this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
152 points (94.2% liked)

politics

20410 readers
5078 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Accepting such an argument would be "pure fiction," the special counsel argued.

Special counsel Jack Smith, responding on Tuesday to the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's classified documents case, urged her to reverse course on entertaining the idea that Trump had any personal ownership over the classified materials he has been charged with unlawfully possessing.

In a late-night filing replying to an order last month from Judge Aileen Cannon requesting proposed jury instructions that appeared to accept at face value what legal experts have argued is one of Trump's most fringe defenses -- that the former president had unchecked ability to claim all classified records as his personal property -- Smith argued that accepting such an argument would not only be "pure fiction," but "meritless and fatally undermined" by all the evidence gathered by the government as part of their case.

Among that evidence, according to Smith, are interviews with Trump's own Presidential Records Act representatives and "numerous" high-ranking officials from the White House, none of which "had heard Trump say that he was designating records as personal,"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] formergijoe 9 points 10 months ago (10 children)

Executive Order 12958 was amended on March 25, 2003, by Executive Order 13292, to read as follows:

Sec. 4.1. General Restrictions on Access.

(a) A person may have access to classified information provided that:

(1) a favorable determination of eligibility for access has been made by an agency head or the agency head's designee;

(2) the person has signed an approved nondisclosure agreement; and

(3) the person has a need-to-know the information.

(c) Classified information shall remain under the control of the originating agency or its successor in function.

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but I'm not a paid shill for Trump.

[–] federatingIsTooHard -2 points 10 months ago (9 children)

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

seems to me that the president probably has the power to properly authorize himself to remove classified information, being the chief executive and the commander in chief. is there any reason to suppose he doesn't?

[–] formergijoe 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Brian Butler said he helped Trump aide Walt Nauta load about 10 to 15 boxes onto Trump's plane at the West Palm Beach airport near his resort in June 2022,

Even if President Trump authorized the movement to Mar-A-Lago, in June 2022 citizen Trump did not have the authorization to have classified documents moved. Now you could argue it was just Butler and Nauta moving these documents and not Trump himself, but that still doesn't mean Trump had need-to-know to keep these documents on site and that the documents now belong to their authorizing agency. Even if the executive branch was the authorizing agency, the Biden administration is the successor of function and owns these classified documents.

[–] federatingIsTooHard -3 points 10 months ago

i have to say that this does not seem cut-and-dry. i'm not interested in defending any politician, and trump less than most, but i also think that laws are bad and would err on the side of ignoring or abolishing the law in about every case. given this proclivity, my lack of expertise, and the lack of clarity, i'm of the opinion that this whole endeavor is a big waste of time and energy.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)