• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump: I could declassify documents by thinking about it

From Trump's court filing to his handpicked judge,
Microsoft Word - DJTUSA MTStay OPP FINAL.docx 12/21

"The Government does not contest—indeed, it concedes—that the President has broad authority governing classification of, and access to, classified documents. [ECF No. 69 at 10, 18 (quoting Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988))]. In fact, the Government advocates that “the protection of classified information must be committed to the broad discretion of the agency responsible, and this must include broad discretion to determine who may have access to it.” [ECF No. 69 at 18 (quoting Egan, 484 U.S. at 529)]. Congress provided certain parameters for controlling classified information but primarily delegated to the President how to regulate classified information. 50 U.S.C. § 3161. At the same time, Congress exempted the President from complying with such requirements. See id. § 3163 (“Except as otherwise specifically provided, the provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to the President . . .”).

President Obama enacted the current Executive Order prescribing the parameters for controlling classified information in 2009. See Exec. Order 13526 (Dec. 29, 2009). That Executive Order, which controlled during President Trump’s term in office, designates the President as an original classification authority. See id. § 1.3(a)(1). In turn, the Executive Order grants authority to declassify information to either the official who originally classified the information or that individual’s supervisors—necessarily including the President. § 3.1(b)(1), (3). Thus, assuming the Executive Order could even apply to constrain a President, cf. 50 U.S.C. § 3163, the President enjoys absolute authority under the Executive Order to declassify any information. There is no legitimate contention that the Chief Executive’s declassification of documents requires approval of bureaucratic components of the executive branch. Yet, the Government apparently contends that President Trump, who had full authority to declassify documents, “willfully” retained classified information in violation of the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 793(e); [ECF No. 69 at 9].7 Moreover, the Government seeks to preclude any opportunity for consideration of this issue.

7 Of course, classified or declassified, the documents remain either Presidential records or personal records under the PRA. .."

Trump is not POTUS,


"..Sec. 4.4. Access by Historical Researchers and Certain Former Government Personnel.

(a) The requirement in section 4.1(a)(3) of this order that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need to-know the information may be waived for persons who:

(1) are engaged in historical research projects;

(2) previously have occupied senior policy-making positions to which they were appointed or designated by the President or the Vice President; or

(3) served as President or Vice President.

(b) Waivers under this section may be granted only if the agency head or senior agency official of the originating agency:

(1) determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of the national security;

(2) takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is safeguarded in a manner consistent with this order; and

(3) limits the access granted to former Presidential appointees or designees and Vice Presidential appointees or designees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a Presidential or Vice Presidential appointee or designee. .."
Awesome post.

Unfortunately, I doubt @Mycroft and @Paradoxical will acknowledge it or, if they do, it will be with handwaving or distractions.

I have never seen either of them, ever, admit that they were mistaken, especially about facts.
 
@WorldWatcher why the crickets?

I am curious to see if he will play the same game with you and ignore your post which refutes his silly claim of storing Obama's classified documents in an abandoned furniture warehouse! I have posted this statement at least three times before in this thread.

Anybody heard from Rawley?

Last time I checked, he was confronted by the fact that Obama's classified documents were stored by NARA in a secured compartment within the facility that NARA leased.
 
Awesome post.

Unfortunately, I doubt @Mycroft and @Paradoxical will acknowledge it or, if they do, it will be with handwaving or distractions.

I have never seen either of them, ever, admit that they were mistaken, especially about facts.

Same thing with Rawley.

The usual tactic of posters who are not interested in a honest conversation is to run away when they are confronted with facts that destroy their narrative, and then reappear after a couple of days claiming the EXACT same thing they claimed before.
 
Last edited:
🤣

You saying this as some sort of appeal to authority is hilarious to me.

Tom Fitton isn't a lawyer at all, let alone some sort of legal expert.

He never went to law school, never took the bar, and has never practiced law.

It is even worse than that.

Not only Tom Fitton was not a lawyer in that case.

The argument he tried to make (by hiring a lawyer to represent Fitton's organization) was the OPPOSITE of what the judge ruled.
Tom Fitton believed that his claim for getting Clinton's documents would prevail over the claims of Clinton's and the government's.

So, Paradoxical is "wrong squared"
 
Same thing with Rawley.

The usual tactic of posters who are not interested in a honest conversation is to run away when they are confronted by facts that destroy their narrative, and then reappear after a couple of days claiming the EXACT same thing they claimed before.
It is so weird to me, it really is. I think that both @paradoxial and @Mycroft are fairly intelligent. But they are poster children for the psychological research which shows that often facts simply change sway entrenched beliefs. Honestly, that they are even arguing what they argue is incredible, as it was in all the fruitless discussions over Covid masking and vaccines.

I have even tried asking them what would change their minds and they never respond. Because, they cannot even admit that no amount of contrary evidence would sway their opinion. That's a scary, scary thing.
 
🤣

Outside of your little bubble, Tom Fitton is a laughingstock. But I understand, that it's comforting to believe when people tell you what you want to hear, even when it's bullshit.
I'd match him up with your Lawrence Tribe any day.
 
Citing Tom Fitton for legal opinions is par for the course with @Paradoxical. Keep in mind all the crazy sources he quoted and misquoted regarding Covid.
It wasn't a legal OPINION. It was an actual case, so it doesn't matter if Fitton is a garbage man or an attorney.
 
Man that is a weak "analogy" even for you, dude. Soros' Open Society Foundation is a funder of the civil rights organization Lawyers for Civil Rights. They're the ones suing DeSantis. DeSantis' shenanigans with the migrants is right up their alley.
No difference at all. A radical left group using their (Soros) billions to destroy America and succeeding.
 
I cannot, for the life of me, fathom how reactionaries cling to RWE propagandists who attract them by confirming their biases but are consistently
wrong.

Versus,

September 12, 2022

"As I laid out here, you really don’t need to get further than the second paragraph of Trump’s response to DOJ’s bid for a stay on Judge Aileen Cannon’s injunction against using seized evidence of obstruction and Espionage Act violations to find evidence of a crime. In that paragraph, Trump confesses that the FBI did seize documents marked as classified — and therefore documents responsive to a May 11 subpoena — from Mar-a-Lago on August 8; that’s tantamount to a confession to obstruction.

I want to look at another funny thing he does, before I move to the subject of his gaslighting (whether these documents are genuinely classified or not, which is irrelevant to the crimes under investigation).

Trump is trying to stall the Espionage and obstruction investigation into him. But he’s also attempting to either claw back documents into his own possession, or to bottle them up at the Archives under separate legal challenges. As such, he’s adopting Tom Fitton’s argument — based on a very different set of Bill Clinton records that weren’t seized from his home via a lawful warrant but were instead FOIAed — that he designated many of these documents as personal records while still President, so they don’t even have to be in the Archives.

Critical to that argument is that documents are either Presidential Records or personal records, and the latter don’t have to be in the Archives, and so (he makes several huge logical jumps) they can’t be used in a criminal prosecution against him..."
This isn't about Fitton. It is about the case HE brought and LOST against Clinton. Read it.
 
I know that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying.

AGAIN, Tom Fitton did not argue that his case applies to the one we have today

Also, in case you missed it, Tom Fitton LOST, so the judge YOU quote did NOT agree with Tom Fitton

Do you understand now, or are you so dumb that you still cannot get what I am saying?

Let's try again, slooooooooooowly:

The government then agreed with the former president's claims. The person who disputed this claim was a Tom Fitton who led the Judicial Watch.

The government now (and by extension the current CIC) dispute the claims of the former president.

Got it?
Fitton LOST because he was using the argument that Clinton should not have taken those items home with him after he left office. Sound familiar?

PS. You thought this was while he was still president. I'm happy to clue you in.
 
No difference at all. A radical left group using their (Soros) billions to destroy America and succeeding.
Radical left group? What do you even know about Lawyers for Civil Rights? What is radical or left about their work? I'm guessing that you'd never even heard of them before the DeSantis suit and that this is all you know.

Go ahead. Tell me which issue areas that they work in according to their website are, "destroying America."
 
Awesome post.

Unfortunately, I doubt @Mycroft and @Paradoxical will acknowledge it or, if they do, it will be with handwaving or distractions.

I have never seen either of them, ever, admit that they were mistaken, especially about facts.
Last I checked, Trump (cut and paste of the above) "served as president"
 
Fitton LOST because he was using the argument that Clinton should not have taken those items home with him after he left office. Sound familiar?

PS. You thought this was while he was still president. I'm happy to clue you in.

Fitton lost because he was a private citizen objecting to BOTH a former president and the government!

And THIS is why that case cannot be used as a precedent for this case

In any case, I am glad we can agree now that Solomon and Fitton and me and you do not have a law degree!

So, only morons can bring Fitton's name as an authority on legal matters. Same with Solomon's lame attempt to equate the details of Fitton's case to those of Trump's case against the current government and current SITTING president..
 
Last edited:
Radical left group? What do you even know about Lawyers for Civil Rights?
Nothing at all.

His MO is just to make stuff up and intentionally say dumb and false things, then sit back and revel in the attention he gets as other posters have to spend their time and energy sifting through his steaming pile instead of making their own points. I stopped responding after about a week.
 
Nothing at all.

His MO is just to make stuff up and intentionally say dumb and false things, then sit back and revel in the attention he gets as other posters have to spend their time and energy sifting through his steaming pile instead of making their own points. I stopped responding after about a week.
Come on, he's the most fun I've had on these forums. I even made a song about @Paradoxical and his relentless trolling. Haven't had to use it in a while but maybe it's time to drag it back out.
 
You love your useless twitter, don't you?

Huh, The Donald didnt find Twitter useless, he used it all the time...I cant believe you actually disagree with your lord and master on something. He was quite upset at losing his tweeting privileges.
 
Awesome post.

Unfortunately, I doubt @Mycroft and @Paradoxical will acknowledge it or, if they do, it will be with handwaving or distractions.

I have never seen either of them, ever, admit that they were mistaken, especially about facts.

Yeah, if you actually do prove @Paradoxical wrong, he'll refuse to acknowledge your posts from then on. See my sig 😁
 
Come on, he's the most fun I've had on these forums. I even made a song about @Paradoxical and his relentless trolling. Haven't had to use it in a while but maybe it's time to drag it back out.
Amusing to see the tribal mentality on display here every day. I am almost embarrassed at how wrong the left is. I hoped humanity would evolve past the days of putting on paint and feathers and whooping it up around a campfire preparing to sleigh their enemies. Sadly, some humans just aren't there yet <sigh>
 
Back
Top Bottom