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

 

[brandon]

That's what I just said. Why would you want to keep debating if I'm a liar?

I don’t.

Unfortunate, because I had high hopes for you as a foil.

 

[Huntn]

All correct, except for the word in red. There is a law called the Presidential Records Act that specifically allows a president to keep copies for reference.

I get that what the charges are. Again, making a copy of a document is not stealing it. If I go to the library and copy a page out of a reference book so I can take it home and include the information in an essay, I did not "steal" the book, or the page of the book.

I've consistently made two points about the indictment: The charges are allegations, not proven facts, and Hillary is guilty of most of what Trump is accused of and was not prosecuted.

I find that kind of overwrought language over someone supporting a different political candidate than you pretty amusing.

Do you realize these documents are normally signed in and out, and are usually kept in a special area called a skiff to protect them? So you actually think he can take these home and scatter them around and show them to whom he likes?

And if it is so legal, why has every politician with classified documents found at their residence volunteered/been forced to return them? I suppose the Emperor is above that…

I stopped with your first red mark, you produce a link to a document that says the Presidential Papers Act allows the Ex-President to take home Top Secret Classified Documents and then we can continue.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It was such a confusing tangle of words, I wasn't really sure what he was trying to convince me that I was wrong about. That's why I just wanted to drop it, along with the fact that he was getting upset about it, and that it was a distraction from what we were discussing.

He said he was OK with dropping it.

I've admitted to mistakes on here already and I've only been posting a few days. Do you need me to track down examples to show you, or would you take my word for it?

Here, I'll save us each a tempo:

Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case )

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...

madaboutpolitics.com

If you thought that explanation was a confusing tangle of words, that might genuinely explain why you are having trouble understanding the indictment as well as the various statements and reports that have been brought up.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Do you realize these documents are normally signed in and out, and are usually kept in a special area called a skiff to protect them?

Are you sure about that? This doesn't look very secure for classified documents:

So you actually think he can take these home and scatter them around and show them to whom he likes?

No. Nor do I think that he did that.

And if it is so legal, why has every politician with classified documents found at their residence volunteered/been forced to return them? I suppose the Emperor is above that…

Emperor Hillary bleachbitted her illegal server, an smashed her devices with hammers.

I stopped with your first red mark, you produce a link to a document that says the Presidential Papers Act allows the Ex-President to take home Top Secret Classified Documents and then we can continue.

I always stop when a poster tells me that they stopped. Have a nice day.

 

[DaveXA]

Do you realize these documents are normally signed in and out, and are usually kept in a special area called a skiff to protect them? So you actually think he can take these home and scatter them around and show them to whom he likes?

And if it is so legal, why has every politician with classified documents found at their residence volunteered/been forced to return them? I suppose the Emperor is above that…

I stopped with your first red mark, you produce a link to a document that says the Presidential Papers Act allows the Ex-President to take home Top Secret Classified Documents and then we can continue.

SCIF, and actually they're not necessarily stored in a SCIF. But they are stored in a variety of secure locations and fliling cabinets etc depending on classification levels and such. SCIFs are secure rooms where storage devices, cameras, phones and similar electronics are not allowed in the room. Typically SCIFs are typically used for highly classified briefings and meetings.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yeah, whatever the flip ever.

I don't think I'll do that. The issue Dave had was my supposed refusal to "admit I was wrong." I got a nice condescending lecture from him about it. I offered to admit I was wrong if Dave could show me and he fell back on what he (incorrectly) inferred, not what I said.

I made the same offer to you, and you give me the runaround.

You made the same offer in the past, then ignored it completely, so forgive us if we don't believe you.

 

[FullMonte]

I was not. I was using them as if they were markings. In your sentences, you used quote marks to indicate the markings as opposed to the general concept, and I did not use anything to indicate, since I only meant the markings.

So, then your sentence means (with the correctly phrased markings), "Right. But if it is Restricted Data and is moved from the category of Restricted Data to Formerly Restricted Data, it no longer has to be Restricted Data." Were you actually trying to say that if something is moved from one category of classified information to another, then it no longer has to be in the previous category of classified information?

FullMonte said "no longer has to be" right before I did. I matched FM's phraseology without giving it nearly as much thought as you have. People often do in conversation. Here's some light reading for you:

That is correct. I did use "no longer has to be" in the sentence that you quoted. You said earlier that you understood that I was using the word "secret" with two different definitions, and even highlighted the two different ways I used it. Now you say you were simply matching my phraseology. Here is the sentence that you quoted and responded to:

"If information is moved from "Secret" to "Confidential," that does not mean that it no longer has to be kept secret.."

Now, you understood that "secret" at the end of the sentence was not a level of classified information, but was being used to designate something "not meant to be known or seen by others," but you decided to match my phraseology and say "it no longer has to be restricted" but you were using restricted as a designation of classification?

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, then your sentence means (with the correctly phrased markings), "Right. But if it is Restricted Data and is moved from the category of Restricted Data to Formerly Restricted Data, it no longer has to be Restricted Data." Were you actually trying to say that if something is moved from one category of classified information to another, then it no longer has to be in the previous category of classified information?

No. Orange is a true statement, but it is not what I was "actually trying to say." I was trying to say what I said.

That is correct. I did use "no longer has to be" in the sentence that you quoted. You said earlier that you understood that I was using the word "secret" with two different definitions, and even highlighted the two different ways I used it. Now you say you were simply matching my phraseology. Here is the sentence that you quoted and responded to:

"If information is moved from "Secret" to "Confidential," that does not mean that it no longer has to be kept secret.."

I can't believe we're still doing this.

Now, you understood that "secret" at the end of the sentence was not a level of classified information, but was being used to designate something "not meant to be known or seen by others," but you decided to match my phraseology

I don't know that I "decided" to match your phraseology. Not consciously. It's something people do. As I said to that other poster:

I matched FM's phraseology without giving it nearly as much thought as you have.

Did you read the article I provided to that other poster?

and say "it no longer has to be restricted" but you were using restricted as a designation of classification?

No, Sir!

Again, as I said to dat udder guy:

Green = Official Government Marking
Blue = standard meaning outside of government classification systems

"Official Government Marking," not "designation of classification."

 

[Lapaz]

All correct, except for the word in red. There is a law called the Presidential Records Act that specifically allows a president to keep copies for reference.

I get that what the charges are. Again, making a copy of a document is not stealing it. If I go to the library and copy a page out of a reference book so I can take it home and include the information in an essay, I did not "steal" the book, or the page of the book.

Copies that were made for convenience of reference MAY be kept per the Presidential Records Act, but the copies must be clearly identified accordingly. You can't just copy a document and keep it, particularly in unprotected areas, unless that is identified. If the documents were copies and were clearly identified as such, then that may be a good argument for having kept them initially, but it still wouldn't justify all of the other shenanigans, like not storing them in secure places, moving them around, and showing and discussing them with people that weren't cleared. Here is the text from the Presidential Records Act:

"(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."

 

[FullMonte]

"Official Government Marking," not "designation of classification."

That's a distinction that does not exist. A document with the official government marking of "TOP SECRET" is also information that has a designation of classification of "TOP SECRET." A document that has markings of "FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA" also belongs to the classification designation "FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA." There is not going to be a situation where a document has markings that have the same words as a designation of classification that does not fall under that designation of classification.

 

[Lapaz]

I’m her time on the bench, Cannon has presided over just four criminal trials totaling 14 days. She has no business being on the bench to start with - she’s purely a product of Rubio and Heritage, but now this wholly under qualified judge will preside over the most high profile criminal case in modern American history.

How many days of criminal trials would you say someone needs to be qualified for this case?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Copies that were made for convenience of reference MAY be kept per the Presidential Records Act, but the copies must be clearly marked accordingly.

Show me all the evidence you have that they were not clearly marked accordingly.

You can't just copy a document and keep it, particularly in unprotected areas, unless that is identified. If the documents were copies and were clearly identified as such, then that may be a good argument for having kept them initially,

How is "clearly marked" defined? Show me a source to back up your answer.

but it still wouldn't justify all of the other shenanigans, like not storing them in secure places, moving them around, and showing and discussing them with people that weren't cleared. Here is the text from the Presidential Records Act:

Show me all your evidence that Trump did that.

"(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—

(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."

Thanks. I quoted all that to another poster days ago.

 

[Lapaz]

Show me all the evidence you have that they were not clearly marked accordingly.

How is "clearly marked" defined? Show me a source to back up your answer.

Show me all your evidence that Trump did that.



Thanks. I quoted all that to another poster days ago.

I'm sure the National Archives has to know that the documents being kept have been identified as copies. I suspect that most, if not all, of the documents were originals, since I've read that folders were empty, and some documents haven't been found. I'm sure the National Archives has evidence of missing documents, therefore they are the originals. I think it is incumbent on the person that retains sensitive documents to prove that they are copies, rather than the other way around. Regardless, that doesn't justify treating them recklessly. I also suspect that the most sensitive documents would not have been copied.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm sure the National Archives has to know that the documents being kept have been identified as copies.

Why are you sure of that?

I suspect that most, if not all, of the documents were originals, since I've read that folders were empty, and some documents haven't been found.

You believe everything you read?

I'm sure the National Archives has evidence of missing documents, therefore they are the originals.

Why are you sure of that?

I think it is incumbent on the person that retains sensitive documents to prove that they are copies, rather than the other way around.

Why do you think that?

Regardless, that doesn't justify treating them recklessly.

Correct. Like putting them in a cardboard box next to your Corvette would be reckless.

I also suspect that the most sensitive documents would not have been copied.

Why do you suspect that?

Where is your evidence?

Of what? You are the one making the accusations that you are sure of?

 

[Lapaz]

Show me all the evidence you have that they were not clearly marked accordingly.

How is "clearly marked" defined? Show me a source to back up your answer.

Show me all your evidence that Trump did that.



Thanks. I quoted all that to another poster days ago.

Upon further review, I was wrong. Presidential records don't apply to agency documents, which is what he kept. The part I highlighted is the relevant section of the Presidential Records Act. The documents he kept do not apply to the Presidential Records Act. He had NO right to take and retain those records.

"(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."

 

[Lapaz]

Why are you sure of that?

You believe everything you read?

Why are you sure of that?

Why do you think that?

Correct. Like putting them in a cardboard box next to your Corvette would be reckless.

Why do you suspect that?

Of what? You are the one making the accusations that you are sure of?

This is irrelevant, because I just explained in my last post that the Presidential Records Act don't apply, because agency documents are not Presidential Records.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Upon further review, I was wrong. Presidential records don't apply to agency documents, which is what he kept.

How do you know that he kept agency documents? What were they? Describe them in as much detail as you know.

The part I highlighted is the relevant section of the Presidential Records Act. The documents he kept do not apply to the Presidential Records Act. He had NO right to take and retain those records.

"(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."

Link me so I can check your work?

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's a distinction that does not exist. A document with the official government marking of "TOP SECRET" is also information that has a designation of classification of "TOP SECRET." A document that has markings of "FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA" also belongs to the classification designation "FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA." There is not going to be a situation where a document has markings that have the same words as a designation of classification that does not fall under that designation of classification.

Oh.

Ok, I see now.

Yes, you are so right, FullMonte!