Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SteveSBrickNJ

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Jan 7, 2022
    Messages
    1,445
    Reaction score
    659
    Age
    62
    Location
    New Jersey
    Offline
    Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
    Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads? :unsure:
    *
    This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
    *
     
    You're saying that the makeup of the court determines whether it's Constitutional? It's been in effect for 40 years, has been challenged multiple times, and numerous people have been charged under the statute... (remember Iran-Contra, Oliver North?) and the PRA is basically administered by National Archives. I don't see anywhere this is going to be challenged in terms of Constitutionality. Wishful thinking imo. But you're entitled to your opinion.
    Not wishful thinking. Just a potential action taken by the defense. If the PRA evaporates then the custom that presidential records belong to the president kicks back in. The current Supremes aren’t likely to find a constitutionally enumerated power to regulate presidential records.
     
    Not wishful thinking. Just a potential action taken by the defense. If the PRA evaporates then the custom that presidential records belong to the president kicks back in. The current Supremes aren’t likely to find a constitutionally enumerated power to regulate presidential records.
    Well, this SCOTUS does have a majority of idiots.
     
    Not wishful thinking. Just a potential action taken by the defense. If the PRA evaporates then the custom that presidential records belong to the president kicks back in. The current Supremes aren’t likely to find a constitutionally enumerated power to regulate presidential records.
    As bird suggested, I wouldn't put anything past this group. That said, a rational court would cite past precedent and remand it back to the court it came from. I just don't see them wanting to take on this sort of case.
     
    She cited from Armstrong II

    “In the Court's view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion”

    Yes, the PRA states that the president must segregate presidential and personal records at his discretion. But, segregate and designate are two different things. The PRA expects the president to keep personal records separate from presidential records whenever possible.

    From her ruling, section entitled "B. The Presidential Records Act of 1978"
    The PRA defines “Presidential records” as:

    [D]ocumentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and 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.

    followed by

    The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, 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.”

    So, let's say there is a briefing document prepared by the president's staff that outlines his daily duties. That document clearly meets the definition of a presidential record. It was created by his immediate staff, and it was created to assist the president in carrying out his official duties. What kind of proclomation, statement, or designation can the president make that somehow turns that document into one that was of a purely private character and make that document no longer relate to the carrying out his official duties?
     
    No one has challenged the constitutionality of the act. Given the circumstances of the documents case that may change.
    Yet you previously boldly claimed that there was Supreme Court precedent that presidential records belong to the president.

    Two people asked you to cite the cases supporting that bold claim, you ignored both requests completely.

    Again, separation of powers. And I can’t find any constitutional power of Congress to regulate the Executive. It’s just not there.
    It's because you're looking at the Constitution in the same convoluted and twisted way that Trump does to defend himself.

    You are just repeating the same crap legal logic and crap case citations that the cult of Trump uses to try to defend their deal leader.

    If it talks like a duck, argues like a duck, ignores requests for sources like a duck and repeats what all the other ducks are saying, then folks, what you've got right there is a duck.

    It's no coincidence that this poster is making all of the same crap legal defense arguments that the cult of Trump makes. They can say all they want "that's not what I want to happen but..." all they want, but they ain't fooling me.

    Here's the tell. When challenged on a BS statement, they completely ignore the challenge. That right there shows they are not here to discuss. They are here to spread the lies of the cult of Trump.

    SteveSBrickNJ says goodbye, Sendai says hello. It's like a game of whack-a-mole (pronounced like guacamole.)
     
    Last edited:
    Yet you previously boldly claimed that there was Supreme Court precedent that presidential records belong to the president.

    Two people asked you to cite the cases supporting that bold claim, you ignored both requests completely.


    It's because you're looking at the Constitution in the same convoluted and twisted way that Trump does to defend himself.

    You are just repeating the same crap legal logic and crap case citations that the cult of Trump uses to try to defend their deal leader.

    If it talks like a duck, argues like a duck, ignores requests for sources like a duck and repeats what all the other ducks are saying, then folks, what you've got right there is a duck.

    It's no coincidence that this poster is making all of the same crap legal defense arguments that the cult of Trump makes. They can say all they want "that's not what I want to happen but..." all they want, but they ain't fooling me.

    Here's the tell. When challenged on a BS statement, they completely ignore the challenge. That right there shows they are not here to discuss. They are here to spread the lies of the cult of Trump.

    SteveSBrickNJ says goodbye, Sendai says hello. It's like a game of whack-a-mole (pronounced like guacamole.)
    Look again. I answered. But I’ll post it again


    Yeah, I was operating on info from a friend. Basically ownership has likely never been contested. Prior to Nixon it was simply the default that the president owned his presidential records.

    “Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president. Some took them at the end of their terms, others destroyed them, and many papers were scattered.[16] Though many pre-Hoover collections now reside in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress,[17] others are split among other libraries, historical societies, and private collections. However, many materials have been lost or deliberately destroyed.”

    en.wikipedia.org

    Presidential library system - Wikipedia


    en.wikipedia.org
    en.wikipedia.org

    As he pointed out there is still a potential issue as to whether the Presidential Records Act is constitutional. Separation of Powers and all that. And Congress doesn’t appear to have an enumerated power to regulate the Executive. So expect challenges.
     
    Look again. I answered. But I’ll post it again


    Yeah, I was operating on info from a friend. Basically ownership has likely never been contested. Prior to Nixon it was simply the default that the president owned his presidential records.

    “Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president. Some took them at the end of their terms, others destroyed them, and many papers were scattered.[16] Though many pre-Hoover collections now reside in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress,[17] others are split among other libraries, historical societies, and private collections. However, many materials have been lost or deliberately destroyed.”

    en.wikipedia.org

    Presidential library system - Wikipedia


    en.wikipedia.org
    en.wikipedia.org

    As he pointed out there is still a potential issue as to whether the Presidential Records Act is constitutional. Separation of Powers and all that. And Congress doesn’t appear to have an enumerated power to regulate the Executive. So expect challenges.
    Secrets of the U.S. do not belong to any president. If that were the case names of NOC agents in other countries including those in an adversarial relationship would potentially be available to a highest bidder.

    So, yes, congress has a responsibility to safeguard secrets.
     
    Secrets of the U.S. do not belong to any president. If that were the case names of NOC agents in other countries including those in an adversarial relationship would potentially be available to a highest bidder.

    So, yes, congress has a responsibility to safeguard secrets.
    Even if the PRA were found unconstitutional the classification rules would still apply.
     
    Look again. I answered.
    No you didn't answer or address it at all. No where did you say that you were mistaken and that there is no Supreme Court precedent that says presidential records belong to the president. In fact, the actual precedent says the opposite.

    Instead of straight out admitting that you tried to bait and switch by saying:
    Yeah, I was operating on info from a friend. Basically ownership has likely never been contested. Prior to Nixon it was simply the default that the president owned his presidential records.
    See, what you're trying to do with that statement is:
    1. Avoid admitting that you made a false claim when you said there was Supreme Court precedent for presidential records belonging to the president
    2. Pivot to another false reason that presidential records belong to the president. That is false, there is no historical or legal basis for it and you know that.
    I don't expect you to stop pushing the false Trump BS that the documents he had a MarALago were legally his to have. They were not.

    Trump broke the law by having those documents and he compounded that crime with the crime of obstruction of justice when he tried to hide the documents and cover up the fact that he had them.

    Nothing Trump did with those documents was legal. Full stop. End of story. "Th-th-th-that’s all folks!" Anyone trying to spin it any other way is shilling for Trump, whether they admit it or not.
     
    Look again. I answered. But I’ll post it again


    Yeah, I was operating on info from a friend. Basically ownership has likely never been contested. Prior to Nixon it was simply the default that the president owned his presidential records.

    “Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president. Some took them at the end of their terms, others destroyed them, and many papers were scattered.[16] Though many pre-Hoover collections now reside in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress,[17] others are split among other libraries, historical societies, and private collections. However, many materials have been lost or deliberately destroyed.”

    en.wikipedia.org

    Presidential library system - Wikipedia


    en.wikipedia.org
    en.wikipedia.org

    As he pointed out there is still a potential issue as to whether the Presidential Records Act is constitutional. Separation of Powers and all that. And Congress doesn’t appear to have an enumerated power to regulate the Executive. So expect challenges.
    Prior to Nixon, I have all of those presidential papers gathering dust at the bottom of one of my bookcases, about 20 thick bound volumes.

    They were routinely saved, and then were bound and published, most libraries in America maintained a set like mine.

    So in light of what you are saying how did it come that those presidential records going all the way back to Washington were saved going all the way back, if all those Presidents could have done with them as they pleased all along.
     
    Nothing Trump did with those documents was legal. Full stop. End of story. "Th-th-th-that’s all folks!" Anyone trying to spin it any other way is shilling for Trump, whether they admit it or not.
    This. This. 127 times this.

    --Trump had a year and a half of negotiating with NARA to return the documents, he CHOSE not to.
    --Trump was subpoenaed for the documents, he CHOSE to hide them, ask his lawyers to help him keep them, and lie to the courts saying he returned them.

    This is 100% on Trump, and none of this nonsense about the PRA, the classification of the documents, some of them are in different order than Trump had them in, etc has anything to do with it.

    Here is how simple it is. Trump is charged with "willful retention of defense information." In order to prove their case, prosecutors need to prove all three aspects of that. Can they? Let's see:
    1) Defense information: That's easy. The documents listed in the indictment all concern the US national defense, so that's a check.
    2) Retention: The section of the law charged defines retention as "...fails to deliver [defense information] to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it. Trump was told he needed to return them by NARA, and by subpoena. Those were two opportunities to deliver them to officers or employees of the United States. He did not. That's a check.
    3) Willful: Willful, in the legal sense, means "to know your actions are illegal and to carry them out anyway." (Paraphrased). The fact that he was subpoenaed for the documents, and filed a sworn statement with the court that he had returned everything is enough to show that he knew what he was doing was illegal and did it anyway, but we also have his own attorney's notes and statements that he (and other attorneys) told Trump that he would be breaking the law if he did not return the documents. That's a check.

    The case against Trump here is locked up solid. The only chance he has is either getting elected, or the judge here doing something irreversible that ruins the case for the proseuction.
     
    Prior to Nixon, I have all of those presidential papers gathering dust at the bottom of one of my bookcases, about 20 thick bound volumes.

    They were routinely saved, and then were bound and published, most libraries in America maintained a set like mine.

    So in light of what you are saying how did it come that those presidential records going all the way back to Washington were saved going all the way back, if all those Presidents could have done with them as they pleased all along.
    Because they or their heirs chose make those records available. Roosevelt set the standard of the presidential library. But prior to Nixon the presidents owned their presidential papers.

    I’m not sure the lawyers are smart enough to challenge the PRA’s constitutionality. So it’s possible nothing comes to pass. But if it’s challenged this court will find lack a of congressional constitutionally enumerated power.
     
    Because they or their heirs chose make those records available. Roosevelt set the standard of the presidential library. But prior to Nixon the presidents owned their presidential papers.

    I’m not sure the lawyers are smart enough to challenge the PRA’s constitutionality. So it’s possible nothing comes to pass. But if it’s challenged this court will find lack a of congressional constitutionally enumerated power.
    Do you know for a fact that this has never been challenged? Your first statement that I recall was along the lines of “this has likely never been challenged” and you have proceeded to discuss it as if that were true. I haven’t taken the time to look it up, but my memory tells me there have been court challenges and it has held up.
     
    Because they or their heirs chose make those records available. Roosevelt set the standard of the presidential library. But prior to Nixon the presidents owned their presidential papers.

    I’m not sure the lawyers are smart enough to challenge the PRA’s constitutionality. So it’s possible nothing comes to pass. But if it’s challenged this court will find lack a of congressional constitutionally enumerated power.
    It's already been challenged and litigated. Look. It. Up.

    Now the Court could always set new precedent like they did with Roe, but for now, I'm not seeing that happen.
     
    Because they or their heirs chose make those records available. Roosevelt set the standard of the presidential library. But prior to Nixon the presidents owned their presidential papers.

    I’m not sure the lawyers are smart enough to challenge the PRA’s constitutionality. So it’s possible nothing comes to pass. But if it’s challenged this court will find lack a of congressional constitutionally enumerated power.
    Please excuse me for laughing like a hyena, I couldn't help it.

    Dave and MT answered your concerns about the issue quite well.
     
    Do you know for a fact that this has never been challenged? Your first statement that I recall was along the lines of “this has likely never been challenged” and you have proceeded to discuss it as if that were true. I haven’t taken the time to look it up, but my memory tells me there have been court challenges and it has held up.
    Nixon challenged the predecessor law. The Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act. Federal District Court.

    “The day after President Ford signed the act into law, Nixon challenged its constitutionality in district court, claiming that it violated 1) the principle of separation of powers, 2) Nixon’s presidential privilege, 3) Nixon’s privacy interests, 4) Nixon’s First Amendment associational rights, and 5) the bill of attainder clause. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the act. The district court dismissed Nixon’s compliant, holding that his constitutional challenges were without merit.”


    It hasn’t been challenged on lack an enumerated power of congress.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom