There are 142 comments.

1. Thatcher
   Instugator

   @Instugator

   

   5:41 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   cdor (View Comment):
   I do not think that the actual recording has been made public unless it was attached to the indictment and I didn’t see it. The indictment supposedly quotes the recording.

   There is reporting out there that the transcript of the recording misstated what is actually said. The head prosecutor is accused of deleting a word here and there to make it appear to say the opposite of what it is.

2. Member
   Django

   @Django

   6:04 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Django (View Comment):

   HeavyWater (View Comment):

   Instugator (View Comment):

   Django (View Comment):

   HeavyWater (View Comment):

   Another things Trump’s defense attorneys can tell the jurors is that there isn’t anything illegal in sharing classified information . . .

   There is always the other requirement: Need-To-Know. I suppose that’s a debatable point with anyone who is given access.

   What@ heavywater misses is that the President can disclose whatever he wants to whomever he wants. He is the ultimate authority for the determination of who is allowed to receive classified information.

   It goes along with his Original Classification authority.

   Otherwise we could not tell our allied (say the Brits) that bad guy x is planning to do terror attack y.

   The problem in this case is that Trump admits, in a recorded conversation with Mark Meadows’ biographer, that, as President of the United States, Trump did not declassify the documents he was showing to Mark Meadows’ biographer, even as Trump tells this guy that the documents are classified.

   Trump, in that recorded conversation, did himself some damage that his attorneys are going to have to try to undo in the courtroom, somehow.

   So much BS has been shoveled about on this subject that I don’t know what to think. We’ve had NTs claim that Trump didn’t follow the procedures to declassify documents. How many of those fools can describe the procedures and then document that the chief executive is bound by those procedures? I’d bet none. As WFB, Jr. once said, “Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.”

   Trump himself made the incredibly stupid statement that he could “declassify by just thinking about it”, or more accurately, the media reported that. After sitting out the 2016 election because in CA the results were not in doubt, and also because I didn’t trust The Orange One, I gave enough money to his campaign in 2020 that I could have made AOC’s hit list. Still, the idea that he thinks he could walk out of the Oval Office carrying sensitive documents and excuse that by saying, “I declassified them in my mind” is over the line for me.

   There does seem to be a good argument that the president can declassify something simply by showing it to someone who normally wouldn’t have access. That is, by that action, without requiring a slew of forms, “signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.”

   Considering the president is the chief executive, do you really think they need to send forms to themselves for their approval?

   I didn’t claim that, and that was the point of the WFB, Jr. quote below. 

   What you described is commonly called a “field briefing” and is not equivalent to declassification of the information transmitted. 

   > As WFB, Jr. once said, “Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.”

3. Thatcher
   Instugator

   @Instugator

   

   7:08 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   Django (View Comment):
   What you described is commonly called a “field briefing” and is not equivalent to declassification of the information transmitted. 

   I have never heard that term before, but it makes sense.

   Even in a field briefing, someone determined those present needed the information to do their job and “transmitted” it to them.

   The President is the ultimate authority on whom information is to be transmitted to. All other transmitters have that authority delegated to them, ultimately by the President.

4. Member
   Django

   @Django

   7:12 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   Instugator (View Comment):

   Django (View Comment):
   What you described is commonly called a “field briefing” and is not equivalent to declassification of the information transmitted.

   I have never heard that term before, but it makes sense.

   Even in a field briefing, someone determined those present needed the information to do their job and “transmitted” it to them.

   The President is the ultimate authority on whom information is to be transmitted to. All other transmitters have that authority delegated to them, ultimately by the President.

   The only reason I know about it is that I received one. I was told that the decision would be reviewed, but that I was in the clear in any case. 

5. Inactive
   HeavyWater

   @HeavyWater

   7:15 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   Instugator (View Comment):

   Django (View Comment):
   What you described is commonly called a “field briefing” and is not equivalent to declassification of the information transmitted.

   I have never heard that term before, but it makes sense.

   Even in a field briefing, someone determined those present needed the information to do their job and “transmitted” it to them.

   The President is the ultimate authority on whom information is to be transmitted to. All other transmitters have that authority delegated to them, ultimately by the President.

   But there is a difference between a President and an ex-President.  A President can de-classify documents.  An ex-President can not.    

6. Inactive
   HeavyWater

   @HeavyWater

   7:24 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   If they got this on tape, it’s a big trouble for Trump.  He could have declassified him, or even said later that he declassified him while he was in office.  But if this is on tape, this looks like self-incrimination.  

   TRUMP: I was just thinking because we were talking about it.  And you know he said, “he wanted to attack [Country A].”

   STAFFER: You did.

   TRUMP: That was done by the military and given to me.  Un, I  think we can probably, right?

   STAFFER: I don’t know.  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.

7. Thatcher
   Instugator

   @Instugator

   

   7:45 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   Here is a Case in point

   https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

   Quoting

   The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records … neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.”

    

8. Inactive
   HeavyWater

   @HeavyWater

   7:47 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   Instugator (View Comment):

   Here is a Case in point

   https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

   Quoting

   The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records … neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.”

    

   But one a President becomes an ex-President, then that person can not de-classify documents.  That’s why the conversation he had with that staffer could be a problem in a court of law.  

9. Thatcher
   Instugator

   @Instugator

   

   7:55 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

   HeavyWater (View Comment):

   Instugator (View Comment):

   Here is a Case in point

   https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

   Quoting

   The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records … neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.”

    

   But one a President becomes an ex-President, then that person can not de-classify documents. That’s why the conversation he had with that staffer could be a problem in a court of law.

   Go read the case I just posted. It is Judicial Watch seeking access to Bill Clinton’s audio tapes from his time in the Oval office.

   Those tapes contain classified information and there is no record that Bill declassified them while in office.

   tldr; Judicial watch lost because Bill got to decide which records are his to care for.

   Remember he is not being indicted for classified information, but for sensitive national security information – which is information that has not yet been deemed classified.

   Bill won and Judicial Watch lost.

10. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    7:58 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

    Instugator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Here is a Case in point

    https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

    Quoting

    The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records … neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.”

     

    But one a President becomes an ex-President, then that person can not de-classify documents. That’s why the conversation he had with that staffer could be a problem in a court of law.

    Go read the case I just posted. It is Judicial Watch seeking access to Bill Clinton’s audio tapes from his time in the Oval office.

    Those tapes contain classified information and there is no record that Bill declassified them while in office.

    tldr; Judicial watch lost because Bill got to decide which records are his to care for.

    Remember he is not being indicted for classified information, but for sensitive national security information – which is information that has not yet been deemed classified.

    Bill won and Judicial Watch lost.

    You are confusing two different types of data. 

    One type of data is a former presidents personal “stuff,” which belongs to the person who used to be president. 

    Another type of data is the government’s “stuff,” which belongs to the government.  Once a president becomes an ex-president, he doesn’t have access to this government “stuff.”  So, if Trump tried to play cat and mouse with the government when the government wanted its “stuff” back from Trump, that’s a legal problem for Trump.   

11. Thatcher
    Instugator

    @Instugator

    

    8:40 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    You are confusing two different types of data. 

    No, I am not.

    Read the case law and see for yourself.

    The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records … neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95–1487, at 13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.

     

12. Thatcher
    Instugator

    @Instugator

    

    8:43 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    So, if Trump tried to play cat and mouse with the government when the government wanted its “stuff” back from Trump, that’s a legal problem for Trump.   

    Nope, because the President has nearly unlimited power to declare which is which. The National Archivist is powerless to challenge his decision.

13. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    8:56 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

    Instugator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    So, if Trump tried to play cat and mouse with the government when the government wanted its “stuff” back from Trump, that’s a legal problem for Trump.

    Nope, because the President has nearly unlimited power to declare which is which. The National Archivist is powerless to challenge his decision.

    But an ex-president who admits that he did not de-classify the data he is sharing with someone who lacks a security clearance is still in legal trouble.  

14. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    9:06 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

    For most of American history, presidential papers were the personal property of the president when he left office. The Presidential Records Act changed that and made presidential records the property of United States.  The Presidential Records Act reduced rights of president leaving office.  

15. Thatcher
    Instugator

    @Instugator

    

    10:17 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    So, if Trump tried to play cat and mouse with the government when the government wanted its “stuff” back from Trump, that’s a legal problem for Trump.

    Nope, because the President has nearly unlimited power to declare which is which. The National Archivist is powerless to challenge his decision.

    But an ex-president who admits that he did not de-classify the data he is sharing with someone who lacks a security clearance is still in legal trouble.

    Again, nope.

    The indictment specifically does not reference classified information, but rather “national security information”. He is charged under the Espionage Act for divulging national security information. National security information is information that has not yet been subject to classification. It may be classified, it may not; because no original classification authority has made that determination.

    There is some information that is “born” classified, stuff covered under the Atomic Energy act, for example.

    In short, this is Trump Collusion hoax X10.

16. Thatcher
    Instugator

    @Instugator

    

    10:18 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    For most of American history, presidential papers were the personal property of the president when he left office. The Presidential Records Act changed that and made presidential records the property of United States. The Presidential Records Act reduced rights of president leaving office.

    And most claims under the act are non-enforcable. See the case referenced above.

17. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    10:23 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 10, 2023

    Instugator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    For most of American history, presidential papers were the personal property of the president when he left office. The Presidential Records Act changed that and made presidential records the property of United States. The Presidential Records Act reduced rights of president leaving office.

    And most claims under the act are non-enforcable. See the case referenced above.

    That case you referenced doesn’t apply to the case Trump is dealing with.  Two different categories of records.  

18. Thatcher
    Instugator

    @Instugator

    

    12:12 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 11, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    For most of American history, presidential papers were the personal property of the president when he left office. The Presidential Records Act changed that and made presidential records the property of United States. The Presidential Records Act reduced rights of president leaving office.

    And most claims under the act are non-enforcable. See the case referenced above.

    That case you referenced doesn’t apply to the case Trump is dealing with. Two different categories of records.

    Again, nope. Ask yourself a simple question. Who determines which records are “Presidential” or “Personal”?

    This question has a very simple answer.

    For more on this topic see this article.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/trump_did_not_violate_the_law_because_he_could_not_violate_the_law.html

19. Thatcher
    Instugator

    @Instugator

    

    2:01 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 11, 2023

    Instugator (View Comment):
    In short, this is Trump Collusion hoax X10.

    I’m sort of wrong.

    This is actually a push by the Deep State, Demoncrats, and the media (but I repeat myself) to guarantee Fmr President Trump the Republican nomination.

    That is all it can be, because there is no crime there. This is the same as the 2016 nomination when Fmr President Trump was given about $2B in “earned media” freezing out the competition.

20. Member
    cdor

    @cdor

    

    3:36 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 11, 2023

    Instugator (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):
    I do not think that the actual recording has been made public unless it was attached to the indictment and I didn’t see it. The indictment supposedly quotes the recording.

    There is reporting out there that the transcript of the recording misstated what is actually said. The head prosecutor is accused of deleting a word here and there to make it appear to say the opposite of what it is.

    That is what I am saying. To declare the DOJ’s written “transcription” of the devastating conversation to be accurate without ever hearing the actual recording is giving much more credence to the honesty of the prosecutor than I am willing to do at this point.

21. Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter

    @ToryWarWriter

    9:08 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2023

    I expect this platform will continue to bring on deep state hacks and apologists and not go to anyone on the populist right to get their answers.

    If you want to know whats actually going on follow the link below.  Cause your not going to get any truth from the usual liars and losers that hang around here.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    https://youtu.be/rxCDVOmGPlo

     

     

     

     

     

22. Coolidge
    David C. Broussard

    @Dbroussa

    9:53 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2023

    cdor (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):
    I do not think that the actual recording has been made public unless it was attached to the indictment and I didn’t see it. The indictment supposedly quotes the recording.

    There is reporting out there that the transcript of the recording misstated what is actually said. The head prosecutor is accused of deleting a word here and there to make it appear to say the opposite of what it is.

    That is what I am saying. To declare the DOJ’s written “transcription” of the devastating conversation to be accurate without ever hearing the actual recording is giving much more credence to the honesty of the prosecutor than I am willing to do at this point.

    I mean, the reporting on the call with Raffensperger was so accurate.  So was the reporting on the comments about Charlottesville, and so many more times.  Heck, the first, and second impeachment documents were chock full of lies and misrepresentations as well.