If only these guys could persuade elected politicians to confront the evidence. The majority are ignoring the evidence and reciting the false mantra of "witch hunt" and "two-tier justice system". (on this latter point, you might take a gander at the above lengthy post I directed at NO4A2.. I don't expect him to read it).

I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did.
— NOS4A2

Well that just says everything — Michael

:mask:

And then there is Stormy Daniels. Where is that woman? :chin:

Clearly untrue, considering the amount of time you've spend defending trump didn't commit crimes. It's petulant and devoid of reason: "I'm right, you're wrong but even when you're right, I don't care". Ok buddy. Nice talking to you.

The FBI, the DOJ, are some of the most corrupt institutions ever created. — NOS4A2

Two questions, in all seriousness:

(1) Is your low opinion of the FBI and the DOJ independent of their performance in matters related to Trump? If you already had good reason to distrust them, or to distrust them with respect to certain sorts of issues, and if matters related to Trump presented such issues, then indeed you might infer that their actions with regard to Trump are suspicious. Is that your view, and if so what were your separate reasons for considering the FBI and the DOJ so corrupt?

(2) Many people would decline to give much weight to the accusations of someone's political opponents -- in Trump's case, Democrats, certain Republicans. That's understandable. But as I understand it, you consider the FBI, the DOJ, and the mainstream media also to be, at least in effect, Trump's political opponents, and thus similarly untrustworthy. Some people consider these institutions neutral, and thus trustworthy sources of truth. -- Within obvious limits! Institutions are big, have a lot of moving parts and involve a lot of different agendas, so we're not talking about perfection here, just overall, in-the-long-run sort of truth. --- Organizations like Reuters, the Associated Press, they seem to many people, me among them, to be by and large nonpartisan, impartial sources, if imperfect. But not to you, so what source of bad news about Trump would you trust? And, as with my first question, do you have independent reasons for finding that source trustworthy, and if so what?

There is a wrinkle here: sometimes people find bad news more trustworthy if its source is unexpected -- for a politician, for instance, if his long-time allies are the ones bringing the bad news, that might carry particular weight, not because they're neutral but because they were known not to be. In this case, however, only a small fraction of Republicans are likely to care what someone like Bill Barr says, because by saying it, he simply becomes an opponent of former President Trump and thus untrustworthy, however high their opinion of Bill Barr may have been before. It's just possible that there will come a time when a great number (and eventually nearly all) of Trump's high-profile allies and defenders lose faith -- as I recall, it took many months for Republicans in Congress to turn on Nixon after the Watergate hearings -- but since that's somewhat unlikely, my second question is hoping for a source you consider neutral and thus trustworthy, independent of any issues related to Trump.

Case in point: you bought the false narrative: Declassification Power Absolution/Hillary/Witch Hunt/Russia Hoax.

Hillary didn't get preferential treatment. She was treated the same as anyone who unintentionally mishandled classified documents. During the investigation, Comey asked the DOJ to review every past case of mishandling of classified materials that had been prosecuted. They all fit into one of more of 4 categories; 1) clearly intentional mishandling; 2) very large quantities; 3) behavior indicating disloyalty to the US; 4) active obstruction of justice. Comey discussed this when he gave his televised speech in 2016, in which he chastised her carelessness, a speech that's been characterized as election interference. No way to know if this cost her votes, but it clearly wasn't helpful).

Less severe cases (which happen often) are treated as administrative infractions - discipline by a superior, and a mark on their employment record. All such cases, including Hillary's, entail a technical violation of the Records Act, so it's true Hillary violated the law. But GOP wanted to treat her worse than everyone else: a clear example of "two tier justice" against her.

The documents that she mishandled were the lowest classification level (confidential), Trump had documents at the highest level. There's no evidence that Hillary knew she'd mishandled anything classified. Trump knew he had classified documents. Hillary didn't hide any classified documents*, ,Trump hid some, including in defiance of a Grand Jury Subpoena for "all documents with classificaton markings" -which made his claim of having declassified them, or even "owning them" irrelevant (per the Presidential Records Act, the government owns everything except personal materials - and classified documents clearly wouldn't apply). Trump also lied and accused the FBI of planting documents. Finally, Trump is being prosecuted for crimes related to the Espionage Act, which entails risking exposure of national security secrets and isn't contingent upon the official classification level. And yet, you're reciting Trump's irrelevant assertion that as President, he declassified everything he took (which the recording referenced in the indictment proves to be another lie).

Even though Trump knowingly had possession of top secret materials, even though his actions fit 3 of the 4 categories Comey discussed, and even though he failed to send everything back when requested by National Archives - all of which puts him in a different category than Hillary, if he had fully complied with the Grand Jury Subpoena, he would not have been prosecuted. So the claim that he's been treated worse is 100% nonsense, and this should be clear to anyone who is aware of all the facts. I'll assume you weren't aware before now, but now you are (and I encourage you to research my claims to verify or dispute them).

* Deleting personal emails is not a a crime. The records act only requires the retention of government emails.

**using a personal server was stupid, but not illegal. It DID create an environment that resulted in some classified emails being inappropriately sent through it. 38 individuals were involved for a total of 497 violations (this is based on an intensive analysis conducted by the state department - see this.)

I don't know if you will have read this entire, lengthy post. It's so much easier, and satisfying, for GOP to embrace the much simpler false narrative that Trump so adeptly drummed into all you guys, particularly because it involves the hated Hillary Clinton.

P. S. For completeness, and to demonstrate my desire for objectivity: Hillary has consistently denied that she even had a technical violation of the law. This lie is the 2nd worst thing she did in the matter, behind using the private server in the first place. But it's not a crime (if lies were crimes, think about where this would leave Trump!)


Finally, regarding your parroting Trump's "witch hunt" claim (again confirming my point) the classified documents case ain't that. It began with a crime - a minor one of violating the Presidential Records act, and obstinate refusal to return documents, and in the process, Trump committed even worse crimes. It wasn't necessary to seek something to pin on him. The crimes were right in front of the government entities that were involved.

I will say that Alvin Bragg's case seems a bit shakier, but even here - it was well known that Trump was involved in a crime - this came out when Michael Cohen was prosecuted. I personally think it shouldn't have been prosecuted, but then again, should we really have a 2-tier system that prosecutes only one of the 2 co-conspirators?

I don’t think Trump has the manipulative abilities you pretend he does
— NOS4A2
You've demonstrated that you buy the false narratives. Then you add:

I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did.
— NOS4A2
My guess is that Trump made you care that Hillary broke the law, but perhaps you can point me to some old post of yours where you said the same thing about her. You obviously care that Biden MIGHT have broken the law, since you were able to point to the accusations. I trust you understand the epistemic weakness of an unsubstantiated, vague accusation vs the epistemic strength of the evidence that's referenced in the indictment, which you haven't read, at least not with understanding, since you recited Trump's talking points and said you don't care. — Relativist

Nice. Well put.

Your lengthy post is suspiciously missing one key fact, that Trump was president and has unilateral powers of declassification that neither Hillary nor Biden had. Second, that Trump was elected by the people, that means you and me. So for some strange reason, which I can only assume is propaganda driven, you’ve opted to attack those who are elected to represent the will of the people, while running defense for those who weren’t, the career politicians and bureaucrats who made a living seeking power and telling people how they should live their lives.

I wager that you’ve never made a stink about Patreaus or Panetta, two Obama officials like Clinton and Biden, who leaked and mishandled classified information, but were handled with kid’s gloves, while Assange, Snowden, and now Trump are subject to the espionage act as determined by the very same people. The penalty for that is to rot in prison, but you run defense for those who get off with a light verbal scolding. So you’ve demonstrated that your sense of justice is perverted and backwards.

:clap: :100:

Your lengthy post is suspiciously missing one key fact, that Trump was president and has unilateral powers of declassification that neither Hillary nor Biden had — NOS4A2

Your "key fact" (taken from Trump's talking points) is a red herring, and it's moot because:

1. Trump's own words clearly indicate that the "war plan" document that he showed to an unauthorized person had not been declassified. He had the document, knew he had it, acknowledged he couldn't show it to him, and did not return this document when requested by NARA, nor even in response to the Grand Jury Subpoena for all documents "with classification markings" (note the careful wording). This also calls into question the claim that he had a standing order to declassify any documents he took.
2. Trump is not charged with mishandling classified documents. Instead, he was charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information under the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act provision does not depend on official classification level.*

Who else has willfully retained national defense documents (or even classified documents) that hasn't been prosecuted? The willfullness of the acts is a big deal. The associated obstruction is also a big deal. You seem to ignore this and focus solely on the aspects of the case that are similar to other cases.

Second, that Trump was elected by the people, that means you and me. So for some strange reason, which I can only assume is propaganda driven, you’ve opted to attack those who are elected to represent the will of the people, while running defense for those who weren’t, the career politicians and bureaucrats who made a living seeking power and telling people how they should live their lives. — NOS4A2

Your assumption of "propaganda" is incorrect, because I'm merely stating facts - facts that you haven't actually disputed (you've simply ignored them). Still, I guess bringing up facts does constitute an attack, but a reasonable one. By contrast, you stated Trumpian talking points that are irrelevant (like his erstwhile declassification power), false (e.g. the Russian investigation was a "hoax"), and questionable (e.g. there was a "witch hunt"). Your practice of presenting falsehoods and half truths better fits the term "propoganda" than my catalog of facts you haven't even disputed. Reminder: I even criticized Hillary, whereas I've noticed nothing from you that's critical of Trump.

I wager that you’ve never made a stink about Patreaus or Panetta,]I didn't have to raise a stink about Patreus - he was appropriately prosecuted. It is noteworthy that he admitted he was wrong, and had regrets. Think we'll every hear that from Trump? — NOS4A2

Re: Panetta, I assume you're referring to his discussing Top Secret information at an awards ceremony. I agree he did wrong, but did it meet a prosecutorial standard? His excuse was that he thought all attendees had clearance. Is that plausible? I don't know, but to meet a prosecutorial standard, you have to establish (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was consciously aware. Like with Hillary, he should be slammed for his mistake. But if you think this should have been prosecuted, you'll need to make the case.

now Trump are subject to the espionage act as determined by the very same people.

As I said previously, intent matters (in legalese: mens rea). Can you not grasp that? Trump's technical violation began on Jan 20, 2021 when he ceased being President. No one has proposed he should have been prosecuted for that, and yet it's the closest analogy to Biden, Clinton, and (AFAIK) Panetta.

The penalty for that is to rot in prison, but you run defense for those who get off with a light verbal scolding. So you’ve demonstrated that your sense of justice is perverted and backwards.

I referred to prosecutorial standards, as identified by Comey. Was Comey mistaken? I'm open to hearing evidence that shows he was. But perhaps you'd prefer to prosecute everyone with a technical violation. You'd be consistent with Trump in 2016, when he said:

"I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."
"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information."

Did you agree with him? If so, I hope you realize that this couldn't work retroactively, so you shouldn't complain when applying it to events AFTER 2016. Personally I think that's too harsh (although I do think there need to be process improvements that reduce the incidence). But as I said, the standards described by Comey seem to be what's been done historically and currently, and your guy is unfortunately on the wrong side of those standards.

-------------------------------------
* On the off chance you think charging under the Espionage Act entails an irrelevant technicality, consider the risks associated with both declassification (without vetting, as you and Trump claim was done) + careless handling of national defense documents. It's absurd on its face to suggest this ought to be OK. You said you didn't care if Trump broke the law. Criminality aside, do you care that he risked national security? Has he done nothing deserving of, at least, NOS4A2's criticism?

I do agree with Trump. You’ll remember that he was the commander in chief of the armed forces. He is the only one above those rules. He can declassify what he wants. It doesn’t matter whether it’s classified documents or national defense information, which is a distinction without a difference. None of that is true in any other case.

Sorry, I do think it is an irrelevant technicality. Some bureaucrat or spook marking documents as classified does not have more authority than the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. They cannot re-classify Trump’s documents. They cannot seize them. The documents are no longer theirs. It doesn’t matter what law you evoke, because none of them apply.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s classified documents or national defense information, which is a distinction without a difference. — NOS4A2

There is a difference. See here:

Classification is but one basis for an agency to withhold the disclosure of records or information. A declassified record may still contain information covered by additional restrictions that would require continued withholding of information from disclosure.

A document being declassified doesn't mean that it is legal for any person to possess it. A declassified document can still be subject to the provisions of other legislation, such as the Espionage Act and Atomic Energy Act.

And as I mentioned in the other discussion, the Presidential Records Act doesn't give Presidents the authority to simply assert that agency documents are their private property.

The documents in question were not automatically declassified.

The documents in question were not automatically declassified. — NOS4A2

Even if manually declassified they may still contain information covered by additional restrictions that would require continued withholding of information from disclosure, such as the Espionage Act and Atomic Energy Act.

Executive Order 13526 doesn't circumvent legislation.

It says on your page:

WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY FOR AUTOMATIC DECLASSIFICATION?

Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information”.

They cannot re-classify Trump’s documents. — NOS4A2

They can:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

Information may not be reclassified after declassification and release to the public under proper authority unless:

(1) the reclassification is personally approved in writing by the agency head based on a document-by-document determination by the agency that reclassification is required to prevent significant and demonstrable damage to the national security;

(2) the information may be reasonably recovered without bringing undue attention to the information;

(3) the reclassification action is reported promptly to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor) and the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office; and

(4) for documents in the physical and legal custody of the National Archives and Records Administration (National Archives) that have been available for public use, the agency head has, after making the determinations required by this paragraph, notified the Archivist of the United States (Archivist), who shall suspend public access pending approval of the reclassification action by the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed by the agency head to the President through the National Security Advisor. Public access shall remain suspended pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

And in Trump's case, even if he did declassify it, it was never "release[d] to the public under proper authority", given that "prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification."

You clearly just don't understand anything about what classification is or how it works.

Yes, and?

Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2204(c)(1), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or the mandatory review provisions of section 3.5 of this order only if such classification meets the requirements of this order and is accomplished on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation or under the direction of the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order. The requirements in this paragraph also apply to those situations in which information has been declassified in accordance with a specific date or event determined by an original classification authority in accordance with section 1.5 of this order.

You are clearly reaching.

What are you talking about?

A document being declassified can still be subject to the provisions of legislation. Your claim that if Trump declassified a document then he is legally entitled to it after leaving the Presidency is factually incorrect. Jack Smith and his prosecutors know more about the law than you.

So you’re saying that after the president leaves office, they can retroactively re-classify it and arrest him for having it?

So you’re saying that after the president leaves office, they can retroactively re-classify it and arrest him for having it? — NOS4A2

I'm saying that it can be illegal for him to retain it when subpoenaed to return it even if it is, and remains, declassified.

You mistakenly believe that "unclassified" means "legal to have". That isn't the case. A document can be unclassified and illegal to have.

Do you think the government can take back personal records of a former president, circumventing the presidential records act, if the next administration deems them illegal to retain?

Do you think the government can take back personal records of a former president, circumventing the presidential records act, if the next administration deems them illegal to retain? — NOS4A2

They weren't personal records. The Presidential Records Act doesn't given the President authority to declare that agency records are his personal records.

They weren't personal records. The Presidential Records Act doesn't given the President authority to declare that agency records are his personal records.

He was the commander-in-chief and supreme authority of those agencies, though. Someone below him has more authority then?

Someone below him has more authority then? — NOS4A2

He's subject to the legislation like everyone else, which says:

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term—

(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President's staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) 1 of title 5, United States Code); (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,2 of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—

(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;

(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

(C) materials relating exclusively to the President's own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

I do agree with Trump. — NOS4A2

So you're agreeing with his statement, "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

You’ll remember that he was the commander in chief of the armed forces. He is the only one above those rules.

Setting aside the contradiction, you are conflating past tense with present tense. The crimes he is charged with all occurred after his term as President was over.

He can declassify what he wants. It doesn’t matter whether it’s classified documents or national defense information, which is a distinction without a difference. None of that is true in any other case.

When he was President, he COULD HAVE declassified what he wanted, but it would be reckless to do so without vetting the information with the organizations that classified it in the first place. It's reckless because it puts people at risk and risks our intelligence apparatus.The formal declassification process was put into place to ensure there were no adverse ramifications. It was established by executive order, so it arguably doesn't apply to him. Hypothetically, he could have declassified everything he took, and thus exposed no documents that were technically classified when he stacked them in the ballroom at Mar-a-lago - but it's still reckless. Is this not deserving of at least some criticism from you?

Even if a President isn't subject to executive order, private citizen Trump IS subject to law, including the Espionage Act. It's the law that makes such reckless behavior a crime. He's also required by law to comply with a Grand Jury Subpoena. Not only did he fail to return all the documents demanded in the subpoena, he lied and claimed he had. What's your excuse for private citizen Trump's illegal acts with respect to the subpoena?

Your standard of judgement seems incoherent. In terms of legal judgement: you implied the letter of the law should be applied to Clinton (and everyone else who carelessly, but unintentionally, mishandled even low level classified docs), but you choose to dismiss the relevance of the laws that Trump broke. Why letter-of-the-law enforcement in one set of cases, but not in Trump's?

You said you didn't care if Trump broke the law, so set laws aside and focus on morality. What moral standard puts Hilllary's behavior on the bad side, and Trump's on the good side?

So NARA has more authority than the president in deciding what are presidential and personal records. But we’ve already seen that play out in court and it didn’t go well for the plaintiff.

What moral standard puts Hilllary's behavior on the bad side, and Trump's on the good side?

Hillary wasn’t elected by the people as the authority of the US government. She was afforded no such right by the people of the United States. Trump was.

Hillary wasn’t elected by the people as the authority of the US government. She was afforded no such right by the people of the United States. Trump was. — NOS4A2

How does being elected confer the moral right to expose national security and put lives at risk?

Why did you ignore everything else I said?

Whose lives did he put at risk?

Frivolous Trump Argument No. 1: Classified Intelligence Reports Compiled by Government Agencies Are ‘Personal Records’ under the Presidential Records Act