he hasn't. And that fact you don't like the prosecutor does not make it "ex post facto," nor eliminate the copious evidence carefully presented in this indictment for the document crimes in Florida.
Moreover, this is likely just the first of at least two more federal indictments: (1) One for the documents that traveled to Bedminster (as well as revealing classified documents); and (2) for the January 6th activities.
There is also likely an indictment coming from Georgia for his post-election activities in August.
This has nothing to do with the Presidential Election, since these cases likely will not go to court until after the 2024 election.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Oh pluuulesse! The DOJ and FBI have clearly been politicized and weaponized to stop DT, first in 2016, then during his presidency and now for his re-election. It is all about 2024.
Just imagine….. DT gets reelected. They don’t have enough paper shedders in DC to erase the corruption.
peace to you
Persons who have read the indictment know that the evidence comes almost exclusively from the documents in Trump's possession, his attorneys, Trump's public and private statements, and those who have previously and currently work for Donald Trump.
This is a situation of Trump's own making. Trump is NOT being charged for the documents he voluntarily returned (just like Pence and Biden have not been charged), but only for those documents he tried to hide.
It's interesting that we are now fully at the ad hominem part of the discussion instead of tossing around questionable legal assertions. As always, the ad hominem allegations are thrown out to shift focus from the evidence to personalities.
Fortunately, the judicial system is all about evidence.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Not in the case of Hilary or Hunter or Coomie or Stauck…….
The fact they are pursuing this now, knowing it will stretch well past the 2024 election is evidence of election interference.
We will see how it all turns out. DT will have his day in court.
peace to you
No it is not. The timing of this is because of the difficulty the government has had getting the documents and investigating the situation. And the one who decides whether it will stretch past the 2024 election is Donald Trump.
Defendant Donald Trump has rights. He has the right to a speedy trial (which is the stated preference of the Special Prosecutor), but Trump also has the right to appeal every step of the process and delay the trial. Trump's history in such matters is to delay.
But given the news that the judge has scheduled the trial to begin in August 2023, and Trump is making the prosecutor's case for him every time he gives a speech or interview (the Bret Baier interview was devastating for his defense), he probably needs to go to court as quickly as possible. But all that is up to Trump and his attorneys.
He will. It is in the best interest of all Americans that Trump has a fair trial and can use every right of a defendant under the Constitution.
- Status