āOf course they did! They may have been the boxes etc. that were openly and plainly brought from the White House, as is my right under the Presidential Records Act,ā Trump posted on social media.
āOf course they did! They may have been the boxes etc. that were openly and plainly brought from the White House, as is my right under the Presidential Records Act,ā Trump posted on social media.
Ethical duty, not legal duty in that hypothetical. I donāt believe he had that right, though.
i was under the impression he had to sign paperwork stating he was responsible for the documents specifically, and legally. you dont just get to grab secret crap without process.
He thinks he can. He said that stuff wasnāt secret because he thinks itās not secret
Not only is there legal process, but he swore an oath to the US. What part of holding secrets insecurely helps the US?! Your brain is iliterally mush.
Yeah, great reading comprehension on your part friend. Now feel free to explain to me the interplay between the oath of office, administrative law, and the lack of codified law on the subject.
Your brain is mush. You are literally too stupid to understand, ādonāt betray the US by giving away secrets.ā
You are truly beyond pathetic.
I see that you still have no idea what the hell I was talking about, but you still consider yourself superior.
Why does Hillary Clinton deserve to be locked up for her handling of emails, and yet what Trump has admitted to doing here doesnāt go beyond āethical dilemmaā (and even that seems like a stretch for you)?
As in, the poster making an argument that he had the right to handle documents however he wanted
As in, I donāt think he was able to do that.
Are you people fucking this dense? I am not a trump supporter.
Didā¦ you reply to the wrong comment?
I think you may have, since as you can see by the quotes my comment has about zero relevance to Hillary and is in response to a hypothetical and not my feelings on the case as a whole.
Ohhh hey. I recognize that username.
Isnāt it interesting how, when a community is much smaller, we can often remember who the nice folks are. The ones who usually add interesting context, those who make actual funny posts and comments. People who bring actual professional knowledge and insight into interesting conversationsā¦
Then you have the other side of the coin. The names you recognize for the bad reasonsā¦ Welcome to that list, bud.
Hello pot, Iām the kettle.
the guy literally signed a piece of paper that said what would happen if he did not return those specific documents, whether he declared them secret or not.
its not about th āsecretā part of it.
its that he signed a legal document regarding responsibility, and orangina over there still thinks, like you do it appears, it has anything to do with anything be marked āsecretā
ātop secretā is irrelevant with regards to this document case.
When he was within his term of office then as POTUS he could reveal classified information to anybody if he felt it was appropriate. Previous presidents have done precisely this, disclosing classified information during state of the union addresses, etc. The important thing to keep in mind here is that the material actually remains classified. Just because the POTUS mentioned something classified it doesnāt mean everybody in the White House, military, CIA, etc. are now free to talk about it as well.
At the same time he could declassify specific material, typically via an executive order. The key is that this is a formal process with a paper trail that lets all the appropriate governmental agencies, departments, etc know precisely what is being declassified. He canāt just verbally say something like āthis box of papers is now declassifiedā. At the very least there would need to be a printed list of exactly what is in the box.
The minute Trump left office he lost the ability to perform both these things. At that point heās basically considered a civilian with a security clearance. He can have access to appropriate classified material, but heās not at liberty to disclose any of it.
Yes and no, there is a clarification the president cannot disclose without approval as well.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/
Care to answer the other gentleman (or gentlewoman/gentleperson)'s question?
Iāll even post it here again to remind you in case you forgot:
Or are you still waiting for your email with the updated talking points?
Why the fuck do you think I give a shit about Hilaryās emails? You seem to have confused me, an anti-fascist socialist, for a Trump supporter.
Remind me again how Hilaryās emails were a crime but the literal theft of top secret documents is just an ethical dilemma?
Maybe, just maybe this depends on which political party / person is doing the thing?
I was talking about this guyās actual legal arguments about hypothetical administrative powers of the presidency. I do not give a shit about Hillaryās emails and I did feel that what trump did was illegal.
You have to, they canāt start a criminal investigation if they didnāt think it was a crime. Both crimes are just as equally āadministrativeā.
Similarly all of our foundational documents are living documents so a penalty just needs to be issued and precedent would be set. No one legitimately expected such a fucking masturbatory love of a document the writers of specifically said to change ā¦ Often and as the need presents.
No, Iām talking about law. Administrative law is set by the administrative branch of the government as delegated by congress. Itās not codified, but is the policy and procedures of those administrative bodies, which has the force of law. Breaching those policies and procedures, which is what Trump did, is in violation of administrative law.
A legal duty is a more nebulous concept that is generally based on legal precedent. Usually has to do with something related to torts. You canāt just take someone to court for an novel legal duty and expect that to magically stick criminally. It needs to be codified by congress or created in administrative law first.
If itās a law they have a legal duty, your hedging doesnāt particularly make sense.
legal
1 of 2
adjective
leĀ·āgalĀ ĖlÄ-gÉlĀ
Synonyms ofĀ legal
1
:Ā of or relating to law
She has manyĀ legalĀ problems.
2
a
:Ā deriving authority from or founded on lawĀ :Ā DE JURE
aĀ legalĀ government
b
:Ā having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual factĀ :Ā TITULAR
a corporation is aĀ legalĀ but not a real person
c
:Ā established by law
especiallyĀ :Ā STATUTORY
theĀ legalĀ test of mental capacityāK. C. Masteller
3
:Ā conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
The referee said it was aĀ legalĀ play.
Fishing in this lake isĀ legal.
4
:Ā recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5
:Ā of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
a bottle ā¦ that someĀ legalĀ friend had sent himāJ. G. Cozzens
6
:Ā created by the constructions of the law
AĀ legalĀ fiction is something assumed in law to be a fact regardless of the truth of that assumption.
legal
2 of 2
noun
:Ā one that conforms to rules or the law
Iām not getting into semantics, Iām talking about the original post I replied to, namely
Which is talking about a duty in derived sense, not a codified duty.
He does, nothing youāve offered implies or states otherwise.
No, it has to do with a law or rather a series of them an oath to office and an oath to maintain national secrets.
Thatās the definition of a derived duty, and it isnāt what Iād call ālaw.ā
There is no āadministrative branchā in the US government.
That Iāll concede. Can you guess what I meant though.
you should stop using ātop secretā, because its almost irrelevant and bad actors are grabbing onto it like it has substance.
hes being prosecuted for document mishandling, regardless of ātop secretā status. their secret status is irrelevant (technically, not morally).
There are lists higher punishments for the level of security. There are a few excuses for this shit that somewhat make some sense, yours just now is not one of them.
Legal duty, you swear an oath to enter office in these United States hoss.
Penalty for breaching that oath is impeachment. Thatās not a codified measure, and why a whole lot of the arguments are based on administrative law, norms, and exactly how the president makes new administrative law. If it was codified, itād be a different story.
No itās not. What do you imagine the entire Florida case to be about if not the illegal handling of classified documents? This is a matter of public record and can be confirmed on a huge variety of news sources.
I think itās about breaching administrative policies and procedures in the handling of classified materials with penalties based on the codified law delegating those procedures to the executive. What I donāt believe it its based on concepts of legal duty derived from things like the oath of office.
You cannot take them oath again if you violate it. He can run but he cannot take office nor enter his name onto official election rolls.