- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Neil Gorsuch’s former law clerk says Trump has constitutional authority to declassify
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:13 am to CelticDog
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:13 am to CelticDog
quote:
I'm certain.
Your certain you read it on DU or DailyKos. You have no knowledge of what Trump declassified. The EO was posted where he declassified everything related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
He absolutely has the authority to declassify anything. It would be improbable for any President to declassify things related to atomic policy. Trump has no interest there. But you know that.
1
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:18 am to riccoar
quote:Why keep saying this? He declassified one, specific binder of documents. READ the memorandum.
The EO was posted where he declassified everything related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation
quote:
At my request, on December 30, 2020, the Department of Justice provided the White House with a binder of materials related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation. … I hereby declassify the … materials in the binder. This is my final determination under the declassification review
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:23 am to AggieHank86
Yes, but he had the authority to do it. He related to all the stuff that was redacted. His declassify removed those redactions, minus anything redacted via FISA.
It was more than the DOJ wanted, but couldn't do anything about because Trump was President.
Celtic is just being a diick because he read on DU or Daily Kos that Trump can't. He most 100% certainly can.
It was more than the DOJ wanted, but couldn't do anything about because Trump was President.
Celtic is just being a diick because he read on DU or Daily Kos that Trump can't. He most 100% certainly can.
This post was edited on 8/16/22 at 9:24 am
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:25 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You really need to learn the players, before you make the sort of post.
I assure you that I know more about the job responsibilities and obligations of a Supreme Court law clerk than you do.
Good talk, Hank, I had at least one that I can remember as a law professor. Keep that smug sense of bullshite going, it's all you have. The emperor is quite well-dressed in comparison to you.
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:27 am to riccoar
quote:I agree that he had the authority. But you weaken your argument by repeatedly asserting that he did something that he demonstrably did NOT do (declassify “everything” related to CH).
read on DU or Daily Kos that Trump can't. He most 100% certainly can
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:29 am to oogabooga68
quote:
Cool, then Trump should be prosecuted in chronological order.
Immediately after Obama and Hillary's trial, we can go after him.
Please inform us what you think Obama did wrong. The national archives released a statement explaining this.
quote:
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.
I would suggest you stop using tweets (or is it called truths?) from Trump as your source of information.
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:30 am to tadman
quote:Me, too.
I had at least one that I can remember as a law professor.
Now, explain how a SCOTUS law clerk would have personal knowledge as to whether a POTUS did or did not declassify a given document or group of documents. Because that is the point from the OP which was challenged.
From the OP: ”Neil Gorsuch’s former law clerk says … that everything in Trumps possession was declassified.”
quote:
Neil Gorsuch’s former law clerk says … that everything in Trumps possession was declassifiedquote:
And how would this kid know whether Trump did this? I rather doubt that he has any personal knowledge.quote:
Are you guys friggin stupid? The guy was Gorsuch's clerk. Do a little reading.
“Clerk" in this case does not mean the guy behind the 2" glass at a 7-11 ringing up bubble gum for lack of any apparent other skills. It means the guy that researches the issues and writes draft opinions for the most important legal cases in the world.
TRY. TA PULL. YER HEAD. OUT CHER arse. ONCE IN A WHILE. GOOD TALK.
Smugness:
quote:
”Clerk" in this case does not mean the guy behind the 2" glass at a 7-11 ringing up bubble gum for lack of any apparent other skills … smug sense of bullshite
This post was edited on 8/16/22 at 9:44 am
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Now, explain how a SCOTUS law clerk would have personal knowledge as to whether a POTUS did or did not declassify a given document or group of documents. Because that is the point from the OP which was challenged.
And explain why it matters. The statutes cited in the search warrant are not limited to classified documents. Not even the espionage act.
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:39 am to BBONDS25
quote:
This is not true. He didn’t hide a thing. His home was searched in June. They DOJ requested he keep the materials in a more safe environment. Which he did. This is well established. Your claims he hid documents is pure fantasy.
I've provided links that state otherwise as Trump's lawyers signed an affidavit attesting that there were no more documents marked classified. Yes, they did visit Trump in June but it is my understanding that they didn't even know about the safe where many of the documents were stored. Just because Trump showed them some documents and turned some over does not imply that they were fully cooperative.
We can disagree on this matter. You are welcome to believe the arguments coming out of the Trump team.
Obviously, the Trump team is telling one story (repeated on Fox and other Trump friendly media) and the confidential informants are saying another.
The fact is that whichever story is true will be revealed in short order because if the news articles are correct there will be obstruction charged related to the signing of the false affidavit.
The only hint we have is that the search warrant listed obstruction as one potential crime being broken. That strongly hints to the fact that the DOJ considers that there was, you know, and effort to obstruct justice.
This post was edited on 8/16/22 at 9:43 am
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:41 am to CelticDog
quote:
he had to notify about each document. 11 boxes. every agency every department. while president. he did nothing about any of it. ever.
If the president is the ultimate authority on declassification, the manner in which he does such is irrelevant. Merely telling someone in the WH I’m taking those with me is enough to qualify. If he didn’t pack the boxes, and the GSA sent them to him, that’s also not his problem. By that logic if someone mailed weed to your house then you are guilty of drug charges, just because someone else sent something to your house. Not to mention the months of cooperation with the FBI on the whole thing.
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:41 am to Dday63
quote:Because this exchange is about a specific factual claim by a specific individual, who likely has no personal knowledge of those facts.
And explain why it matters.
The hero worship is sad, really. Now, any factual assertion by anyone peripherally-related to one of the MAGA Heroes (tm) is automatically presumed to be 100% true and accurate, even when there is ZERO evidence of personal knowledge, because ... "MAGA."
This post was edited on 8/16/22 at 11:03 am
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:42 am to ChapelHillSooner
It doesn’t matter. It is declassified.
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:43 am to ChapelHillSooner
quote:
I've provided links that state otherwise as Trump's lawyers signed an affidavit attesting that there were no more documents marked classified.
You have provided an editorialized article that makes claims not supported by facts. That is the issue. You keep relying upon the media to tell you what is happening. How many times has the media been
Completely wrong when it comes to trump?
quote:
We can disagree on this matter. You are welcome to believe the arguments coming out of the Trump team.
I haven’t heard those arguments. This thread is about the constitution and the law.
quote:
The fact is that whichever story is true will be revealed in short order
Indeed. And trumps track record against the fbi is pretty stellar.
quote:
there will be obstruction charged related to the signing of the false affidavit.
You don’t understand obstruction, clearly. Which statute, specifically are you referring to? Also, what you claim the attorneys signed and what the article produced are two very different things. Did you. It catch that? You really thing trumps attorneys are going to be indicted over this?
quote:
The only hint we have is that the search warrant listed obstruction as one potential crime being broken. That strongly hints to the fact that was, you know, and effort to obstruct justice.
So guilty until proven innocent?
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:51 am to td1
quote:
If the president is the ultimate authority on declassification, the manner in which he does such is irrelevant. Merely telling someone in the WH I’m taking those with me is enough to qualify. If he didn’t pack the boxes, and the GSA sent them to him, that’s also not his problem. By that logic if someone mailed weed to your house then you are guilty of drug charges, just because someone else sent something to your house. Not to mention the months of cooperation with the FBI on the whole thing.
I don't think the manner is irrelevant. The government needs to know what documents are declassified.
If we allow secret declassification, then Trump could say a decade from now that he declassified every single classified document a decade earlier. How would anyone be able to prove he didn't if no evidence was needed to prove he did?
I get that you consider the removal of the documents to be the declassification event. I think that argument fails when you try to hide the fact that the documents were even removed.
Even if you naively buy the argument from the Trump team that they were cooperating, the documents were removed a year and a half ago.
Posted on 8/16/22 at 9:58 am to AirbusDawg
quote:
former law clerk
to a member of the United States Supreme Court
AKA A really really good lawyer
Posted on 8/16/22 at 10:00 am to BBONDS25
quote:
So guilty until proven innocent?
No, what I said had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. That will be determined by the a jury.
What I am saying is that there are two competing stories out there. One is Trump fully cooperating and this is coming directly from Trump's team.
The other are reports that an affidavit was signed prior to the search indicating that all documents marked classified had been returned.
The affidavit either exists or does not. That is not going to be a debatable point forever.
What I was saying is that obstruction listed on the warrant implies that the government does not believe the Trump team has been fully cooperative, and their belief on that could be related to the signed affidavit.
Never did I say or imply that Trump or his attorney should be assumed guilty at this time. I am merely saying that listing obstruction on the warrant gives weight to the reports that Trump's lawyers signed affidavit with false information.
This post was edited on 8/16/22 at 10:02 am
Posted on 8/16/22 at 10:00 am to LSUcdro
quote:
AKA A really really good lawyer
Without doing a thorough background check on everyone here, I would imagine his credentials are more impressive that the folks that spend their days criticizing folks on a message board....
Posted on 8/16/22 at 10:01 am to AirbusDawg
quote:
AirbusDawg
You believed peepee gate
Posted on 8/16/22 at 10:07 am to FlexDawg
quote:
Neil Gorsuch’s former law clerk says
Who? Why does this guys opinion even matter?
Posted on 8/16/22 at 10:09 am to BBONDS25
quote:
You don’t understand obstruction, clearly. Which statute, specifically are you referring to? Also, what you claim the attorneys signed and what the article produced are two very different things. Did you. It catch that? You really thing trumps attorneys are going to be indicted over this?
Yes, I do. You don't have to be an attorney to know that making a false statement is a serious crime. Whether or not I can cite the specific statute is a pretty weak basis for your argument.
Please explain what you mean by "two very different things." How does the following differ from how I have described it?
quote:
At least one lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government, four people with knowledge of the document said.
If you want to argue that the NY Times made this up then fine. I can't argue that point with you as I obviously can't prove such an assertion to be false. But if the affidavit exists, then the argument become irrefutable.
This post was edited on 8/16/22 at 10:12 am
Page 5 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News