Trump: I could declassify documents by thinking about it

[JasperL]

He lied to the grand jury? Link please

LOL, sea-lioning is your best friend when defending Trump.

The grand jury issued a subpoena for all documents marked classified. Trump lied his sorry POS lying ass off in response to that and kept 100 documents, in his office, and in the boxes in storage. No amount of your bullcrap will change that. It's why Judge Cannon, and everyone else on the Trump team tries to ignore this little bit of information.

 

[donhughesmusic]

J

Ummm...

I think it's the other way around. Since a President can declassify anything at any time, if this goes to court, it'll be up to the prosecution to prove that stuff has NOT been declassified.

The defense does not have to prove their innocence.

Do you think a jury that sees documents marked "classified" from the prosecution would believe the defendant that says "well, in my mind they were declassified, so that means they weren't"?

Under the Rules of Evidence, documents prepared in the normal and everyday course of business are admissible to prove the truth of the contents of those documents.

The documents in question were prepared in the normal and everyday course of business.

Part of the contents of the documents in question is the "Security Classification Markings" clearly printed on the documents.

Those "Security Classification Markings" were affixed in the normal and everyday course of business AND are an integral part of documents that were also prepared in the normal and everyday course of business.

Upon entry of the documents in question as evidence, the "Security Classification Marking" prove (rebuttably) that the documents ARE, IN FACT, "classified" documents.

At that point, Mr. Trump has the option of introducing evidence to rebut the evidence that the documents are, in fact, "classified" documents.

If the evidence that Mr. Trump introduces is preferred to the contrary evidence, then Mr. Trump would have succeeded in establishing his "affirmative defence".

If not, he won't.

If you don't believe me, go and pay a practicing attorney in your area to explain how the rules of evidence apply to documents prepared in the normal and everyday course of business.

See this quote from someone way more educated than I am on court processes.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A good point. However, just because a Presiden CAN classify at any time doesn't mean he DID. Do you really a jury that sees "classified" on documents produced by the prosecution, with no evidence that they WERE declassified, would believe the dependent who was saying "well, I declassified them in my mind, therefore they were declassified"?

If one were to accept the bleatings of "Claque Failed Casino Operator" one would have to believe that Mr. Biden could "classify" every single document even remotely associated with Mr. Trump (which would, naturally, include all banking records in electronic form) simply by thinking about doing so and that would mean that for Mr. Trump (who does NOT have any security clearance at all) would be committing a criminal offence if he possessed a cheque book, drivers' licence, or credit card.

The importance of jury selection would multiply. I would suspect on both sides that they wouldn't want an impartial jury, but a partisan one leaning towards their own side.

I disagree. Mr. Trump wants (nay, fervently prays for) a jury that is 100% mindlessly biased in his favour (it will take almost that much bias to enable the jury to totally ignore the evidence and law so that they can "find for" Mr. Trump).

The DOJ and "US Government" would actually prefer to have a jury that is 100% unbiased and intelligent so that the "tell all" books that will inevitably be published giving the inside scoop on how the jury reached their decision are sufficiently clear that what happened was that an intelligent and unbiased jury properly considered all factors of the law and evidence before rendering it verdict - which it did without fear or favour. That will reduce the percentage of Americans who believe that Mr. Trump was railroaded to someplace like 40%.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It was in his frigging house, a place certainly more secure than some warehouse in a Chicago ghetto. Stop with this nonsense. his house is behind gates and watched by the Secret Service.

#1 It is not "his house", it's a publicly accessible country club with members, guest, and hotel staff. And no, the Secret Service was not there to control access to government documents in basement storage rooms and the "45 Office".

#2 There are two aspects to classified data access: Security Clearance and Need to Know.

So who may have had access to either the storage area or "45 Office"...

• The FFLOTUS (Former First Lady of the United States, who holds no clearance or need to know)
• The FPOTUS's children (who hold no clearance or need to know)
• The FPOTUS Staff (who hold no clearance or need to know)
• The FPOTUS Lawyers (who hold no clearance or need to know)
• MAL Service Staff (who hold no clearance or need to know and includes a number of foreign nationals)**
• MAL Maintenance Staff (who hold no clearance or need to know)
• Members of the Secret Service (who may have a clearance but no need to know)
• The of course you have the FPOTUS himself who may or may not have a clearance, you would have to check with the current administration to see if that was suspended. But who does not have the 2nd requirement which is need to know.

**https://www.forbes.com/sites/zachev...91-foreign-workers-this-year/?sh=1dd6d7b249fc

The of course we have guests and visitors that the FPOTUS may have invited to the club and or the residence.

Here you have an entrepreneur that visited the FPOTUS in his office at MAL. You can tell based on the brick-a-brac and the carpet, the carpet matches the evidence photo that the DOJ included.


WW

 

[donhughesmusic]

The DOJ and "US Government" would actually prefer to have a jury that is 100% unbiased

Publicly they would say that... privately I'm not so sure.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Um, cause he declassified them. Did you not get the memo?

Trump v. United States, 9:22-cv-81294 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Trump v. United States, 9:22-cv-81294 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

Here is a link to all the publicly available court documents.

Could you point out the one where the FPOTUS has submitted to the court a memo saying that he declassified all the different documents that he took from the White House and held at MAL after his term expired?

Thank you.

WW

 

[snakestretcher]

Nope.

On the other hand, there IS something to be said for having a politically neutral arbitrator who is trained in the law and history and who has had a deep sense of responsibility for the welfare of all of the people inculcated in them available to "vet" the actions of legislative bodies which sometimes do not have any of those three things in mind when legislating.

This is why many countries separate their "Head of State" from their "Head of Government".

Really? Most of the "Royal Marriages" that I hear about these days involve "marrying commoners".

Oh now there you have a point. I don't know how "King Chuck#3" is going to function, but during the reign of Elizabeth II, the legislative leaders met with the monarch on a very routine (and totally "off the record" [as far as what happened at the meetings was concerned]) basis. Since, under the laws of the UK, Parliament has absolutely no ability to enact (which is different than "pass") legislation WITHOUT the concurrence of the monarch, the odds that the monarch had absolutely no impact on the legislation actually "passed" and then "enacted" upon receiving the monarch's signature are actually quite low.

This is technically correct; however any Act of Parliament presented to the monarch is nothing more than a ceremonial formality. Consent is always given because, we, the people, through elected Members of Parliament, take precedent over the Royals. We allow them to maintain their position as a Constitutional Monarchy. They have no legal or executive powers whatsoever.

 

[JasperL]

I think you have three groups of people (at least) arguing this.

You have some asserting, as you do, that there needs to be some procedure. I don't disagree with that, however, there isn't one

You're already wrong. There is "procedure" and it's clearly spelled out in the law, among other places in the EO. You're arguing that Trump isn't bound by any procedure in the law, and won't even admit to that much.

Declassifying a document is an order, that Trump when POTUS had the unquestioned power to do. A thought is not an order. It's not an order unless and until he communicates that thought to someone else, so that the order can be recognized by someone other than Trump as an order and for someone else to carry out that order.

I've addressed this, you ignored it. But how can an order not put in writing or communicated verbally or in any other way communicated outside Trump's mind even BE....an order? Do we really need a law stipulating that to be an order by POTUS he in fact is required to communicate that order in a way that puts SOMEONE else on notice, an underling, the public, the USG, the court, that Trump did in fact issue an order? How are we, underlings, Biden, the USG more broadly, the military, to know of orders that never left Trump's mind? How long can he keep these orders secret that he only issued in his mind? Until death, and until death he can recall an order he never issued outside his mind and expect the USG to act on this order?

and without that procedure, his power is literally whatever he claims it is (and can at least attest to in court that he did)

It's not what he claims it is. Trump can of course "attest" to anything he wants as a defense, and any trier of fact is obligated to weigh the evidence for that asserted fact by this private citizen with the same presumptions of speaking truthfully under the law as a common murder suspect. Here the documents are marked classified, which is prima facie evidence the documents AND the information in those documents is now and has always been classified. If Trump wants to overcome that presumption, he will need more than "I declassified them in my mind."

Just for example, there are no "procedures" outlined in the constitution for POTUS to exercise his pardon power. That does not mean, and cannot mean, that anyone who he "thought" was pardoned prior to January 20th, 2021 was in fact pardoned. The pardon power has to be exercised in a way to put the current executive branch on notice that Individual 1 was pardoned. Trump cannot assert, and expect Biden to respect this assertion, that Pillow Guy was pardoned in his mind on January 19th, therefore all prosecutions of Pillow Guy by the DOJ must NOW cease. What crime was he pardoned of doing? All crimes? Well, no crimes because Trump didn't pardon Pillow Guy and no amount of remembering he did years later will matter to the current DoJ or court.

You have another group saying he doesn't have the power.
And then the group arguing he does.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This is technically correct; however any Act of Parliament presented to the monarch is nothing more than a ceremonial formality.

Actually, if you want to check the actual laws of the UK you will find that it is a MANDATORY requirement for the monarch to sign legislation BEFORE it can come into effect AND that there is absolutely no legislative provision for circumventing that requirement in the event that a monarch declines to sign a piece of legislation.

Consent is always given because,

True.

we, the people, through elected Members of Parliament, take precedent over the Royals.

Not "at law" you don't.

Mind you, since the legal requirement for something to become law is for the monarch to sign a document submitted to them by Parliament, the monarch no longer has the power to create laws.

We allow them to maintain their position as a Constitutional Monarchy.

To change that status, Parliament would have to pass legislation and have the monarch sign it. If the monarch refused to sign it, then it wouldn't have any legal effect.

They have no legal or executive powers whatsoever.

I suggest that you actually read your own constitution. Your grasp on how your own constitution operated - at law - appears to be almost as shaky as the grasp that most Americans (and Canadians for that matter) have on how their own constitution operates.

 

[snakestretcher]

Actually, if you want to check the actual laws of the UK you will find that it is a MANDATORY requirement for the monarch to sign legislation BEFORE it can come into effect AND that there is absolutely no legislative provision for circumventing that requirement in the event that a monarch declines to sign a piece of legislation.

True.

Not "at law" you don't.

Mind you, since the legal requirement for something to become law is for the monarch to sign a document submitted to them by Parliament, the monarch no longer has the power to create laws.

To change that status, Parliament would have to pass legislation and have the monarch sign it. If the monarch refused to sign it, then it wouldn't have any legal effect.

I suggest that you actually read your own constitution. Your grasp on how your own constitution operated - at law - appears to be almost as shaky as the grasp that most Americans (and Canadians for that matter) have on how their own constitution operates.

Britain doesn't have a written constitution.

 

[bomberfox]

And your evidence that the Canadian police allowed (which implies an advance knowledge) of First Nations people is - what?

No one ever said that monarchies were perfect. Then again, no one (other than Americans) ever claimed that republics (except for the American republic, of course) were perfect.

And, for some reason, you believe that the "rich and powerful" in the United States of America are always "held accountable" - why?

Indeed, they don't and I never said that they did.

However, a monarchy led by someone who is a politically neutral arbitrator who is trained in the law and history and who has had a deep sense of responsibility for the welfare of all of the people inculcated in them available to "vet" the actions of legislative bodies which sometimes do not have any of those three things in mind when legislating sure goes a lot further in doing so than does a republic led by an egocentric, narcissistic, ignorant, vindictive, compassionless, self-aggrandizing, lout who acts as if they were ruling by divine right and for their own sole benefit.

Saskatoon freezing deaths - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Robert Pickton - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The canadian police turned a blind eye to the slaughter for a long time.

The problem is white supremacy, not the lack of unaccountable monarchs. *spitoon*

Barbados and other caribbean nations are breaking from european monarchies because they are just relics of a long dead era.

 

[snakestretcher]

Saskatoon freezing deaths - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Robert Pickton - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The canadian police turned a blind eye to the slaughter for a long time.

The problem is white supremacy, not the lack of unaccountable monarchs. *spitoon*

Barbados and other caribbean nations are breaking from european monarchies because they are just relics of a long dead era.

Absolutely; give them all independence from Britain-and it's not just the Caribbean guys; Australia has a strong republican lean, and New Zealand also has a republican party bent on severing ties with the UK.

 

[bomberfox]

Actually, if you want to check the actual laws of the UK you will find that it is a MANDATORY requirement for the monarch to sign legislation BEFORE it can come into effect AND that there is absolutely no legislative provision for circumventing that requirement in the event that a monarch declines to sign a piece of legislation.

True.

Not "at law" you don't.

Mind you, since the legal requirement for something to become law is for the monarch to sign a document submitted to them by Parliament, the monarch no longer has the power to create laws.

To change that status, Parliament would have to pass legislation and have the monarch sign it. If the monarch refused to sign it, then it wouldn't have any legal effect.

I suggest that you actually read your own constitution. Your grasp on how your own constitution operated - at law - appears to be almost as shaky as the grasp that most Americans (and Canadians for that matter) have on how their own constitution operates.

The first part is the problem. Accountability to the people should not be optional nor at the whim of an exclusive bloodline.

My problem with the monarchy has nothing to do with the monarch as a person.

You wanna talk about sociopaths and narcissists, take a look at many monarchs throughout time lol.

 

[bomberfox]

Absolutely; give them all independence from Britain-and it's not just the Caribbean guys; Australia has a strong republican lean.

What do you think of the same for Britain? Curious

 

[Paradoxical]

I got it, read it, responded to you showing that the memo did NOT declassify everything, and that the memo DID accept the FBI's recommendations to protect continuing classified information.
Again, you act like you did no read what I posted to you, so in contrast to what you say, you DO NOT respond to all the posts because in all your responses you pretend that you have not read what people write to you.



You still do not understand that NA

You still do not understand that NARA did the sorting

Howe in the world do you know what documents he had? For all we know they could all have been on Crossfire Hurricane that he mentioned in the DECLASSIFICATION memo. As for the silly comment about protecting them..../he DID do that with double locks. he is a busy man. Not like he's some FBI agent with a world of time on their hands to raid the homes of anti-abortion advocates while ignoring those who are pro-baby killers and vandalize and burn

 

[Paradoxical]

LOL, sea-lioning is your best friend when defending Trump.

The grand jury issued a subpoena for all documents marked classified. Trump lied his sorry POS lying ass off in response to that and kept 100 documents, in his office, and in the boxes in storage. No amount of your bullcrap will change that. It's why Judge Cannon, and everyone else on the Trump team tries to ignore this little bit of information.

Cause they were declassified.

Glad I could clear this up for you.

If you need help in your journey, let me know.

 

[Paradoxical]

#1 It is not "his house", it's a publicly accessible country club with members, guest, and hotel staff. And no, the Secret Service was not there to control access to government documents in basement storage rooms and the "45 Office".

#2 There are two aspects to classified data access: Security Clearance and Need to Know.

So who may have had access to either the storage area or "45 Office"...

• The FFLOTUS (Former First Lady of the United States, who holds no clearance or need to know)
• The FPOTUS's children (who hold no clearance or need to know)
• The FPOTUS Staff (who hold no clearance or need to know)
• The FPOTUS Lawyers (who hold no clearance or need to know)
• MAL Service Staff (who hold no clearance or need to know and includes a number of foreign nationals)**
• MAL Maintenance Staff (who hold no clearance or need to know)
• Members of the Secret Service (who may have a clearance but no need to know)
• The of course you have the FPOTUS himself who may or may not have a clearance, you would have to check with the current administration to see if that was suspended. But who does not have the 2nd requirement which is need to know.

**https://www.forbes.com/sites/zachev...91-foreign-workers-this-year/?sh=1dd6d7b249fc

The of course we have guests and visitors that the FPOTUS may have invited to the club and or the residence.

Here you have an entrepreneur that visited the FPOTUS in his office at MAL. You can tell based on the brick-a-brac and the carpet, the carpet matches the evidence photo that the DOJ included.


WW

All of them are Russian spies, eh? The same ones Trump colluded with, I bet.

 

[snakestretcher]

What do you think of the same for Britain? Curious

Scotland has been advocating for independence for decades, and Wales already has a devolved government. Northern Ireland is a tricky one and reeks of Britain's colonial past. However the majority of the population, both Protestant and Catholic, are satisfied with the status quo. I'm ambivalent and take a neutral stance on that last one!

Why do most people in Northern Ireland wish to remain as part of the UK and/or consider themselves British?

Answer (1 of 37): With all due respect, it doesn’t matter what people in Great Britain think. Under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland must remain in the United Kingdom as long as that is what a majority of people in NI want.

www.quora.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

All of them are Russian spies, eh? The same ones Trump colluded with, I bet.

Where did I say any of them are Russian spies? Hyperbole much?

There are two conditions for access to classified information, I have you a list of people that had access to spaces at MAL that possibly had access to spaces with classified documents. Some of them we KNOW accessed the space(s).

(Hint: I didn't indicate that in any way - positive or negative.)

WW

 

[bomberfox]

Scotland has been advocating for independence for decades, and Wales already has a devolved government. Northern Ireland is a tricky one and reeks of Britain's colonial past. However the majority of the population, both Protestant and Catholic, are satisfied with the status quo. I'm ambivalent and take a neutral stance on that last one!

Why do most people in Northern Ireland wish to remain as part of the UK and/or consider themselves British?

Answer (1 of 37): With all due respect, it doesn’t matter what people in Great Britain think. Under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland must remain in the United Kingdom as long as that is what a majority of people in NI want.

www.quora.com

Hey if it works for ya. All the best!

 

[Anthony60]

It's not about the constitution. As POTUS, while POTUS, he can declassify anything he wants.

What's at issue is what it takes to get that done. Thinking about it while taking a dump isn't an order. It's a thought, and thoughts cannot be orders. No one is put on notice by a thought, so there's no scenario in which a thought, allegedly recalled years later, attested to by no one because the thought never left Trump's head, can be legally binding on anyone.

It's scary that people actually take this seriously. The only proper response to an assertion, "I thought about it, therefore it was done" is

Nice point, but it just doesn't hold water.
See, I can point to this line in the Constitution...

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

So, not some of the power of the executive branch, all of it. So, when you say "What's at issue is what it takes to get that done", you have your answer right there. Whatever the President decides is what it takes to get that done.

 

[Anthony60]

Would you like to bet on it?

The first line of Article II, Section I, gives you the answer.

 

[Paradoxical]

Where did I say any of them are Russian spies? Hyperbole much?

There are two conditions for access to classified information, I have you a list of people that had access to spaces at MAL that possibly had access to spaces with classified documents. Some of them we KNOW accessed the space(s).

(Hint: I didn't indicate that in any way - positive or negative.)

WW

Locked room. Try again.

Does Obama get permission for his groupies to scan documents?

he was supposed to be done. No FBI raid yet.

 

[snakestretcher]

Hey if it works for ya. All the best!

Personally I'm too old to give a shit about it anymore! I just want a peaceful life, uncomplicated by infantile bickering politicians.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Locked room. Try again.

#1 Somehow this guy got into a locked room. (45 Office where classified documents were found.)

#2 We know people without security clearances and need to know had access to the basement storage room, it has been noted in the court documents. We have no indication if the room was locked for the 16 months between the end of the FPOTUS term and the FBI in June. But it was nice of them to add a lock (or second lock) while the FBI was getting the search warrant.

WW