- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WSJ has obtained inventory of documents taken from raid
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
FBI agents who searched former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home Monday removed 11 sets of classified documents, including some marked as top secret and meant to be only available in special government facilities, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation agents took around 20 boxes of items, binders of photos, a handwritten note and the executive grant of clemency for Mr. Trump’s ally Roger Stone, a list of items removed from the property shows. Also included in the list was information about the “President of France,” according to the three-page list. The list is contained in a seven-page document that also includes the warrant to search the premises which was granted by a federal magistrate judge in Florida.
The list includes references to one set of documents marked as “Various classified/TS/SCI documents,” an abbreviation that refers to top-secret/sensitive compartmented information. It also says agents collected four sets of top secret documents, three sets of secret documents, and three sets of confidential documents. The list didn’t provide any more details about the substance of the documents.
0
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:14 pm to dukkbill
quote:There may will be a legitimate dispute as to what exactly a president must do (if anything) to declassify any given document. I think the question is more subtle than that.
I don't know if Trump invoked the dick waiving method of declassification, but it seems the current dispute is on when he waived his dick and how many documents he waived his dick over rather than if he did so by some specific process.
How does a president PROVE that he in fact DID declassify something, if he does not prepare something like Trump’s 19-January-2021 Crissfire memorandum?
Let’s start from the premise that anything now in Trump‘s possession is probably not something that would endanger our national defense. But let’s posit a different president, who while in office stashes a warehouse full of highly-classified documents related to our military forces and nuclear programs. He prepares no 19-Jan-2021 memo.
After leaving office, he simply claims that he “waved his dick” over the doorway to that warehouse and thereby declassified the entire contents. He can sell them to the Norks if he wants, and no one can stop him.
Problem, no?
This post was edited on 8/12/22 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:16 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
The people in this thread who fancy themselves as "liberals" and "open-minded progressives" are taking the position that it should be easier for the government to keep documents from the people whose tax dollars and votes form the basis for said government. What a bunch of horrible human beings.
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:18 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
President doesn't simply say "I hereby declare these documents declassified" and voila, there it is. There are laws, procedures and regulations that govern this.
Where's the paper trail?
1. I don't think this is necessarily true. If POTUS is giving a press conference, or at a summit, or wherever and accidentally lets something classified slip, it's automatically declassified. There's a reason for that.
2. If they were classified, why did GSA served then to his house? Wouldn't they review all of this before sending?
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:18 pm to AggieHank86
Awesome. Now that dems look like even bigger assholes after that laughable WaPo hit piece, we get to watch you guys opine about what is the appropriate level of "declassificity" and how Trump obviously didnt meet those standards. 
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:22 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
The people in this thread who fancy themselves as "liberals" and "open-minded progressives" , who didnt care when HRC trafficked classified information on an illegal server and destroyed evidence or didnt blink an eye when the Obamas made off with reams of classified documents... the same liberals who screamed bloody murder when they took Brennan and Clappers security clearance away, are suddenly shaken by Trump having declassified presidential memos in a secure doc storage room in his home.
FIFY
This post was edited on 8/12/22 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:50 pm to Vacherie Saint
This post was edited on 8/12/22 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:52 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
11 sets of classified information
Sets? What does "sets" even mean?
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:55 pm to Decatur
Thanks for posting those. Clearly, this was a fishing expedition and wasn't "targeted" or "narrow in scope," as Garland lied.
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:55 pm to Decatur
Bunch of nothing in that
Posted on 8/12/22 at 2:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Problem, no?
The application of constitutional law does not resolve all problems. Instead , it should guarantee rights and preserve the balance of powers between the branches of government
The failure of a CiC to adhere to longstanding tradition may be evidence of intent. The failure in one instance combined with otherwise adhering to procedure may be strong evidence of intent. The failure to correct a subordinate who has clarified the CiC intent may be additional evidence. Nevertheless, none of those things give the legislature or any department of the executive branch the authority to remove, constrain or dictate the use of an inherent power
If Biden were to declare that any document he drooled on was declassified— such would be the law and Merrick Garland could not override it
If there is ambiguity in action, it can be proved be extrinsic evidence. If it fails to give notice. It can excuse the action of another (e.g. a civil servant not releasing a document because he didn’t know where Biden drooled). Nevertheless, none of that goes to limiting a power or forcing a procedure
Obviously, Garland disagrees with me, but prior holdings don’t appear to support his position. Also, thanks to the turtle, he has as much ability to adjudicate the issue as your Aunt Minnie
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:00 pm to imjustafatkid
Macron: “wut dis”
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:04 pm to NashvilleTider
I'm not sure that is the case. But4-5 TS/SCI docs in boxes.....there had to be something incredibly embarrassing. Most probably did not even know.
That being said, if Trump had competent lawyers at the end, this would be a non- issue. Y'all want to drain the swamp, but there are still lots of animals that can bite irrespective of the water level. It's not a bad bite, but it is still a bite.
That being said, if Trump had competent lawyers at the end, this would be a non- issue. Y'all want to drain the swamp, but there are still lots of animals that can bite irrespective of the water level. It's not a bad bite, but it is still a bite.
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:08 pm to Decatur
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:08 pm to jatilen
quote:LOL! They likely have pics of him dressed in women's lingerie.
Also included in the list was information about the “President of France,”
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:10 pm to lesserof2weevils
I got your Biden family crime syndicate reference.
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:11 pm to YankeeBama
SSA = Secret Service Agent?
Surely it wouldn't be the Social Security Administration.
Surely it wouldn't be the Social Security Administration.
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:11 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
"targeted" or "narrow in scope,"
its allows them to search anywhere they think Trump goes in his own house.
LOL
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:13 pm to TigerAttorney
quote:
They were there in June and the FBI knew that. Why didn’t they take them then?
Because they were setting Trump up. They left those with Trump on purpose so they could go back and get them in their raid and they knew exactly what they were too.
Posted on 8/12/22 at 3:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
HailHailtoMichigan!
Do you have a purpose? If your "purpose" is to waste your time on this forum with nothing but bullshite then you meet your goal every time you post. Do you really think anyone gives a rat's arse about your posts other than to bitch-slap and demean you?
You are a complete imbecile.
Do you have a purpose? If your "purpose" is to waste your time on this forum with nothing but bullshite then you meet your goal every time you post. Do you really think anyone gives a rat's arse about your posts other than to bitch-slap and demean you?
You are a complete imbecile.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News