Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

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?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[FullMonte]

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.

I really don't see how.

If the office of the president creates a document that is a document the president uses to carry out the duties of the president, that document should belong to the office of the president, and not the person sitting in that office.

If you work for ANY company, and you create a work-related document that is used to conduct your company's business, that document belongs to the company. It is not the personal property of the person who typed it up.

 

[DaveXA]

I really don't see how.

If the office of the president creates a document that is a document the president uses to carry out the duties of the president, that document should belong to the office of the president, and not the person sitting in that office.

If you work for ANY company, and you create a work-related document that is used to conduct your company's business, that document belongs to the company. It is not the personal property of the person who typed it up.

Exactly this.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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

Still shoveling specious legal citations and speculations to shill for Trump I see.

Nothing you have said in this thread, in your lame attempt to defend Trump's illegal possession of government documents and then his obstruction of justice to try to keep them, are hinged to legal reality. Everything you have said in your schilling for Trump is unhinged from legal reality.

Your "friend" that's been giving you all this information is lying to you and it would probably be wise for you to reconsider just how much of a "friend" they actually are. I don't know about "friends," but I do know that real friends don't lie to real friends.

 

[Sendai]

Still shoveling specious legal citations and speculations to shill for Trump I see.

Nothing you have said in this thread, in your lame attempt to defend Trump's illegal possession of government documents and then his obstruction of justice to try to keep them, are hinged to legal reality. Everything you have said in your schilling for Trump is unhinged from legal reality.

Your "friend" that's been giving you all this information is lying to you and it would probably be wise for you to reconsider just how much of a "friend" they actually are. I don't know about "friends," but I do know that real friends don't lie to real friends.

So, missed on the Supremes thing. No big deal. Fact is there was a 189 year custom that presidential records belonged to the president. If the PRA is challenged, found to be unconstitutional, and I have yet to hear of an enumerated constitutional power to validate it, then that custom would prevail. Still not convinced the lawyers are smart enough to raise the issue.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So, missed on the Supremes thing. No big deal. Fact is there was a 189 year custom that presidential records belonged to the president. If the PRA is challenged

It has been and it was upheld as constitutional. You keep ignoring that. You've don't it too many times now for it to be considered an honest mistake.

You're making up stuff and ignoring stuff to try to justify Trump's illegal activity. There is none and you either have terrible reading comprehension, aren't paying attention to what people have shown you, or you're being disingenuous.

Only you know which of those is true for you. All of them leave you with no credibility for the things you say. You can keep saying them, but no one who doesn't already agree with you is going to pay attention or believe what you're saying.

 

[SamAndreas]

So, missed on the Supremes thing. No big deal. Fact is there was a 189 year custom that presidential records belonged to the president. If the PRA is challenged, found to be unconstitutional, and I have yet to hear of an enumerated constitutional power to validate it, then that custom would prevail. Still not convinced the lawyers are smart enough to raise the issue.

That which you are saying is bogus. Show us this details for this assertion you claim to be true.

I know it isn't true. It's on you though to show us what you claim is true. Failing that I don't believe it is true.

I know it isn't true. So show us the proof.

Or shut up about it !!!

 

[Sendai]

That which you are saying is bogus. Show us this details for this assertion you claim to be true.

I know it isn't true. It's on you though to show us what you claim is true. Failing that I don't believe it is true.

I know it isn't true. So show us the proof.

Or shut up about it !!!

“Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president.”

Presidential library system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DaveXA]

“Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president.”

Presidential library system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And? Pointless post is pointless.

 

[Sendai]

And? Pointless post is pointless.

Won’t be pointless if the PRA’s constitutionality is challenged.

 

[Dragon]

Won’t be pointless if the PRA’s constitutionality is challenged.

As others have mentioned - it has been multiple times

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 has been subject to various legal and constitutional challenges over the years, reflecting its significant role in how presidential records are managed and preserved. Here are a few notable instances:

1. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977): Although this case predates the PRA, it was a significant precursor. The Supreme Court upheld the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, which allowed the government to take control of President Nixon’s materials after he left office. This decision laid the groundwork for the PRA by establishing that former presidents do not have absolute control over their records.
2. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration (2001): This case involved a request for records related to a pardon granted by President Bill Clinton. Judicial Watch argued that the PRA required these records to be made public. The court ruled that the PRA grants the president substantial discretion in determining what constitutes personal versus official records, thus limiting the ability of third parties to challenge these classifications.
3. CREW v. Trump (2020): Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit against President Trump, alleging violations of the PRA. They claimed that the Trump administration had failed to properly preserve records of meetings with foreign leaders. The case highlighted ongoing concerns about compliance with the PRA and the difficulties in enforcing it.
4. CREW v. NARA (2022): Another case brought by CREW, this time against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), challenged the agency’s handling of Trump administration records. The lawsuit sought to ensure that all records were properly preserved and handed over to NARA as required by the PRA.

These cases underscore the complexities and challenges associated with the PRA. While the act provides a framework for preserving presidential records, enforcing its provisions and addressing disputes over what constitutes a presidential record can be contentious and legally intricate.


I think we call all agree that TOP SECRET millitary or diplomatic papers do NOT qualify as personal

 

[fooferdoggie]

well Now the GOP can't go after Biden anymore.

 

[DaveXA]

well Now the GOP can't go after Biden anymore.

Gonna be another one of those dog caught the car things, lol. They got what they wanted, and now the Democrats can play that's game.

Would be funny of they empowered the Democrats to do what they want to do.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Gonna be another one of those dog caught the car things, lol. They got what they wanted, and now the Democrats can play that's game.

Would be funny of they empowered the Democrats to do what they want to do.

But they are counting on democrats to be the “nice guys” and play fair

“Please don’t do what we intend to do”

 

[DaveXA]

But they are counting on democrats to be the “nice guys” and play fair

“Please don’t do what we intend to do”

I'd be like...fork it, no more playing fair. But that's just me.

 

[LA - L.A.]

“Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president.”

Presidential library system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You're making a false association.

You're falsely implying that every document a president touches, reads, writes or know exists are their presidential papers. That is very false and very wrong.

An executive order, even though the president orders it to be written and signs it, does not belong to the president. It is an official government document. It is not a presidential paper. Never has been and never will be.

Intelligence documents of any kind give to the president to read and consider belong to the government. They are not presidential documents and do not belong to the president. Never have been and never will be.

Trump has been indicted for having records that belong to the government. He has not been indicted for having any documents that are presidential records and belong to him.

The national security documents that he took are not presidential records. They never have been and never will be.

You understand and know this now, so if you keep repeating these lies, then you will without a doubt be intentionally lying and will be responded to by everyone accordingly. Just FYI.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Won’t be pointless if the PRA’s constitutionality is challenged.

The national security documents never have and never will fall under the category of presidential records, so the Presidential Records Act does not apply.

Even if the Presidential Records Act is found unconstitutional, that will not have any impact on the fact that Trump illegally took and obstructed justice to keep national security documents which have always been and will always be considered government property and not presidential records.

Please keep lying about it though, because it's having the opposite effect that you hope to have and the effect I want it to have.

 

[LA - L.A.]

As others have mentioned - it has been multiple times

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 has been subject to various legal and constitutional challenges over the years, reflecting its significant role in how presidential records are managed and preserved. Here are a few notable instances:

1. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977): Although this case predates the PRA, it was a significant precursor. The Supreme Court upheld the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, which allowed the government to take control of President Nixon’s materials after he left office. This decision laid the groundwork for the PRA by establishing that former presidents do not have absolute control over their records.
2. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration (2001): This case involved a request for records related to a pardon granted by President Bill Clinton. Judicial Watch argued that the PRA required these records to be made public. The court ruled that the PRA grants the president substantial discretion in determining what constitutes personal versus official records, thus limiting the ability of third parties to challenge these classifications.
3. CREW v. Trump (2020): Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit against President Trump, alleging violations of the PRA. They claimed that the Trump administration had failed to properly preserve records of meetings with foreign leaders. The case highlighted ongoing concerns about compliance with the PRA and the difficulties in enforcing it.
4. CREW v. NARA (2022): Another case brought by CREW, this time against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), challenged the agency’s handling of Trump administration records. The lawsuit sought to ensure that all records were properly preserved and handed over to NARA as required by the PRA.

These cases underscore the complexities and challenges associated with the PRA. While the act provides a framework for preserving presidential records, enforcing its provisions and addressing disputes over what constitutes a presidential record can be contentious and legally intricate.


I think we call all agree that TOP SECRET millitary or diplomatic papers do NOT qualify as personal

They don't even have to be top secret. Even though most national security documents have some security designation not all of them do. However, they all do belong to the government and they are all subject to the laws of the Espionage Act, which is what Trump has been charged for being in violation of.

Trump has not been charged for violating any provision of the Presidential Records Act. Trump keeps bringing that up as a lie to distract people from knowing and understanding that he's been charged for violation of the Espionage Act which is a slam dunk case for the prosecution to prove, because Trump did violate it an their is tons of irrefutable evidence to prove he did.

Sendai keeps whinging and whining about the Presidential Records Act to distract us from the actual crimes that Trump committed. Even now we aren't going to hear squat from Sendai about Trumps criminal acts that violated the Espionage Act or that Trump has actually been charged for violating the Espionage Act.

@Sendai will never say or acknowledge the Espoinage Act and is desperately doing everything he can to draw our attention to it just like Trump is doing. They do it because Trump is guilty of that and there's no denying he's guilty of that.

@Sendai is intentionally being dishonest and is not here to discuss with us. They are here solely to shill for the criminal and horrible person that they want to be dictator over us all, Donald J Trump. I'm not having anymore of it from any of Trump's shills without calling them out for shilling for Trump every time they do it. Too damn much is at stake for all of us right now.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm here to discuss, connect, share and hopefully contribute to a positive future for all of us. I'm not here to play any damn games or put up with anyone deceitfully and dishonestly trying to trick and fool people into thinking that there is anything good about Donald J Trump or anything good about all the bad that he's done.

If evil exists and if anything can ever be truly evil, then Donald J Trump is evil. He's not just bad he's evil and he's surrounded by and worshiped by evil people with evil intentions. I think evil is an outdated and useless concept, but what people think and feel about the threat of evil is the threat that Trump and his devotees pose to us all, not just here in the US, but across the entire planet.

 

[SFIDC3]

In short Sendai is a troll, which pretty much every Trump supporter on this board has been from the beginning....