Classified or declassified?

[David Hartung]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/breaking-trump-describes-process-how-he-declassified-documents

[...]
Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday that the classified
materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were declassified
under a "standing order" while he was president that allowed him to take
sensitive materials to the White House residence at night to keep working.

The official statement is likely to become the focus of the president's
legal defense as the FBI and Biden Justice Department investigate
whether he stole records covered under the Presidential Records Act or
mishandled classified materials under the Espionage Act, allegations
included in a search warrant released by a federal court in Florida on
Friday.

The president's defense is rooted in the legal principal that the
president and vice president are the ultimate declassifying authority of
the U.S. government and through executive orders most recently issued in
2003 by George W. Bush and Barack Obama in 2009 that specifically exempt
the president and vice president from having to follow the stringent
declassification procedures every other federal agency and official must
follow.

Trump has maintained for weeks that any documents still containing
classified markings in his possession after he left office were
previously declassified. On Friday night, the statement issued to Just
the News explained exactly how that declassification occurred in his mind.

The very fact that these documents were present at Mar-a-Lago means they
couldn’t have been classified," the former president's office stated.
"As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring home their
work from time to time. American presidents are no different. President
Trump, in order to prepare for work the next day, often took documents
including classified documents from the Oval Office to the residence.

"He had a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office and
taken into the residence were deemed to be declassified," the statement
added. "The power to classify and declassify documents rests solely with
the President of the United States. The idea that some paper-pushing
bureaucrat, with classification authority delegated BY THE PRESIDENT,
needs to approve of declassification is absurd."
[...]

So if the President is the ultimate authority to declassify documents,
materials and events, how could he be guilty of improperly possessing
classified documents?

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:k3ednfTfLvB_JWr_...@giganews.com:

> https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/breaking-trump

You are missing the point. Trump STOLE
the documents. It doesn't matter if they
were top secret military plans or menus from
the White House cafeteria, he took them in
violation of the law.

Why are you defending theft?

[ed...@post.com]

Hartung misses a lot of points. He's not very much up on his reading material. Correct reading material, that is, not the right wing junk he easily swallows so blindly and unthinkingly.

[David Hartung]

Why are you refusing to think?

Yes it does appear undeniable that Trump when Trump moved out of the
White House, he took things he shouldn't have. Honestly, that along is
pretty amazing since the move would have been under the supervision of
White House Staff, however it seems to have happened. Trump has returned
some of those documents, and The government was aware of those
remaining. At government request they were secured and negotiations were
likely ongoing. Put another way, the raid was utterly unnecessary.

In addition, there have been other cases of executive branch officials
caught flagrantly and knowingly stealing classified material (think
Sandy Berger), and there was always a negotiated settlement.

In the end there is no doubt that this entire thing, including both
impeachments, the January 6 committee and this raid, have nothing to do
with justice, but are all about destroying any political aspirations
Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and underhanded.

Having said that, if Trump knew that taking those materials with him was
illegal, he deserves whatever penalty a judge may choose to impose,
assuming that he is ever indicted and convicted.

[NoBody]

First, Trump did not declassify these documents. The claim that he did is
garbage. Second, even if they were declassified, he stole them and refused to
return them. He wasn't "negotiating" their return. He simply refused to return
them.

[ed...@post.com]

Is that all you did, just think up of a fantasy version of how things happened? Try arguing with this timeline:

https://apnews.com/article/florida-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-merrick-garland-government-and-politics-5ffebbfdae66d71790195f67f282fe80

And do support your alternate version with sources producing irrefutable facts to the contrary, not just any idle thoughts of yours bumping around in your head solely designed to make your right wing tummy go all warm and fuzzy of how you imagined things happened.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in

news:dficncYJyrI5QWr_...@giganews.com:

Ergo Trump is a thief.

> Honestly, that along is
> pretty amazing since the move would have been under the supervision of
> White House Staff, however it seems to have happened. Trump has
returned
> some of those documents, and The government was aware of those
> remaining. At government request they were secured and negotiations
were
> likely ongoing.

Wrong. Trump withheld the remaining
federal documents and was clearly NOT
going to return them. He was even served
a federal subpeona months ago for the
papers and he ignored it.


There were no "negotiations". Trump
was going to keep the material, forcing
the FBI Director HE appointed to take them
by force.

> Put another way, the raid was utterly unnecessary.
>

Trump made the raid absolutely necessary.

> In addition, there have been other cases of executive branch officials
> caught flagrantly and knowingly stealing classified material (think
> Sandy Berger), and there was always a negotiated settlement.

Sandy Berger took one five page report,
was prosecuted, sentenced and disbarred.

Trump took 27 BOXES of materials and
claims to be a victim because he was caught.

> In the end there is no doubt that this entire thing, including both
> impeachments, the January 6 committee and this raid, have nothing to do
> with justice, but are all about destroying any political aspirations
> Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and underhanded.
>
> Having said that, if Trump knew that taking those materials with him
was
> illegal, he deserves whatever penalty a judge may choose to impose,
> assuming that he is ever indicted and convicted.

The question I asked earlier that you dodged:

If someone burglarized your home would want
the police to "negotiate" with the thieves or
just barge in and return your stuff to you?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <dficncYJyrI5QWr_...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes it does appear undeniable that Trump when Trump moved out of the
> White House, he took things he shouldn't have. Honestly, that along is

It is fact undeniable he was asked nicely multiple times to
return the documents and he refused to do so. Had he returned the
documents when asked, it would be easier to argue an innocent
mistake.

So how are you going to spin twelve boxes of noncompliance next?

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[AlleyCat]

Trump was given a much undeserved courtesy in being served a subpoena for the
stolen documents. Subpoenas are issued for things that are in the lawful
possession of the person to whom the subpoena is served, usually because the
items are needed for some kind of legal proceeding. Trump was not the lawful
owner of these documents. He *stole* them. The government does not typically
serve a subpoena to recover *stolen* property. What it typically does is obtain
a search warrant, and go in and recover the *stolen* property by force.

As you noted, Trump blew off the unwarranted courtesy that was extended to him
and refused to turn over the *stolen* documents. One does not "negotiate" the
return of obviously *stolen* items.

>
>
>> Put another way, the raid was utterly unnecessary.
>>
>
> Trump made the raid absolutely necessary.

Absolutely he did.

>
>
>
>
>> In addition, there have been other cases of executive branch officials
>> caught flagrantly and knowingly stealing classified material (think
>> Sandy Berger), and there was always a negotiated settlement.
>
>
> Sandy Berger took one five page report,
> was prosecuted, sentenced and disbarred.

There was no "negotiated settlement" for either Berger or Petraeus, who also
*stole* classified documents.

>
> Trump took 27 BOXES of materials and
> claims to be a victim because he was caught.
>
>
>
>
>> In the end there is no doubt that this entire thing, including both
>> impeachments, the January 6 committee and this raid, have nothing to do
>> with justice, but are all about destroying any political aspirations
>> Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and underhanded.
>>
>> Having said that, if Trump knew that taking those materials with him was
>> illegal, he deserves whatever penalty a judge may choose to impose,
>> assuming that he is ever indicted and convicted.

"if Trump knew that taking those materials with him was illegal" – LOL! First
of all, Trump knew that he was taking materials that were not his. Second, even
if he didn't know — but he knew — a mantra of the right is that "ignorance of
the law is no excuse."

>
>
> The question I asked earlier that you dodged:
>
> If someone burglarized your home would want
> the police to "negotiate" with the thieves or
> just barge in and return your stuff to you?

Of course he's not going to answer that.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:46:55 -0500, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

>https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/breaking-trump-describes-process-how-he-declassified-documents
>
>[...]
>Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday that the classified
>materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were declassified
>under a "standing order" while he was president that allowed him to take
>sensitive materials to the White House residence at night to keep working.

The "White House residence" is not in Florida.

It depends on what's in the documents. If the documents contained
sensitive material that could harm the US or its allies, classified or
not, they could still cause Trump trouble.

Swill
--
"Every investigation thus far makes one conclusion abundantly clear:
Secretary Clinton's fundamental lack of judgment and wanton disregard
for protecting and keeping information confidential raises continued
questions about the exposure of our nation's diplomatic and national
security secrets,"
Kevin McCarthy (R) commenting on the Mar a Lago search August 09, 2022

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:51:32 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@verizon.net> wrote:

>David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote

>> So if the President is the ultimate authority to declassify documents,

That's a very big "if".e

>> materials and events, how could he be guilty of improperly possessing
>> classified documents?
>
>
> You are missing the point. Trump STOLE
>the documents. It doesn't matter if they
>were top secret military plans or menus from
>the White House cafeteria, he took them in
>violation of the law.
>
> Why are you defending theft?

Because the thief is a Republican.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:19:30 -0500, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/13/22 09:51, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in

>> You are missing the point. Trump STOLE
>> the documents. It doesn't matter if they
>> were top secret military plans or menus from
>> the White House cafeteria, he took them in
>> violation of the law.
>>
>> Why are you defending theft?
>
>Why are you refusing to think?
>
>Yes it does appear undeniable that Trump when Trump moved out of the
>White House, he took things he shouldn't have. Honestly, that along is
>pretty amazing since the move would have been under the supervision of
>White House Staff, however it seems to have happened. Trump has returned
>some of those documents, and The government was aware of those
>remaining. At government request they were secured and negotiations were
>likely ongoing. Put another way, the raid was utterly unnecessary.

Since the documents had been subpoenaed and Trump had refused to
return them, the raid was necessary.

>In addition, there have been other cases of executive branch officials
>caught flagrantly and knowingly stealing classified material (think
>Sandy Berger), and there was always a negotiated settlement.

Perhaps there will be one for Trump. Face it, Trump is the readiest
way for the Dems to hurt the Reps.

>In the end there is no doubt that this entire thing, including both
>impeachments, the January 6 committee and this raid, have nothing to do
>with justice, but are all about destroying any political aspirations
>Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and underhanded.

Like the sleazy process of attacking the Clintons for over twenty
years? Seems to me you're mostly unhappy at the taste of your own
medicine.

>Having said that, if Trump knew that taking those materials with him was
>illegal, he deserves whatever penalty a judge may choose to impose,
>assuming that he is ever indicted and convicted.

Then instead of arguing about it, let's see the documents and what
they contained.

I figure it's probably a tempest in a teapot. Even Donald Trump
couldn't be stupid enough to take sensitive materials to Florida,
could he? And anything compromising has probably already been got rid
of.

[governo...@gmail.com]

"Jan. 31, 2022: The agency says in a statement that some paper records
from Trump’s time in office had been torn up by Trump. During his
tenure in office, White House records management officials had
recovered and taped together some of the torn-up presidential records
and turned them over to the archives as he left office, along with
other torn-up records that had not been reconstructed. "

Trump was known to routinely tear up documents he was finished
reading. It was apparently a habit of his. Ok. I get that. And
staff had to tape them back together in order to comply with record
keeping laws. Ok. I get that too.

But the issues of removing records to Florida, what has he torn up
that may not have been restored and why has he declined to turn over
some of the records?

It could well have been designed as a trap to make the Dems look bad.
The records he kept may turn out to be completely innocent and safe.
"Souvenirs".

That said, I don't see why anybody would need two dozen boxes of
papers as "souvenirs".

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:18:01 -0500, super70s
<supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:

>> "The power to classify and declassify documents rests
>> solely with the President of the United States.
>

>Not when it comes to documents dealing with nuclear information or the
>identification of spies.

>
>> The idea that some paper-pushing bureaucrat, with classification
>> authority delegated BY THE PRESIDENT, needs to approve of
>> declassification is absurd."
>

>You'll find out painfully this isn't so when you argue it in court.
>
>Trump hires the worst lawyers (probably because the good lawyers know
>about his record of not paying legal fees) and this guy is one of them.
>
>Trump is used to bending the rules to his will.
>
>He's finding out when it comes to classified information he has to bend
>himself to the rules.
>
>At least this will put the fear of God into any Trump Mini-me who gets
>elected president and wants to pull the same stunt.

Congress will no doubt have to craft some new legislation after this
is all over.

[governo...@gmail.com]

I know now why Nobody keeps claiming I'm Ruby. It's to distract from
the fact that Nobody is Ruby.

[David Hartung]

How many documents did Obama steal?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html#
[...]
In the middle of directing the difficult task of transferring the
historically important records of the Obama administration into the
National Archives, the archivist in charge, David Ferriero, ran into a
serious problem: A lot of key records are missing.
[...]

Note, the AP claims otherwise.

>> Honestly, that along is
>> pretty amazing since the move would have been under the supervision of
>> White House Staff, however it seems to have happened. Trump has
> returned
>> some of those documents, and The government was aware of those
>> remaining. At government request they were secured and negotiations
> were
>> likely ongoing.
>
>
> Wrong. Trump withheld the remaining
> federal documents and was clearly NOT
> going to return them. He was even served
> a federal subpeona months ago for the
> papers and he ignored it.

So you say, but are unable to prove.

> There were no "negotiations". Trump
> was going to keep the material, forcing
> the FBI Director HE appointed to take them
> by force.
>
>
>
>> Put another way, the raid was utterly unnecessary.
>>
>
> Trump made the raid absolutely necessary.

On such things you have been most universally wrong.

>> In addition, there have been other cases of executive branch officials
>> caught flagrantly and knowingly stealing classified material (think
>> Sandy Berger), and there was always a negotiated settlement.
>
>
> Sandy Berger took one five page report,
> was prosecuted, sentenced and disbarred.
>
> Trump took 27 BOXES of materials and
> claims to be a victim because he was caught.

Hoe many "boxes" did Obama talke4?

How many government emails did Clinton's illegal personal server have on
its drive?

>> In the end there is no doubt that this entire thing, including both
>> impeachments, the January 6 committee and this raid, have nothing to do
>> with justice, but are all about destroying any political aspirations
>> Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and underhanded.

Still true.

>> Having said that, if Trump knew that taking those materials with him
> was
>> illegal, he deserves whatever penalty a judge may choose to impose,
>> assuming that he is ever indicted and convicted.

Still true.

> The question I asked earlier that you dodged:

Like you dodge questions every day?

> If someone burglarized your home would want
> the police to "negotiate" with the thieves or
> just barge in and return your stuff to you?

Irrelevant question, no answer due.

[David Hartung]

Which means that it will likely wind up before the Supreme Court.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <osCcnbn-yuOFqmX_...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were declassified
> >>>> under a "standing order" while he was president that allowed him to
> >>>> take sensitive materials to the White House residence at night to

That standing order did not declassify anything. It gave him
immunity for moving classified materials from one secure location
to another. It's an immunity no one got because it's stupid idea.
Constant visual reminders like flagging unlocked safes reinforces
behaviour to keep classiified material secure. Given the oft
demonstrated callous carelessness of your god, it's a wonder he
deal leak more secrets. Especially since he's one of those
gossips who thinks it improves his social standing to prove he
knows secrets by revealing them.

> How many documents did Obama steal?

How many subpoenas has Obama received? Until you can point to
anyone in National Archives saying otherwise, the answer is Zero;
he stole nothing.

> In the middle of directing the difficult task of transferring the
> historically important records of the Obama administration into the
> National Archives, the archivist in charge, David Ferriero, ran into a
> serious problem: A lot of key records are missing.

And how many times did they ask Obama for them?

And Sherlock, 'missing' isn't 'stolen'.

> > going to return them. He was even served
> > a federal subpeona months ago for the
> > papers and he ignored it.
>
> So you say, but are unable to prove.

12 boxes of proof he still had documents.

> > Trump made the raid absolutely necessary.
>
> On such things you have been most universally wrong.

12 boxes.

> Hoe many "boxes" did Obama talke4?

How many have been subpoenaed?

> How many government emails did Clinton's illegal personal server have on
> its drive?

Bill Clinton had a personal server?

> >> with justice, but are all about destroying any political aspirations
> >> Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and underhanded.
>
> Still true.

And you are eager for another chance to vote away democracy.

> > If someone burglarized your home would want
> > the police to "negotiate" with the thieves or
> > just barge in and return your stuff to you?
>
> Irrelevant question, no answer due.

The 12 boxes of documents are our property.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <osCcnbj-yuPapWX_...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> Which means that it will likely wind up before the Supreme Court.

Which makes it a better reason to remove the Four Justices of the
Apocalypse.

Yeah, the idea that a convicted felon gets off due to the court
he packed which get many folks to grab a pitchfork and join a
lynch mob. But for you it means wet dreams all this night.

[David Hartung]

On 8/13/22 19:50, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <osCcnbj-yuPapWX_...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Which means that it will likely wind up before the Supreme Court.
>
> Which makes it a better reason to remove the Four Justices of the
> Apocalypse.
>
> Yeah, the idea that a convicted felon gets off due to the court
> he packed which get many folks to grab a pitchfork and join a
> lynch mob. But for you it means wet dreams all this night.

Convicted felon?

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in

news:osCcnbn-yuOFqmX_...@giganews.com:

"Changing the subject yet again.
You are so very predictable."
David Hartung, June 12 2019
http://tinyurl.com/y2rdgxzt

>
>
>>> Honestly, that along is
>>> pretty amazing since the move would have been under the supervision
>>> of White House Staff, however it seems to have happened. Trump has
>> returned
>>> some of those documents, and The government was aware of those
>>> remaining. At government request they were secured and negotiations
>> were
>>> likely ongoing.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Trump withheld the remaining
>> federal documents and was clearly NOT
>> going to return them. He was even served
>> a federal subpeona months ago for the
>> papers and he ignored it.
>
> So you say, but are unable to prove.

Trump received subpoena in spring for
documents not turned over
August 11, 2022
https://tinyurl.com/3hwah7v8

>
>> There were no "negotiations". Trump
>> was going to keep the material, forcing
>> the FBI Director HE appointed to take them
>> by force.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Put another way, the raid was utterly unnecessary.
>>>
>>
>> Trump made the raid absolutely necessary.
>
> On such things you have been most universally wrong.

Trump ignored the subpeona above,
and after months the government took
action. Fact.

>
>>> In addition, there have been other cases of executive branch
>>> officials caught flagrantly and knowingly stealing classified
>>> material (think Sandy Berger), and there was always a negotiated
>>> settlement.
>>
>>
>> Sandy Berger took one five page report,
>> was prosecuted, sentenced and disbarred.
>>
>> Trump took 27 BOXES of materials and
>> claims to be a victim because he was caught.
>
> Hoe many "boxes" did Obama talke4?

"Changing the subject yet again.
You are so very predictable."
David Hartung, June 12 2019
http://tinyurl.com/y2rdgxzt

>
> How many government emails did Clinton's illegal personal server have
> on its drive?
>

"Changing the subject yet again.
You are so very predictable."
David Hartung, June 12 2019
http://tinyurl.com/y2rdgxzt

>>> In the end there is no doubt that this entire thing, including both
>>> impeachments, the January 6 committee and this raid, have nothing to
>>> do with justice, but are all about destroying any political
>>> aspirations Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and
>>> underhanded.
>
> Still true.

So far you have changed the
subject to Obama, to Clinton,
to Sandy Berger and back to
Obama.

If you cannot defend Trump
with any facts just say so, we
will understand.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <kWudnVhDPLBm0WX_...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/13/22 19:50, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article <osCcnbj-yuPapWX_...@giganews.com>,
> > David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Which means that it will likely wind up before the Supreme Court.
> >
> > Which makes it a better reason to remove the Four Justices of the
> > Apocalypse.
> >
> > Yeah, the idea that a convicted felon gets off due to the court
> > he packed which get many folks to grab a pitchfork and join a
> > lynch mob. But for you it means wet dreams all this night.
>
> Convicted felon?

The supremes only hear appeals after a conviction. If it winds
before them it means he has already been convicted.

And you're still an idiot.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 18:44:11 -0500, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/13/22 13:49, Mitchell Holman wrote:

>> Wrong. Trump withheld the remaining
>> federal documents and was clearly NOT
>> going to return them. He was even served
>> a federal subpeona months ago for the
>> papers and he ignored it.
>
>So you say, but are unable to prove.

*Ahem*
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-received-subpoena-for-classified-records-this-spring-cooperated-by-turning-over-documents-source
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-was-subpoenaed-documents-before-fbi-raided-mar-a-lago-2022-8
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-classified-docs-subpoena-maralago-b2143365.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/11/trump-served-subpoena-mar-lago-before-fbi-search/10302760002/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/11/politics/mar-a-lago-search-subpoena-latest/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/us/politics/trump-received-a-subpoena-from-the-justice-department-ahead-of-the-fbis-mar-a-lago-search.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-received-subpoena-spring-documents-turned-investigators/story?id=88252177
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-subpoenaed-classified-records-mar-a-lago-raid-1395849/

You were saying?

>> There were no "negotiations". Trump
>> was going to keep the material, forcing
>> the FBI Director HE appointed to take them
>> by force.

>>> Put another way, the raid was utterly unnecessary.

>> Trump made the raid absolutely necessary.
>
>On such things you have been most universally wrong.

You've been proven wrong so many times I'm surprised you still post
under your own name.

>>> In addition, there have been other cases of executive branch officials
>>> caught flagrantly and knowingly stealing classified material (think
>>> Sandy Berger), and there was always a negotiated settlement.
>>
>>
>> Sandy Berger took one five page report,
>> was prosecuted, sentenced and disbarred.
>>
>> Trump took 27 BOXES of materials and
>> claims to be a victim because he was caught.
>
>Hoe many "boxes" did Obama talke4?

Tell us. Also tell us if any of those contained info he was leaking
to foreign adversaries.

>How many government emails did Clinton's illegal personal server have on
>its drive?

Lol! Whataboutism indeed!

>>> In the end there is no doubt that this entire thing, including both
>>> impeachments, the January 6 committee and this raid, have nothing to do
>>> with justice, but are all about destroying any political aspirations
>>> Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and underhanded.
>
>Still true.

Hardly. Not even Richard Nixon was as underhanded and sleazy as
Trump.

>>> Having said that, if Trump knew that taking those materials with him
>> was
>>> illegal, he deserves whatever penalty a judge may choose to impose,
>>> assuming that he is ever indicted and convicted.
>
>Still true.
>
>> The question I asked earlier that you dodged:
>
>Like you dodge questions every day?
>
>> If someone burglarized your home would want
>> the police to "negotiate" with the thieves or
>> just barge in and return your stuff to you?
>
>Irrelevant question, no answer due.

All those years spent in political attacks on the Clintons . . .

. . . come back to bite you on the ass.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 02:12:45 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@verizon.net> wrote:

>David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:osCcnbn-yuOFqmX_...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 8/13/22 13:49, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:dficncYJyrI5QWr_...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 8/13/22 09:51, Mitchell Holman wrote:

>>>>> You are missing the point. Trump STOLE
>>>>> the documents. It doesn't matter if they
>>>>> were top secret military plans or menus from
>>>>> the White House cafeteria, he took them in
>>>>> violation of the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you defending theft?
>>>>
>>>> Why are you refusing to think?
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does appear undeniable that Trump when Trump moved out of the
>>>> White House, he took things he shouldn't have.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ergo Trump is a thief.
>>
>> How many documents did Obama steal?

>"Changing the subject yet again.
>You are so very predictable."
>David Hartung, June 12 2019
>http://tinyurl.com/y2rdgxzt

*chuckle*

>>>> Honestly, that along is
>>>> pretty amazing since the move would have been under the supervision
>>>> of White House Staff, however it seems to have happened. Trump has
>>>> returned some of those documents, and The government was aware of those
>>>> remaining. At government request they were secured and negotiations
>>>> were likely ongoing.

>>> Wrong. Trump withheld the remaining
>>> federal documents and was clearly NOT
>>> going to return them. He was even served
>>> a federal subpeona months ago for the
>>> papers and he ignored it.
>>
>> So you say, but are unable to prove.

>Trump received subpoena in spring for
>documents not turned over
>August 11, 2022
>https://tinyurl.com/3hwah7v8

>>> There were no "negotiations". Trump
>>> was going to keep the material, forcing
>>> the FBI Director HE appointed to take them
>>> by force.

There were negotiations but ultimately Trump refused to return the
documents so the search was needed to screen them for highly sensitive
info that should never have left the West Wing in the first place.

*smirk*

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:50:35 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <osCcnbj-yuPapWX_...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Which means that it will likely wind up before the Supreme Court.
>
>Which makes it a better reason to remove the Four Justices of the
>Apocalypse.
>
>Yeah, the idea that a convicted felon gets off due to the court
>he packed which get many folks to grab a pitchfork and join a
>lynch mob. But for you it means wet dreams all this night.

Sounds like a scenario in some third world "shithole" doesn't it?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

TRUMP was President, and what he does with classified information is
"the law" because the Constitution give him the power to access all
executive Branch information because the President is the Executive who
is the Executive Branch... all others there work for him.

There is no classification that restricts the President's use of
classified Material. SO if he used it in a manner that would violate
it's classification, then it's not a crime it's an exception made by the
SOLE POWER of the EXECUTIVE. Which is why everyone who works in the
executive BRANCH just says "yes sir" when the president wants something.

If the President wants a classified document it's NOT a process to see
if the President can access that Executive Branch document, it's simply
"yes sir".

SO if TRUMP says he declassified it, it's declassified. You can call it
poor judgment or even a NATIONAL security problem but you can't call it
a crime when the Constitution actually delegated the power of the
Executive BRANCH to one person and that person sits in the Oval Office
which is the office of the President... which is why Joe Biden being
there is so dangerous... you can't restrict the power of the prestden to
create chaos and undermine the United States because it takes a
Constitutional Amendment to do that and it would make the NATION less
secure. Leading by committee is a failure everywhere it's tried. Just
look at Socialism/Communism, unless there is an authoritarian dictator
then Socialism fails and it usually ends with the Authoritarian's loss
of control where the economy reverts back to the NATURAL system of
Capitalism. WIth a strong President that has Constituional limitation we
don't fall under Authoritarianism and we tend to seek and prefer the
NATURAL stste of Capitalism.



--
-That's karma-

The result is DEMOCRATS lies about history and reality to themselves and
others means their attempts to figure-out what's wrong is an exercise in
futility, because what they think they know they really don't know, and
fixing problems without the truth... becomes a fools errand.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:19:30 -0500, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

If a President may declassify a docment at will then he had nothing
illegal in his house. The FBI must have agreed in June because they
allowed all the material to stay there.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 18:44:11 -0500, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

This is something all Presidents have done. This is being used as a
weapon to prosecute someone who might be a Presidential candidate.
Interestingly enough Trump was impeached for supposedly doing the same
thing. The crowd is oddly silent about that now.

[B Hasselback]

Ah...we've predictably reached the point of "so what he committed a crime? It's no big deal!"

Typical modern conservative argument:

1. Never happened...fake news!
2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
3. Ok, it happened like they said, but there's no crime committed!
4. Ok, it happened, and it was a crime, but not a big one!
5. Hillary!!!!!!!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

NO, there was no crime, the President by his own hand and use of
classified material reclassifies it without signing an order, simply by
his actions, in short the President can classify or declassify with a
word or an action... he can't violate a law that isn't constitutional
and because the Constitution delegated that power to the President, the
President can't violate the Constitution no matter what he does even if
the executive order/law says it's a crime because the Constitution tells
him the crime would be when he places a law above the jurisdiction of
the Constitution. Given any conflict of "law" with the "Constitution"
the Constitution always wins.

> Typical modern conservative argument:
>
> 1. Never happened...fake news!

Can't happen because the FAKE NEWS is that a law was violated by the
President.

> 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!

I don't doubt that TRUMP has documents from when he packed and moved
from the White House. But it doesn't make any of it a crime.

> 3. Ok, it happened like they said, but there's no crime committed!

Now you're on the right track, but "it happened" is vague... NOTHING
illegal happened so there's no news there. It's an attempted political
Coup D`etat by Democrats to keep TRUMP from running for office because
Democrats know they can't win without stealing the election from trump
so they need to stop him from running.

The next thing if they can't Cheat and steal the election and can't stop
TRUMP from running will be the last desperate gasp of the Politically
corrupt Democrats and Shadow Government and will be to attempt an
accident or an assassination attempt either of people close to TRUMP or
TRUMP himself...

*Because that's who the Democrats really are*

> 4. Ok, it happened, and it was a crime, but not a big one!

NOPE


> 5. Hillary!!!!!!!

Hillary wasn't the President so she had/has no way to claim she can take
classified documents and do what she wants with them. The President can
but that's the only person with that power. Hillary was acting like she
was President but she really wasn't.

The Democrats will have to prove TREASON to make their charges stick
because TREASON is the only thing in the Constituion that the president
can be guilty of when it come to Classified Documents. Because it's the
only Constitution limitation on the presidency that would limit his use
of Executive Branch Documents.

Good luck with linking those "TRUMP DECLASSIFIED" documents to TREASON.

[-hh]

Even if that claim was true, there still must be a documentation trail, because
there’s never just one copy. So where is it? Note it must date prior to 20 Jan 2021.

> … he can't violate a law that isn't constitutional

> and because the Constitution delegated that power to the President, the
> President can't violate the Constitution no matter what he does even if
> the executive order/law says it's a crime because the Constitution tells
> him the crime would be when he places a law above the jurisdiction of
> the Constitution. Given any conflict of "law" with the "Constitution"
> the Constitution always wins.

Which means that the EO’s that detail the specific processes for the handling
of classified and CUI documents must have also been specifically rescinded
for your claim of a “hand waive” to have been legal. Where are these?

> > Typical modern conservative argument:
> >
> > 1. Never happened...fake news!
>
> Can't happen because the FAKE NEWS is that a law was violated by the
> President.

The perjury case is a slam-dunk and will be interesting.

> > 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
>
> I don't doubt that TRUMP has documents from when he packed and
> moved from the White House. But it doesn't make any of it a crime.

Nope. He’s now a private citizen, so he has no legal right to possess classified
documents, or even FOUO/CUI documents either. Anything unclassified that he
wanted to personally keep a copy of would had to have gone through the FOIA
review process … and again, a documentation trail must exist, so where is it?

>
> > 5. Hillary!!!!!!!
>
> Hillary wasn't the President so she had/has no way to claim she can take
> classified documents and do what she wants with them.

Incorrect, because whatever arguement you want to use for Trump applies
to Hillary too, because she had OCA. And that’s even before noting that she
didn’t walk away with any such docs: it was just an email spillage.

> The President can but that's the only person with that power.

Nope. POTUS is not the sole OCA.

> The Democrats will have to prove TREASON to make their charges stick
> because TREASON is the only thing in the Constituion that the president
> can be guilty of when it come to Classified Documents.

LOL! Better go read those EO’s again.

Meantime, thanks for showing everyone that you’ve never had a Security Clearance
to have a clue just what the regulations, practices and procedures are like.

-hh

[B Hasselback]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:43:41 AM UTC-5, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> > 5. Hillary!!!!!!!
>
> Hillary wasn't the President so she had/has no way to claim she can take
> classified documents and do what she wants with them. The President can
> but that's the only person with that power. Hillary was acting like she
> was President but she really wasn't.

Ah...we entered stage 5 earlier than expected. Congrats!

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obviously they know they exist... someone must have made copies when
they designated it as classified. There is a process.

>> … he can't violate a law that isn't constitutional
>> and because the Constitution delegated that power to the President, the
>> President can't violate the Constitution no matter what he does even if
>> the executive order/law says it's a crime because the Constitution tells
>> him the crime would be when he places a law above the jurisdiction of
>> the Constitution. Given any conflict of "law" with the "Constitution"
>> the Constitution always wins.
>
> Which means that the EO’s that detail the specific processes for the handling
> of classified and CUI documents must have also been specifically rescinded
> for your claim of a “hand waive” to have been legal. Where are these?
>

EO's are not for the President, he signs them for the people who work
for him to follow. they need to be directed, the President has the
power so he directs them with the EO's.


NO need for any EO... it's already done by actions or verbal ques so
all there is to do is for the people doing the classification process to
do their job and de-classify/re-classify any document or other
information that contains that information, update the redaction
software with those items that are no longer classified at that level...
it may be they moved down from TOP SECRET to some lower level, but NOT
likely it would move very many levels depending on who the President and
the people discussing that information or where copies are held,
anything held in a NON secured site would become classified for that
level of access or security risk. It's all at the Presidents
discretion, and again that's why having a BRAIN DEAD DEMOCRAT like Joe
Biden in there is very risky for America. TRUMP was aware of corporate
security but probably had to adjust to the government version of
paranoia connected with NATIONAL SECURITY.

You missed the point, the president is AUTHORIZED by the Constitution
which DELEGATES THE POWERS while people working under the PRESIDENT
(which is everyone in the Executive Branch) are NOT DELEGATED the same
POWERS if any...


You see where Congress is denied power in Amendment 1. "CONGRESS SHALL
MAKE NO LAW" but then in Article I Section 8. the Constitution says "The
Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

Those can't be re-delegated and no laws made can over ride that power.
The only way to change those powers is with an ARTICLE 5. Amendment to
the Constitution. As is the same process for the President and the
Presidential powers of the Executive Branch.

ALL THIS MAKES your response of

"documents must have also been specifically rescinded
for your claim of a “hand waive” to have been legal."

*What "law" can re-delegate* the Presidents powers that are delegated in
the Constitution?

HINT: there are none, laws can NOT change the Constitution, so that law
applies to all the people working for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH but NOT the
President who is literally the executive branch as much as the
Congressmen and Senators are the Legislative branch. ONLY the elected
Representatives and Senators can vote to pass bills to be turned into
law, NONE of the staff are congressmen or Senators and the staff are NOT
the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, the elected officials are.

Simply put the IRS can collect taxes NOT make tax laws.

The DOJ is enforcement of laws NOT making laws.

The DOD is about fighting wars NOT declaring them

And the many departments of the Executive Branch are about law
enforcement NOT making laws. So the Constitution delegated the
executive power to the President NOT Congress or those departments and
the NSA and DOD are NOT telling the President what can and can't be
classified, only what they can do under the executive orders and any
laws passed through congress and signed into law by the President.

Which means that the agencies that work for congress or the President,
can't allow or deny the Congressmen or Senators or the Executive the
powers which were delegated by the Constitution. Only the Constitution
can do that. And I see no Constitutional amendment or clause that limits
the Presidents access or ability to classify and declassify information
in his possession.

Unless you look at the Constitutional description of TREASON... that is
a law that can only be changed with an Amendment to the Constitution and
as part of the Constitution the President would have to live by it
unless his delegated powers specifically say that TREASON does NOT apply
to the President.

Looks like those charges of documents being removed will have to be for
treason since there is no law that congress can pass that over-rides the
Constitution.

>>> Typical modern conservative argument:
>>>
>>> 1. Never happened...fake news!
>>
>> Can't happen because the FAKE NEWS is that a law was violated by the
>> President.
>
> The perjury case is a slam-dunk and will be interesting.
>
>>> 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
>>
>> I don't doubt that TRUMP has documents from when he packed and
>> moved from the White House. But it doesn't make any of it a crime.
>
> Nope. He’s now a private citizen, so he has no legal right to possess classified
> documents, or even FOUO/CUI documents either.

Waving his hand from one box to another made them declassified. When he
moved them out of the WH it changed their classified status. The status
should be updated by the people charged with their classified status

To start with when anyone pulls a classified document up on a computer
or out of a file, it's tracked... they know who has it and what day and
time it was signed out. And that person is then responsible for it.
If the President has it, then they have to verify it's status when they
get it back.

One question is who signed for it and if they handed the document to the
President why was it never checked to see where it was? Sounds like
another FAKE crime from Democrat "Whistle-Blowers" who wanted to create
an issue so they could then exploit it for propaganda purposes.

> Anything unclassified that he
> wanted to personally keep a copy of would had to have gone through the FOIA
> review process … and again, a documentation trail must exist, so where is it?
>
>>
>>> 5. Hillary!!!!!!!
>>
>> Hillary wasn't the President so she had/has no way to claim she can take
>> classified documents and do what she wants with them.
>
> Incorrect, because whatever arguement you want to use for Trump applies
> to Hillary too, because she had OCA. And that’s even before noting that she
> didn’t walk away with any such docs: it was just an email spillage.
>
>> The President can but that's the only person with that power.
>
> Nope. POTUS is not the sole OCA.
>
>
>> The Democrats will have to prove TREASON to make their charges stick
>> because TREASON is the only thing in the Constituion that the president
>> can be guilty of when it come to Classified Documents.
>
> LOL! Better go read those EO’s again.
>
> Meantime, thanks for showing everyone that you’ve never had a Security Clearance
> to have a clue just what the regulations, practices and procedures are like.
>
> -hh
>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Whenever I run my mouth about the Constitution, you may rest assured that
everything I say is complete bullshit. I don't know one fucking thing about the
Constitution, and I freely admit it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I could have just said "IT DOES NOT APPLY" but then you'd ask why
because you want to see what the reason is for Hillary NOT being
relevant...and Hillary isn't relevant, believe me. These are chess moves
and faking a crime against the espionage act for TRUMP to be beat over
the head with for the very thing Democrats like Hillary were doing is
typical retribution. But the problem is that the espionage act is a
"law" and the Presidents delegated power to create and re-classify
documents in the hands of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH comes directly from the
Constitution, under the heading of NATIONAL SECURITY and keeping
Americans and the Constitution secure and guaranteeing a Republican form
of government as stated in Article IV Section 4.

You could broaden that to being Democrats and unequal justice being the
obvious flaw in the Democrats accusation that TRUMP violated the law.

Who cares about Hillary, maybe she thinks that if TRUMP is tainted with
the same kind of crime as she is then she will get back some power but
it isn't going to happen, Hillary is just a nasty old witch... and no
one of any importance will care about her name in the History books.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On 8/14/2022 12:42 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> and the Presidents delegated power to create and re-classify documents in the
> hands of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH comes directly from the Constitution, under the
> heading of NATIONAL SECURITY and

The words "delegate/delegated/delegating" and "national security" do not appear
anywhere in the articles of the Constitution. You are bullshitting, as you
always do when you yammer about the Constitution. The power of the president to
control classification of documents is not mentioned anywhere in the
Constitution. It is an *implied* power, not a "delegated" power.

You are a moron. You know you are.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 07:42:30 -0700 (PDT), B Hasselback
<bhass...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Typical modern conservative argument:
>
>1. Never happened...fake news!
>2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
>3. Ok, it happened like they said, but there's no crime committed!
>4. Ok, it happened, and it was a crime, but not a big one!
>5. Hillary!!!!!!!

Lolz! New sig file!

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<7e16e774-f505-4379...@googlegroups.com>,

B Hasselback <bhass...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Typical modern conservative argument:
>
> 1. Never happened...fake news!
> 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
> 3. Ok, it happened like they said, but there's no crime committed!
> 4. Ok, it happened, and it was a crime, but not a big one!
> 5. Hillary!!!!!!!

5A. OBAMA.

[-hh]

Yea, a process by which declassifications are documented and disseminated.
So where is the documentation that these docs went through that process?

> >> … he can't violate a law that isn't constitutional
> >> and because the Constitution delegated that power to the President, the
> >> President can't violate the Constitution no matter what he does even if
> >> the executive order/law says it's a crime because the Constitution tells
> >> him the crime would be when he places a law above the jurisdiction of
> >> the Constitution. Given any conflict of "law" with the "Constitution"
> >> the Constitution always wins.
> >
> > Which means that the EO’s that detail the specific processes for the handling
> > of classified and CUI documents must have also been specifically rescinded
> > for your claim of a “hand waive” to have been legal. Where are these?
>
> EO's are not for the President, he signs them for the people who work
> for him to follow. they need to be directed, the President has the
> power so he directs them with the EO's.

EO’s are for everyone they apply to, and there are specific EO’s for handling classified.
Thrums could have updated the EO to allow himself a ‘verbal’, but he did not do so,
so he is still legally bound to what is written in the EO. Hoisted on his own petard.

> NO need for any EO...

the EOs were already written and in force before Trump took office:

< https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information>


> …it's already done by actions or verbal ques so

> all there is to do is for the people doing the classification process to
> do their job and de-classify/re-classify any document or other
> information that contains that information, update the redaction
> software with those items that are no longer classified at that level...
> it may be they moved down from TOP SECRET to some lower level, but NOT
> likely it would move very many levels depending on who the President and
> the people discussing that information or where copies are held,
> anything held in a NON secured site would become classified for that
> level of access or security risk. It's all at the Presidents
> discretion, and again that's why having a BRAIN DEAD DEMOCRAT like Joe
> Biden in there is very risky for America. TRUMP was aware of corporate
> security but probably had to adjust to the government version of
> paranoia connected with NATIONAL SECURITY.
>
> You missed the point, the president is AUTHORIZED by the Constitution
> which DELEGATES THE POWERS while people working under the PRESIDENT
> (which is everyone in the Executive Branch) are NOT DELEGATED the same
> POWERS if any...

And the Executive Branch has published what the policies are, and use EO’s
to give them legal force. If the policy is that the POTUS is specifically exempt,
it would explicitly say so. So where is that exemption listed?

> You see where Congress is denied power in Amendment 1. "CONGRESS SHALL
> MAKE NO LAW" but then in Article I Section 8. the Constitution says "The
> Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"
>
> Those can't be re-delegated and no laws made can over ride that power.
> The only way to change those powers is with an ARTICLE 5. Amendment to
> the Constitution. As is the same process for the President and the
> Presidential powers of the Executive Branch.
>
> ALL THIS MAKES your response of
> "documents must have also been specifically rescinded
> for your claim of a “hand waive” to have been legal."
>
> *What "law" can re-delegate* the Presidents powers that are delegated in
> the Constitution?

Presidential EO’s, for one.
Laws that Congress passed and the POTUS signed, for another.

>
> HINT: there are none, laws can NOT change the Constitution, so that law
> applies to all the people working for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH but NOT the
> President who is literally the executive branch as much as the
> Congressmen and Senators are the Legislative branch. ONLY the elected
> Representatives and Senators can vote to pass bills to be turned into
> law, NONE of the staff are congressmen or Senators and the staff are NOT
> the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, the elected officials are.

No, your understanding of the Constitution is lacking. The Constitution lays out
broad principles and designates Congress, with POTUS consent, to hammer
out the details. If this wasn’t the process, then there would be no laws ever
passed by Congress.

> Simply put the IRS can collect taxes NOT make tax laws.

By they do publish regulations, which detail how the law gets implemented.
If Congress doesn’t like that implimentation, they talk with the IRS to change it,
and if they don’t like the IRS’s response, they then write a new law to more
specifically call out what they want.

>
> The DOJ is enforcement of laws NOT making laws.

No, your understanding of the Constitution is lacking. The Constitution lays out
broad principles and designates Congress, with POTUS consent, to hammer
out the details. If this wasn’t the process, then there would be no laws ever
passed by Congress.

>
> The DOD is about fighting wars NOT declaring them

No, your understanding of the Constitution is lacking. The Constitution lays out
broad principles and designates Congress, with POTUS consent, to hammer
out the details. If this wasn’t the process, then there would be no laws ever
passed by Congress.

>
> And the many departments of the Executive Branch are about law
> enforcement NOT making laws. So the Constitution delegated the
> executive power to the President NOT Congress or those departments and
> the NSA and DOD are NOT telling the President what can and can't be
> classified, only what they can do under the executive orders and any
> laws passed through congress and signed into law by the President.

Nope. You obviously have never been trusted with a security clearance.

> Which means that the agencies that work for congress or the President,
> can't allow or deny the Congressmen or Senators or the Executive the
> powers which were delegated by the Constitution. Only the Constitution
> can do that. And I see no Constitutional amendment or clause that limits
> the Presidents access or ability to classify and declassify information
> in his possession.

The POTUS legally limited himself, via EO’s. This isn’t illegal/unconstitutional.

>
> Unless you look at the Constitutional description of TREASON... that is
> a law that can only be changed with an Amendment to the Constitution and
> as part of the Constitution the President would have to live by it
> unless his delegated powers specifically say that TREASON does NOT apply
> to the President.

Nah, there’s other legal offenses besides just treason.

> Looks like those charges of documents being removed will have to be for
> treason since there is no law that congress can pass that over-rides the
> Constitution.

No, your understanding of the Constitution is lacking. The Constitution lays out
broad principles and designates Congress, with POTUS consent, to hammer
out the details. If this wasn’t the process, then there would be no laws ever
passed by Congress. And ironically, Trump himself signed one of the ones
which may become applicable here….FYI, it didn’t have a POTUS exemption.

> >>> Typical modern conservative argument:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Never happened...fake news!
> >>
> >> Can't happen because the FAKE NEWS is that a law was violated by the
> >> President.
> >
> > The perjury case is a slam-dunk and will be interesting.
> >
> >>> 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
> >>
> >> I don't doubt that TRUMP has documents from when he packed and
> >> moved from the White House. But it doesn't make any of it a crime.
> >
> > Nope. He’s now a private citizen, so he has no legal right to possess classified
> > documents, or even FOUO/CUI documents either.
>
> Waving his hand from one box to another made them declassified.

Not as a private citizen it doesn’t, and had it happened while he was POTUS,
the EI calls for documentation trail.

> When he moved them out of the WH it changed their classified status.

To “Stolen Government Property.”

> The status
> should be updated by the people charged with their classified status

Prior to 20 Jan 2021…so where are those records?

> To start with when anyone pulls a classified document up on a computer
> or out of a file, it's tracked... they know who has it and what day and
> time it was signed out. And that person is then responsible for it.
> If the President has it, then they have to verify it's status when they
> get it back.

Even if it takes a warrant.

> One question is who signed for it and if they handed the document to the
> President why was it never checked to see where it was? Sounds like
> another FAKE crime from Democrat "Whistle-Blowers" who wanted to create
> an issue so they could then exploit it for propaganda purposes.

Nope. They’ve known he’s had it for months. That’s why there perjury now involved.

> > Anything unclassified that he
> > wanted to personally keep a copy of would had to have gone through the FOIA
> > review process … and again, a documentation trail must exist, so where is it?

Silence noted.
Hint: you’re out of your depth because you’ve never been trained on any of this.

> >>> 5. Hillary!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> Hillary wasn't the President so she had/has no way to claim she can take
> >> classified documents and do what she wants with them.
> >
> > Incorrect, because whatever arguement you want to use for Trump applies
> > to Hillary too, because she had OCA. And that’s even before noting that she
> > didn’t walk away with any such docs: it was just an email spillage.

Silence noted.
Hint: you’re out of your depth because you’ve never been trained on any of this.

> >
> >> The President can but that's the only person with that power.
> >
> > Nope. POTUS is not the sole OCA.

Silence noted.
Hint: you’re out of your depth because you’ve never been trained on any of this.

> >
> >
> >> The Democrats will have to prove TREASON to make their charges stick
> >> because TREASON is the only thing in the Constituion that the president
> >> can be guilty of when it come to Classified Documents.
> >
> > LOL! Better go read those EO’s again.
> >
> > Meantime, thanks for showing everyone that you’ve never had a Security Clearance
> > to have a clue just what the regulations, practices and procedures are like.

BTW, Reality Winner got 5+ years for giving *one* classified document away,
and she didn’t get $2B from the Saudis.

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner>

-hh

[governo...@gmail.com]

Who is doing all this forging? I mean, it takes a true fruitcake to
forge Snotty.

[governo...@gmail.com]

Cons answer: "There was a standing order that anything Trump took out
of the West Wing was automatically declassified so no copies or
records are necessary."

Even so, there would STILL be a paper trail as West Wing staffers
marked and filed each document as unclassified and sent notification
to Archives and the originator of the document. Where is that paper
trail?

>> >> … he can't violate a law that isn't constitutional
>> >> and because the Constitution delegated that power to the President, the
>> >> President can't violate the Constitution no matter what he does even if
>> >> the executive order/law says it's a crime because the Constitution tells
>> >> him the crime would be when he places a law above the jurisdiction of
>> >> the Constitution. Given any conflict of "law" with the "Constitution"
>> >> the Constitution always wins.
>> >
>> > Which means that the EO’s that detail the specific processes for the handling
>> > of classified and CUI documents must have also been specifically rescinded
>> > for your claim of a “hand waive” to have been legal. Where are these?
>>
>> EO's are not for the President, he signs them for the people who work
>> for him to follow. they need to be directed, the President has the
>> power so he directs them with the EO's.
>
>EO’s are for everyone they apply to, and there are specific EO’s for handling classified.
>Thrums could have updated the EO to allow himself a ‘verbal’, but he did not do so,
>so he is still legally bound to what is written in the EO. Hoisted on his own petard.

Even so, some staffer(s) would be responsible for doing the nuts and
bolts of getting each document unclassified through whatever process
was extant. Where is the paper trail for that process?

>> NO need for any EO...
>
>the EOs were already written and in force before Trump took office:
>
>< https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information>

So we have as a guide the methods used by the Obama White House for
how the internals worked. We should also have a record of exactly
WHICH documents got unclassified under Obama and if he took anything
with him he wasn't supposed to. This can be compared with Trump's
document handling/retention.

>> …it's already done by actions or verbal ques so
>> all there is to do is for the people doing the classification process to
>> do their job and de-classify/re-classify any document or other
>> information that contains that information, update the redaction
>> software with those items that are no longer classified at that level...

For which there should be a paper trail.

>> it may be they moved down from TOP SECRET to some lower level, but NOT
>> likely it would move very many levels depending on who the President and
>> the people discussing that information or where copies are held,
>> anything held in a NON secured site would become classified for that
>> level of access or security risk. It's all at the Presidents
>> discretion, and again that's why having a BRAIN DEAD DEMOCRAT like Joe
>> Biden in there is very risky for America. TRUMP was aware of corporate
>> security but probably had to adjust to the government version of
>> paranoia connected with NATIONAL SECURITY.

In this context, Trump acted like a naive child. His job is to
protect 330 M Americans plus billions of other humans on the planet
who look to US leadership for THEIR national security.

>> You missed the point, the president is AUTHORIZED by the Constitution
>> which DELEGATES THE POWERS while people working under the PRESIDENT
>> (which is everyone in the Executive Branch) are NOT DELEGATED the same
>> POWERS if any...
>
>
>And the Executive Branch has published what the policies are, and use EO’s
>to give them legal force. If the policy is that the POTUS is specifically exempt,
>it would explicitly say so. So where is that exemption listed?

The President is not above the law. I'd like to know . . . is any
"automatic" declassification permanent or temporary? And, if such EOs
could be challenged in the courts? Is it possible the SCOTUS might
rule that the POTUS cannot simply declassify anything without a
check/balance? See, that's what worries me. A President acting
without a check on his power.

Of course it can. Unlike in Monarchy, the President is not the State.
Clearly, it is possible for a President to betray the Constitution
which in America, is the State embodied. I may be misusing words or
being unclear but to me, since the President swears to defend and
protect "the Constitution" any way he acts which could threaten the
Constitution or the State it describes could be cause for a charge of
treason.

>Nah, there’s other legal offenses besides just treason.
>
>> Looks like those charges of documents being removed will have to be for
>> treason since there is no law that congress can pass that over-rides the
>> Constitution.
>
>No, your understanding of the Constitution is lacking. The Constitution lays out
>broad principles and designates Congress, with POTUS consent, to hammer
>out the details. If this wasn’t the process, then there would be no laws ever
>passed by Congress. And ironically, Trump himself signed one of the ones
>which may become applicable here….FYI, it didn’t have a POTUS exemption.

Snotty is not noted for his understanding of the C.

>> >>> Typical modern conservative argument:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Never happened...fake news!
>> >>
>> >> Can't happen because the FAKE NEWS is that a law was violated by the
>> >> President.
>> >
>> > The perjury case is a slam-dunk and will be interesting.
>> >
>> >>> 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
>> >>
>> >> I don't doubt that TRUMP has documents from when he packed and
>> >> moved from the White House. But it doesn't make any of it a crime.
>> >
>> > Nope. He’s now a private citizen, so he has no legal right to possess classified
>> > documents, or even FOUO/CUI documents either.
>>
>> Waving his hand from one box to another made them declassified.
>
>Not as a private citizen it doesn’t, and had it happened while he was POTUS,
>the EI calls for documentation trail.

And some or all of those documents may have been subject to
reclassification once the POTUS was done with them.

Why did candidate/senator Clinton have OCA?

>Silence noted.
>Hint: you’re out of your depth because you’ve never been trained on any of this.

>> >> The President can but that's the only person with that power.
>> >
>> > Nope. POTUS is not the sole OCA.
>
>Silence noted.
>Hint: you’re out of your depth because you’ve never been trained on any of this.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> The Democrats will have to prove TREASON to make their charges stick
>> >> because TREASON is the only thing in the Constituion that the president
>> >> can be guilty of when it come to Classified Documents.
>> >
>> > LOL! Better go read those EO’s again.
>> >
>> > Meantime, thanks for showing everyone that you’ve never had a Security Clearance
>> > to have a clue just what the regulations, practices and procedures are like.
>
>BTW, Reality Winner got 5+ years for giving *one* classified document away,
>and she didn’t get $2B from the Saudis.
>
>< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner>

Five years and three months for leaking ONE document about, wait for
it . . . .

Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Hmmm . . . . . isn't THAT interesting.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:54:58 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article
><7e16e774-f505-4379...@googlegroups.com>,
> B Hasselback <bhass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Typical modern conservative argument:
>>
>> 1. Never happened...fake news!
>> 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
>> 3. Ok, it happened like they said, but there's no crime committed!
>> 4. Ok, it happened, and it was a crime, but not a big one!
>> 5. Hillary!!!!!!!
>
>5A. OBAMA.

ROTLF!

Swill
--

Typical modern conservative argument:

1. Never happened...fake news!
2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
3. Ok, it happened like they said, but there's no crime committed!

4. Ok, it happened and it was a crime, but not a big one!
5. Hillary!!!!!!!

[-hh]

Oh, it gets better:

Claims of ‘Executive Privilege’ means it’s government property:

< https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html>

And a 1978 law would be signed by another Democrat POTUS, Jimmy Carter.

Neither, because it is a fiction that doesn’t IRL happen.

> And, if such EOs
> could be challenged in the courts? Is it possible the SCOTUS might
> rule that the POTUS cannot simply declassify anything without a
> check/balance? See, that's what worries me. A President acting
> without a check on his power.

Yes: the Constitution doesn’t allow unchecked power, thanks to King George.

Yup. It’s integral to the Oath of Office and some aspects of it legally
compels action…sitting idly by then is a violation of said Oath.

> >Nah, there’s other legal offenses besides just treason.
> >
> >> Looks like those charges of documents being removed will have to be for
> >> treason since there is no law that congress can pass that over-rides the
> >> Constitution.
> >
> >No, your understanding of the Constitution is lacking. The Constitution lays out
> >broad principles and designates Congress, with POTUS consent, to hammer
> >out the details. If this wasn’t the process, then there would be no laws ever
> >passed by Congress. And ironically, Trump himself signed one of the ones
> >which may become applicable here….FYI, it didn’t have a POTUS exemption.
>
> Snotty is not noted for his understanding of the C.

Scotty is merely parroting what his handlers are telling him to think/say.

> >> >>> Typical modern conservative argument:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1. Never happened...fake news!
> >> >>
> >> >> Can't happen because the FAKE NEWS is that a law was violated by the
> >> >> President.
> >> >
> >> > The perjury case is a slam-dunk and will be interesting.
> >> >
> >> >>> 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't doubt that TRUMP has documents from when he packed and
> >> >> moved from the White House. But it doesn't make any of it a crime.
> >> >
> >> > Nope. He’s now a private citizen, so he has no legal right to possess classified
> >> > documents, or even FOUO/CUI documents either.
> >>
> >> Waving his hand from one box to another made them declassified.
> >
> >Not as a private citizen it doesn’t, and had it happened while he was POTUS,
> >the EI calls for documentation trail.
>
> And some or all of those documents may have been subject to
> reclassification once the POTUS was done with them.

Particularly if he took a sharpie to them, as this add can actually *raise*
its original classification level through what’s known as ‘Aggregation’.

Secretary of State. Comes with the position.

> >Silence noted.
> >Hint: you’re out of your depth because you’ve never been trained on any of this.
>
> >> >> The President can but that's the only person with that power.
> >> >
> >> > Nope. POTUS is not the sole OCA.
> >
> >Silence noted.
> >Hint: you’re out of your depth because you’ve never been trained on any of this.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> The Democrats will have to prove TREASON to make their charges stick
> >> >> because TREASON is the only thing in the Constituion that the president
> >> >> can be guilty of when it come to Classified Documents.
> >> >
> >> > LOL! Better go read those EO’s again.
> >> >
> >> > Meantime, thanks for showing everyone that you’ve never had a Security Clearance
> >> > to have a clue just what the regulations, practices and procedures are like.
> >
> >BTW, Reality Winner got 5+ years for giving *one* classified document away,
> >and she didn’t get $2B from the Saudis.
> >
> >< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner>
>
> Five years and three months for leaking ONE document about, wait for
> it . . . .
>
> Russian interference in the 2016 election.
>
> Hmmm . . . . . isn't THAT interesting.

Hmmm!

-hh

[Mitchell Holman]

governo...@gmail.com wrote in news:aekifht5dti4bv5j7bsb6emepp45icqmct@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 07:42:30 -0700 (PDT), B Hasselback
> <bhass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Typical modern conservative argument:
>>
>>1. Never happened...fake news!
>>2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
>>3. Ok, it happened like they said, but there's no crime committed!
>>4. Ok, it happened, and it was a crime, but not a big one!
>>5. Hillary!!!!!!!

6. Hunter Bidens Laptop!

[Mitchell Holman]

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
EBBA95.125...@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article
> <7e16e774-f505-4379...@googlegroups.com>,
> B Hasselback <bhass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Typical modern conservative argument:
>>
>> 1. Never happened...fake news!
>> 2. It happened, but not like the fake news said!
>> 3. Ok, it happened like they said, but there's no crime committed!
>> 4. Ok, it happened, and it was a crime, but not a big one!
>> 5. Hillary!!!!!!!
>
> 5A. OBAMA.
>

6. Hunter Biden's Laptop!

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

7. Ballot drop boxes!

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:38:57 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 6:45:20 PM UTC-4, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>> >On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 3:23:14 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> >> EO's are not for the President,

Why not? Presidents created EOs that apply not just to everybody else
but to his own office as well.

>> >> he signs them for the people who work
>> >> for him to follow. they need to be directed, the President has the
>> >> power so he directs them with the EO's.
>> >
>> >EO’s are for everyone they apply to, and there are specific EO’s for handling classified.
>> >Thrums could have updated the EO to allow himself a ‘verbal’, but he did not do so,
>> >so he is still legally bound to what is written in the EO. Hoisted on his own petard.

>> >> NO need for any EO...
>> >
>> >the EOs were already written and in force before Trump took office:
>> >
>> >< https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information>
>
>Oh, it gets better:
>
>Claims of ‘Executive Privilege’ means it’s government property:
>
>< https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html>
>
>And a 1978 law would be signed by another Democrat POTUS, Jimmy Carter.

This bullet point caught my eye.

"Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer
have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value,
***once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the
proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.***" (emphasis added)

>> >And the Executive Branch has published what the policies are, and use EO’s
>> >to give them legal force. If the policy is that the POTUS is specifically exempt,
>> >it would explicitly say so. So where is that exemption listed?
>>
>> The President is not above the law. I'd like to know . . . is any
>> "automatic" declassification permanent or temporary?
>
>Neither, because it is a fiction that doesn’t IRL happen.

Allegedly Trump had exactly such a standing order. Any docs he took
to the Big House from the West Wing were to be declassified.

>> And, if such EOs
>> could be challenged in the courts? Is it possible the SCOTUS might
>> rule that the POTUS cannot simply declassify anything without a
>> check/balance? See, that's what worries me. A President acting
>> without a check on his power.
>
>Yes: the Constitution doesn’t allow unchecked power, thanks to King George.

Checks and balances are the basis of the governmental structure in the
Constitution. You can't have checks and balances if only one person
has power. So, we can see that the Constitution vests power in both
the President and the "Deep State".

>> >> Unless you look at the Constitutional description of TREASON... that is
>> >> a law that can only be changed with an Amendment to the Constitution and
>> >> as part of the Constitution the President would have to live by it
>> >> unless his delegated powers specifically say that TREASON does NOT
>> >> apply to the President.
>>
>> Of course it can. Unlike in Monarchy, the President is not the State.
>> Clearly, it is possible for a President to betray the Constitution
>> which in America, is the State embodied. I may be misusing words or
>> being unclear but to me, since the President swears to defend and
>> protect "the Constitution" any way he acts which could threaten the
>> Constitution or the State it describes could be cause for a charge of
>> treason.
>
>Yup. It’s integral to the Oath of Office and some aspects of it legally
>compels action…sitting idly by then is a violation of said Oath.

A subtlety the radical right is ignoring. Federal officials don't
swear to protect the United States, they swear to protect the
Constitution of the United States.

>> >No, your understanding of the Constitution is lacking. The Constitution lays out
>> >broad principles and designates Congress, with POTUS consent, to hammer
>> >out the details. If this wasn’t the process, then there would be no laws ever
>> >passed by Congress. And ironically, Trump himself signed one of the ones
>> >which may become applicable here….FYI, it didn’t have a POTUS exemption.
>>
>> Snotty is not noted for his understanding of the C.
>
>Scotty is merely parroting what his handlers are telling him to think/say.

Damn. Forgot. Was stuck on her just being a Senator.

>> >BTW, Reality Winner got 5+ years for giving *one* classified document away,
>> >and she didn’t get $2B from the Saudis.
>> >
>> >< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner>
>>
>> Five years and three months for leaking ONE document about, wait for
>> it . . . .
>>
>> Russian interference in the 2016 election.
>>
>> Hmmm . . . . . isn't THAT interesting.
>
>Hmmm!
>
>-hh

[governo...@gmail.com]

That's 5a . . .

[governo...@gmail.com]

Ok. 5B then.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:21:59 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreude.entfärben.@gmail.com> wrote:

Who cares?

[-hh]

Cue for Scotty to claim it isn't Constitutional in 3...2...

But it is the law (since 1978), so if there's any question regarding its Constitutionality,
it goes to the Judicial Branch to decide. Sorry Scotty.

> >> >And the Executive Branch has published what the policies are, and use EO’s
> >> >to give them legal force. If the policy is that the POTUS is specifically exempt,
> >> >it would explicitly say so. So where is that exemption listed?
> >>
> >> The President is not above the law. I'd like to know . . . is any
> >> "automatic" declassification permanent or temporary?
> >
> >Neither, because it is a fiction that doesn’t IRL happen.
>
> Allegedly Trump had exactly such a standing order.

And his staffers have already made public statements that there were no
such standing orders.

> Any docs he took to the Big House from the West Wing were to be declassified.

Again, no such record. As such, they constitute theft of the property of the
Archivist of the United States if nothing else.

> >> And, if such EOs
> >> could be challenged in the courts? Is it possible the SCOTUS might
> >> rule that the POTUS cannot simply declassify anything without a
> >> check/balance? See, that's what worries me. A President acting
> >> without a check on his power.
> >
> >Yes: the Constitution doesn’t allow unchecked power, thanks to King George.
>
> Checks and balances are the basis of the governmental structure in the
> Constitution. You can't have checks and balances if only one person
> has power. So, we can see that the Constitution vests power in both
> the President and the "Deep State".

Unfortunately, Scotty and the rest of the fascists don't want to hear such "nonsense".

> >> >> Unless you look at the Constitutional description of TREASON... that is
> >> >> a law that can only be changed with an Amendment to the Constitution and
> >> >> as part of the Constitution the President would have to live by it
> >> >> unless his delegated powers specifically say that TREASON does NOT
> >> >> apply to the President.
> >>
> >> Of course it can. Unlike in Monarchy, the President is not the State.
> >> Clearly, it is possible for a President to betray the Constitution
> >> which in America, is the State embodied. I may be misusing words or
> >> being unclear but to me, since the President swears to defend and
> >> protect "the Constitution" any way he acts which could threaten the
> >> Constitution or the State it describes could be cause for a charge of
> >> treason.
> >
> >Yup. It’s integral to the Oath of Office and some aspects of it legally
> >compels action…sitting idly by then is a violation of said Oath.
>
> A subtlety the radical right is ignoring. Federal officials don't
> swear to protect the United States, they swear to protect the
> Constitution of the United States.

No, they know that they're trampling the Constitution; they simply do not care: they
want a dictatorship with "their guy" in charge, just to supposedly 'own the libs'.

Yup. All of the Secretarial positions have original classification authority, as well
as many of the people that they work for. I'm not sure if its 100% correct, but probably
a good enough rule of thumb is that everyone in the SES workforce has OCA, which
would be roughly 8,000 individuals. The trick, of course, is that there's different levels
of classification, so not all will have a Need to Know to be read in, etc. After all, there's
a reason why the C in SCI is "Compartmented".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Maybe, but I'm not a moron that's wrong most of the time, like you.


Amendment X
*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution* ,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.


*SEE THE WORD DELEGATED*

You have to realize that the Amendments to the Constitution are also
PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. They are made part of it so that there is
text in the Constitution when it's changed, Something to go look at and
reference when a change in the Constitution occurs. It requires that we
follow ARTICLE 5 in order to UP-DATE the Constitution to to "The
Constitution ver 1.10 *The Bill Of RIGHTS* and then ver 1.11 and ver
1.12" and when we got to ver-1.18 and instituted the Prohibition
up-date, there was a bug in the code so in version 1.20 that Prohibition
bug was fixed.... by removing prohibition and turning it into a new Tax
Amendment because the ban on consuming alcohol was a total failure.

And the flawed versions remain in the text of the Constitution to allow
you to look back and see the flaws, The original Constitution had
slavery and in the Version-1.13 the upgrade removed slavery as anything
but punishment for a crime where the party had been duly convicted.

Slavery is gone supposedly except at the Southern Border where the
Democrats allow it once again like they did the under-ground black
markets on bootleg alcohol after they banned alcohol. It creates
CORRUPTION and an underground economy that Democrats use to make money
and get elected to office. I'm NOT cynical, it's all there in the
Constitution, telling you what works and whet doesn't.



Article II
Section 1. *The executive Power shall be vested in a President* of the
United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of
four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same
Term, be elected, as follows:

See who has the EXECUTIVE POWER, it's NOT the Bureaucrats it's the
President and the President is "Commander In Chief" of the ARMY the
Commander in Chief in Article 4 Section 4. is NOT delegated but
Mandated to protect us and our NATION.

Article IV
Section 4. The United States *shall guarantee to every State* in this
Union *a Republican Form of Government* , and *shall protect each of*
*them against Invasion* ; and *on Application* of the Legislature, or
*of the Executive* (when the Legislature cannot be convened), *against*
*domestic Violence* .

That means *NATIONAL SECURITY* is the job of what it says, and it says
*on Application* of the Legislature, or *of the Executive*

And it's NOT just delegated it's also MANDATED using the word *shall* .

How can he do this without "setting up some form of security within the
Executive DEPARTMENTS" which is why it is necessary and a mandate that
the President control Executive Office security and NATIONAL security to
secure from invasion and domestic violence. Which creates the need and
MANDATE for the President to classify and keep the security in the
Executive Branch for the Security of the NATION. It the *JOB TITLE* it's
what they do.




And finally the *PREAMBLE* which is the mission statement of the
Constitution... it tells you what the over-all point of the Constitution
is and what the general goals trying to be achieved are, so that when
you read the Constitution and all the amendments, you should see a
DOCUMENT that embodies all those goals from the preamble being developed
in that Constitution. If the Document is interpreted with other goals
or directions in mind and NOT as viewed through the the preamble then
it's being undermined... because the Preamble explains why the
Constitution exists and to change the direction of the Constitution's
goals would need an amendment to the PREAMBLE itself. Try re-writing the
preamble for the U.S. Constitution and see if you can do any better
setting the goals. And remember the devil is in the details and the
execution NOT in the lofty musing's of authoritarians.

It's probably why the slave owning and slavery loving Marxist-Democrats
try so hard to re-define things and to lie about what Socialism and
Communism is about... so they can get you to believe that
Socialist/Marxist policies that promote authoritarian government ideals
and goals are compatible with the Preamble and thereby an acceptable
starting point when interpreting and Amending and applying the U.S.
Constitution. Notice the Freedom or security and equality you may think
is lost, is caused by your lack of understating how the Constitution
works. The Document still works, it's you and your concepts that failed.

[Blue Lives Matter]

On 8/15/2022 8:47 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his
scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 8/14/22 3:50 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>> On 8/14/2022 12:42 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> and the Presidents delegated power to create and re-classify documents in the
>>> hands of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH comes directly from the Constitution, under the
>>> heading of NATIONAL SECURITY and
>>
>> The words "delegate/delegated/delegating" and "national security" do not
>> appear anywhere in the articles of the Constitution.  You are bullshitting, as
>> you always do when you yammer about the Constitution. The power of the
>> president to control classification of documents is not mentioned anywhere in
>> the Constitution.  It is an *implied* power, not a "delegated" power.
>>
>> You are a moron.  You know you are.
>
>

> Maybe, but I'm not a moron that's [sic] wrong most of the time

You're a moron *who* is wrong 100% of the time, and never more so than when you
blabber about the Constitution. You're also a moron *who* doesn't know that the
correct relative pronoun is *who*, not "that" — you're a moron *who's* wrong
most of the time.

>
> Amendment X
> *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution* ,

Yes. That is the only use of the word in the entire Constitution, including
amendments. The powers in the articles of the Constitution for the three
branches are not "delegated" to those branches — they are *defined* to those
branches. There is no need to "delegate" the power to enact laws to Congress,
as opposed to the president or the Supreme Court, because it is inconceivable
that those other branches could possibly be the entity that enacts laws.

You are a moron, and you are wrong about 100% of the stuff on which you run your
ignorant yap.

[B Hasselback]

Always a pleasure when one of our Constitutional scholars tries to explain anything to do with the Constitution. It's like listening to Trump explaining windmill cancer.

[NoBody]

On 8/15/2022 10:02 AM, B Hasselback wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:47:56 AM UTC-5, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>> On 8/14/22 3:50 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2022 12:42 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> and the Presidents delegated power to create and re-classify documents
>>>> in the hands of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH comes directly from the
>>>> Constitution, under the heading of NATIONAL SECURITY and
>>>
>>> The words "delegate/delegated/delegating" and "national security" do not
>>> appear anywhere in the articles of the Constitution. You are
>>> bullshitting, as you always do when you yammer about the Constitution.
>>> The power of the president to control classification of documents is not
>>> mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. It is an *implied* power, not a
>>> "delegated" power.
>>>
>>> You are a moron. You know you are.
>> Maybe, but I'm not a moron that's wrong most of the time, like you.
>>
>>
>> Amendment X
>> *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution* ,
>> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>> respectively, or to the people.

>> [...]

>
> Always a pleasure when one of our Constitutional scholars tries to explain anything to do with the Constitution. It's like listening to Trump explaining windmill cancer.

#ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty doesn't know a thing about the Constitution.

[governo...@gmail.com]

How about this for a sig file?

"Snotty explaining the Constitution is like Trump explaining windmill
cancer."

[Bradley K. Sherman]

| ...
| Mr. Bolton, who served as Mr. Trump's third national
| security adviser over 17 months, said he had never heard of
| the standing order that Mr. Trump's office claimed to have
| in place. It is, he said, "almost certainly a lie."
|
| "I was never briefed on any such order, procedure, policy
| when I came in," Mr. Bolton said, adding that he had never
| been told of it while he was working there, and had never
| heard of such a thing after. "If he were to say something
| like that, you would have to memorialize that, so that
| people would know it existed," he said.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/14/us/politics/trump-documents-explanations.html>

--bks

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/15/2022 2:21 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> | ...
> | Mr. Bolton, who served as Mr. Trump's third national
> | security adviser over 17 months, said he had never heard of
> | the standing order that Mr. Trump's office claimed to have
> | in place. It is, he said, "almost certainly a lie."

Of course it's a lie. It's obviously a lie. Trump never read a single briefing
paper put in front of him, and those were already summarized and dumbed down for
him. Why would anyone believe that he would anyone believe he would take whole
classified documents out of the Oval Office to his residential quarters? He
wouldn't and he didn't.

[Nic]

Let us not forget that Trump is still pushing clot shots.

If Trump wants to lead America,, when he admits he fucked up and he
don't know what the fuck he is doing. An alternate interpretation of
those 87 thousand IRS Agents is part of the underground effort to root
out the dual citizens that have moved into America like  an infection or
a plague,  bonus chapter some Beach
Boys-->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rSgo5ZFF1A

[B Hasselback]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 3:13:02 PM UTC-5, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 10:02:09 -0700 (PDT), B Hasselback
> <bhass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:47:56 AM UTC-5, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >> The result is DEMOCRATS lies about history and reality to themselves and
> >> others means their attempts to figure-out what's wrong is an exercise in
> >> futility, because what they think they know they really don't know, and
> >> fixing problems without the truth... becomes a fools errand.
> >
> >Always a pleasure when one of our Constitutional scholars tries to explain anything to do with the Constitution. It's like listening to Trump explaining windmill cancer.
> How about this for a sig file?
>
> "Snotty explaining the Constitution is like Trump explaining windmill
> cancer."

So much material from these idiots, so little sig room...

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/14/2022 6:58 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 18:44:11 -0500, David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com>
> wrote:

>
>> On 8/13/22 13:49, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in

>>> news:dficncYJyrI5QWr_...@giganews.com:

>>> Ergo Trump is a thief.
>>
>> How many documents did Obama steal?
>>
>> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html#
>> [...]
>> In the middle of directing the difficult task of transferring the
>> historically important records of the Obama administration into the
>> National Archives, the archivist in charge, David Ferriero, ran into a
>> serious problem: A lot of key records are missing.
>> [...]
>>
>> Note, the AP claims otherwise.
>
> This is something all Presidents have done.

This is not something all presidents have done. No presidents have taken
official presidential records or classified documents with them.

> This is being used as a weapon to prosecute someone who might be a Presidential candidate.

This is being done because there is credible evidence that at least three laws
have been broken.


> Interestingly enough Trump was impeached for supposedly doing the same thing.

Trump was impeached for corruptly soliciting political help from a foreign state
and for fomenting an insurrection.

[AlleyCat]

On 8/14/2022 6:52 AM, NoBody wrote:

>> White House, he took things he shouldn't have. Honestly, that along is
>> pretty amazing since the move would have been under the supervision of
>> White House Staff, however it seems to have happened. Trump has returned
>> some of those documents, and The government was aware of those
>> remaining. At government request they were secured and negotiations were
>> likely ongoing. Put another way, the raid was utterly unnecessary.
>>
>> In addition, there have been other cases of executive branch officials
>> caught flagrantly and knowingly stealing classified material (think
>> Sandy Berger), and there was always a negotiated settlement.
>>
>> In the end there is no doubt that this entire thing, including both
>> impeachments, the January 6 committee and this raid, have nothing to do
>> with justice, but are all about destroying any political aspirations
>> Trump may have. The entire process is sleazy and underhanded.
>>
>> Having said that, if Trump knew that taking those materials with him was
>> illegal, he deserves whatever penalty a judge may choose to impose,
>> assuming that he is ever indicted and convicted.
>
> If a President may declassify a docment at will then he had nothing
> illegal in his house.

There is no evidence Trump declassified anything. Even if something was
declassified — but nothing was — there still is a procedure to follow to remove
the classification markings from the document, *and* to notify the agency that
originally classified it that it has been declassified. None of that occurred.

There was no "standing order" for declassification.

> The FBI must have agreed in June because they allowed all the material to stay there.

The FBI did not agree because they were never there. It was a DoJ investigative
agent, not an FBI agent, who spoke with Trump in June, and that agent never saw
the concealed boxes of documents.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:58:00 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>This is something all Presidents have done.

No, they haven't.

>This is being used as a
>weapon to prosecute someone who might be a Presidential candidate.

No it isn't.

>Interestingly enough Trump was impeached for supposedly doing the same
>thing.

No, he wasn't.

You're 0 for 3, Ruby!

>The crowd is oddly silent about that now.

I wish you were.

[governo...@gmail.com]

You'll have to excuse Nobody. He keeps hoping that if he tells the
same lies often enough, they'll magically become true.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And yet you never disprove anything I say.


Why is that?


--

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

-That's Karma-

*IF YOU'RE READING THIS YOU ARE A SURVIVOR*
*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is we talk about it, we hate
censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you. Make them
prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you didn't
find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you then
you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber* *Doctrine* is the
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://rumble.com/vkt8ld-call-it-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-or-whatever.-how-libs-exploit-t.html

*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB* is
57 - Liberal employees call hemorrhoids a workplace injury.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obama did it and then moved them to his Library where they are protected
from public view for something like 30 years.

>> This is being used as a weapon to prosecute someone who might be a
>> Presidential candidate.
>
> This is being done because there is credible evidence that at least
> three laws have been broken.
>

NO there is NO evidence that those papers were classified and there
can't be, because the President (who ever it is) can't be charged with
having classified documents if he was the one that took them from the
Classified archives. Because the President is the sole person that can
de-classify or re-classify with the stroke of a pen or a word or an
action.

It was the Presidents job to make those decisions and if he hires
someone to do it (a national security team) then they do it under his
authority. They don't become the authority because POWERS DELEGATED IN
THE CONSTITUTION can NOT be RE-DELEGATED without an amendment to the
Constitution, and the President is responsible for United States
Executive Branch SECURITY and NATIONAL SECURITY. Which means TRUMP had
the power to de-classify and take those Documents... if no-one was NOT
tracking those documents that had been removed from a CLASSIFIED or
TOP-SECRET archive and did NOT mark them as in Presidential hands, then
the question is why didn't they do their job? Meanwhile the President
obviously declassified them and boxed them as personal material and as
being copies for personal use.

>
>> Interestingly enough Trump was impeached for supposedly doing the same
>> thing.
>
> Trump was impeached for corruptly soliciting political help from a
> foreign state and for fomenting an insurrection.

TRUMP was impeached twice... and investigated by a special council
once and they never had any actual crime that was a real crime.

They were targeting TRUMP with FAKE charges. And still are, at this
point it's on the FBI/DOJ and DEMOCRAT CONGRESS to prove their
accusations before they make them and get warrants since they obviously
lied at least 3 times and actually they lied more because they lied on
the Dossier and then lied again on the FISA WARRANT applications and
about PHONE call transcripts and multiple times for each investigation
and accusation.

At the moment the onus of proof is on the FBI the DOJ and the Judge that
signed the WARRANT, if the Judg knew they lied and isn't actively trying
to prove his own innocense then the Judge should be IMPEACHED for
CORRUPTION. And the FBI/DOJ involved need to be brought in to jail by
the SWAT TEAM and some U.S. Marshals.

We need U.S. Marshals to arrest the Corrupt FBI and DOJ LAWYERS.

--
-That's karma-

[NoBody]

On 8/16/2022 7:02 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 8/15/22 7:51 PM, B Hasselback wrote:
>> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 3:13:02 PM UTC-5, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 10:02:09 -0700 (PDT), B Hasselback
>>> <bhass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 10:47:56 AM UTC-5, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> The result is DEMOCRATS lies about history and reality to themselves and
>>>>> others means their attempts to figure-out what's wrong is an exercise in
>>>>> futility, because what they think they know they really don't know, and
>>>>> fixing problems without the truth... becomes a fools errand.
>>>>
>>>> Always a pleasure when one of our Constitutional scholars tries to explain
>>>> anything to do with the Constitution. It's like listening to Trump
>>>> explaining windmill cancer.
>>> How about this for a sig file?
>>>
>>> "Snotty explaining the Constitution is like Trump explaining windmill
>>> cancer."
>>
>> So much material from these idiots, so little sig room...
>>
>
> And yet you never disprove anything I say.

No need.

>
> Why is that?

Because it's self-refuting flatulence and is obviously bullshit.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:31:21 AM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 8/15/22 8:27 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> > On 8/14/2022 6:58 AM, NoBody wrote:

> >> ...

> >>
> >> This is something all Presidents have done.
> >
> > This is not something all presidents have done. No presidents have
> > taken official presidential records or classified documents with them.
>
> Obama did it and then moved them to his Library where they are protected
> from public view for something like 30 years.

Nope:
<https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-obama-million-documents-929954890662>

> >> This is being used as a weapon to prosecute someone who might be a
> >> Presidential candidate.
> >
> > This is being done because there is credible evidence that at least
> > three laws have been broken.
> >
> NO there is NO evidence that those papers were classified and there
> can't be, because the President (who ever it is) can't be charged with
> having classified documents if he was the one that took them from the
> Classified archives. Because the President is the sole person that can
> de-classify or re-classify with the stroke of a pen or a word or an
> action.

Already proven false. Plus even if it wasn't false, he's now a private
citizen who used to have a security clearance, so he's not legally allowed
to retail classified, or even now-declassified to CUI documents either.

> It was the Presidents job to make those decisions and if he hires
> someone to do it (a national security team) then they do it under his
> authority.

As already noted, if it had happened, there would be records, because any
declassification affects all copies of each document, because that's how
classification levels work. So where are the declassification records as
performed by said national security team?

> They don't become the authority because POWERS DELEGATED IN
> THE CONSTITUTION can NOT be RE-DELEGATED without an amendmen

> to the Constitution, ...

LOL! So this argument means that every soldier, sailor, airman and federal
employee has their paycheck every week personally signed by the POTUS.

> Which means TRUMP had the power to de-classify and take those Documents..

The Presidential EO says otherwise. Need its ID# posted again?

> ... if no-one was NOT tracking those documents that had been removed
> from a CLASSIFIED or TOP-SECRET archive and did NOT mark them as in
> Presidential hands, then the question is why didn't they do their job?

But if they were doing their job correctly, then the DoJ would know that there were
missing documents which hadn't been returned, and after Trump & his lawyers
formally denied that in writing in June, provided basis for both the warrant as well as
now establishing cause/intent for the charges which are invariably forthcoming.


-hh

[Scout]

On 8/16/2022 7:31 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

No, Obama did not do that.

> then moved them to his Library where they are protected from
> public view for something like 30 years.

That's a lie.

"Obama didn’t keep millions of classified White House documents"
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-obama-million-documents-929954890662

"Obama did not keep classified documents, the National Archives confirms."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/politics/obama-national-archives.html

"How soon are the records of a former President open for research?"

How soon the records of a former President are available for research depends
on a number of variables. For older Presidential Libraries (Hoover through
Carter, with the exception of Nixon), access to the holdings are governed by
deeds of gift, and the papers are processed according to prioritized plans.
These plans are often developed with input from the former Presidents. Major
areas of current research interest and the timeliness of topics in the
national arena are also considered. Nixon Presidential materials are governed
by the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA), and
material is reviewed in accordance with established regulations.

For newer Libraries (from Reagan forward), the holdings are governed by the
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978. Under the PRA, the records are exempt
from public release for five years after the end of a Presidential
administration. During this five-year period, archivists begin processing and
preparing materials for release to researchers.

After the end of the five-year period, all Presidential records become
subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These requests must be
made in writing and cite the Freedom of Information Act and then be submitted
to the appropriate Library by mail, e-mail, fax, or in person.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/about/faqs.html

When #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty writes something, you know it's false — 100% of the
time. He isn't necessarily lying, although quite often he is. The rest of the
time, he's just spouting bullshit on a topic about which he knows not a thing.

>
>>> This is being used as a weapon to prosecute someone who might be a
>>> Presidential candidate.
>>
>> This is being done because there is credible evidence that at least three laws
>> have been broken.
>>
>
> NO there is NO evidence that those papers were classified and

There is evidence they are classified. They have markings saying they are
classified. There is no evidence they were ever declassified.

They are classified.

>>
>>> Interestingly enough Trump was impeached for supposedly doing the same thing.
>>
>> Trump was impeached for corruptly soliciting political help from a foreign
>> state and for fomenting an insurrection.
>
> TRUMP was impeached twice

Once should have been enough, but the disloyal Senate Republiscums/QAnon ignored
their oath of office.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

---------------------------------------------------------------
https://therightscoop.com/turns-out-obama-took-30-million-documents-from-his-white-house-and-never-got-raided/

Obama White House lawyers repeatedly invoked the Presidential Records
Act to “delay the release of thousands of pages of records from
President Bill Clinton’s White House,” Politico reported. At the end of
his presidency, Barack Obama trucked 30 million pages of his
administration’s records to Chicago, promising to digitize them and
eventually put them online — a move that outraged historians.

More than five years after Obama’s presidency ended, the National
Archives webpage reveals that zero pages have been digitized and
disclosed. People can file requests via the Freedom of Information Act
(a law Obama helped wreck) to access Obama records, but responses from
presidential libraries can be delayed for years, even more than a
decade, if the information is classified.
------------------------------------------------------------


Where did I say they were being held? OH that's right, I said they were
shipped to the Obama Presidential Library and that's in Chicago and that
it takes up to 30 years and here in the MEDIA they say it's been 5 years
and you can't access any of it and that if it wasn't "declassified" you
can spend a decade or more... so it might b that it can be hidden away
for 30 years at the rate it's being worked on we don't even know they
still exist or which files have been destroyed?

As I said Obama has the right(DELEGATED POWER) to de classify and take
copies and to de-classify them to make it all proper... but to take them
and claim they're still classified and to haul out the originals is far
more concerning than what TRUMP was doing with a few documents that the
ARCHIVES lost track of and TRUMP has the right(DELEGATED POWER) to take
with him and possess.

Again I was correct and you are wrong. You should be getting tired of
always being wrong.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On 8/16/2022 10:04 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode

This is a right-wingnut lie site. Not one word of what they publish is true.

>
>
> Obama White House lawyers repeatedly invoked the Presidential Records Act to
> “delay the release of thousands of pages of records from President Bill
> Clinton’s White House,” Politico reported.

No, "Politico" reported no such thing. They wouldn't, because it never
happened. If you look for the phrase "delay the release of thousands of pages
of records" at Politico's site, you won't find it. What the right-wingnut lie
site is trying to pass off as something published at Politico is nothing but
another right-wingnut lie.

> At the end of his presidency, Barack
> Obama trucked 30 million pages of his administration’s records to Chicago,

No, he did not. That has been debunked and cannot be revived. It's a lie.

"Obama didn’t keep millions of classified White House documents"
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-obama-million-documents-929954890662

"Obama did not keep classified documents, the National Archives confirms."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/politics/obama-national-archives.html

Obama didn't "truck" or ship any records.

When #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty posts, what you read are lies.

[B Hasselback]

Politico never reported this...you are being duped, as usual, by QAnon fake news. Sad.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Except I was alive and watching the news media at that time in history.
Are you suggesting that "therightscoop.com" and I are both seeing/having
the same hallucinations back in history at about the same date?


An interesting idea but NOT probable.


The more likely thing is that we either saw it or I saw it and politico
did report it or it was some other media that reported it since it happened.

Democrats lie right to my face all the time like Joe Biden Does.... so
unless you have some kind of irrefutable evidence I'll go with MY own
personal memory of history and seeing it in real life.

[AlleyCat]

On 8/16/2022 12:24 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode

his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 8/16/22 2:13 PM, B Hasselback wrote:

>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:04:56 PM UTC-5, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

You were not watching any "news media." You were following lie sites, exclusively.

> Are you suggesting that "therightscoop.com" and I are both seeing/having the same
> hallucinations back in history at about the same date?

I'm saying that you and that lie site are chronic liars. Every word you say is
a lie.

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<f4a0dc1a-afbd-4681...@googlegroups.com>,

B Hasselback <bhass...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Obama White House lawyers repeatedly invoked the Presidential Records
> > Act to “delay the release of thousands of pages of records from
> > President Bill Clinton’s White House,” Politico reported.
>
> Politico never reported this...you are being duped, as usual, by QAnon fake
> news. Sad.

I imagine all politicians would rather have some records never be
released and would try to delay release. The records remain in
the custody of authorized government officers. And they can be
released regardless of how embarassing they are.

This is yet another version of 'people are provided ways to
dispute government activities but the dispute does validate their
version of the activity.' As in a presidential candidate can
dispute and challenge an election; but once a decision is made
against them by a judge, they have lost, and the dispute will
have no further consequence to the government.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Chen sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:44:28 -0700, NoBody <NoB...@noplace.com> wrote:

>> And yet you never disprove anything I say.
>
>No need.
>
>>
>> Why is that?
>
>Because it's self-refuting flatulence and is obviously bullshit.

Isn't that convenient for you? Now, you'll never have to back up any
of the bullshit you post.

[Gronk]

David Hartung wrote:
> https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/breaking-trump-describes-process-how-he-declassified-documents

Dum dum, there processes for declassification and such does not seem to
have been
followed.

Why don't you take a crack as to WHY he had ALLLLLL those docs???

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On 8/13/2022 7:46 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> https://justthenews.com/

This is a known right-wingnut lie site.

> Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday that the classified materials
> the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were declassified under a "standing
> order"

There is no evidence whatever of any such "standing order." Was it written>?
Then where is it? Was it communicated orally to someone? To whom? Who has
said he heard any such order? No one. Trump and his paid liars are lying.

There was no such "standing order." This is a blatant lie. It cannot be true
because it defies all credibility, there is no evidence it was ever issued,
people who would have *had* to be aware of it say they weren't, and so we know
there was no such order.

Trump *stole* classified documents. This is settled.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <tdn4o3$1bhki$3...@dont-email.me>,

Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > So if the President is the ultimate authority to declassify documents,

I get that you want him to be president despite losing, but he
ain't.

[NoBody]

On 8/18/2022 9:49 PM, Gronk wrote:
> David Hartung wrote:
>> https://justthenews.com/

A lie site.

>>
>> [...]
>> Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday

No, Trump's "office" did not speak with that lie site.

>> that the classified
>> materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were declassified under a
>> "standing order"

They were not. There was no such "standing order."

But it doesn't matter. This is just Trump trying to fling shit. Whether or not
they were declassified — and they were *not* — they were nonetheless *stolen*.
They were U.S. government property, and Trump *stole* them when he *illegally*
took them out of the White House after he was booted out of office (much as you
were booted out of the air force).

[AlleyCat]

On 8/13/2022 7:46 AM, David Hartung lied:

> So if the President is the ultimate authority to declassify documents, materials
> and events, how could he be guilty of improperly possessing classified documents?

First, he did not "declassify" them. He could have, while he was president, but
he didn't. There was no "standing order." *None* of the documents that were
plainly marked "classified" that were recovered from Trump's *illegal*
possession had been declassified. You know this. You're pretending that Trump
"declassified" them, but he didn't, and you *know* he didn't.

Second, it doesn't matter if they were classified or not. They were *stolen*
and illegally held, and *that* is the subject matter of the search warrant. The
warrant did not make any mention of "classified" documents. The warrant was to
recover *stolen* document, classified or not, and that's what they retrieved:
*stolen* documents.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/19/22 2:11 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On 8/18/2022 9:49 PM, Gronk wrote:
>> David Hartung wrote:
>>> https://justthenews.com/
>
> A lie site.
>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday
>
> No, Trump's "office" did not speak with that lie site.
>
>>> that the classified materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago
>>> estate were declassified under a "standing order"
>
> They were not.  There was no such "standing order."

Doesn't need to be anything more than TRUMP doing with that material
what ever he wanted which may or may NOT declassify it and do it
automatically by his own actions. If he sent it to a news paper to be
published it's still Constitutional, until you prove it was TREASON.
But the Espionage laws and Executive Orders don't limit Presidential
powers. And the bar for proving TREASON is defined in the Constitution.
SO TRUMPS delegated powers as President and Treason are both defined
in the Constitution, can you meet those standards of proof that are
required to indict TRUMP for TREASON... if NOT then can you prove he
doesn't have the Delegated power to classify or de-classify all
Executive Branch information at his discretion and decision and using
any means he deems as long as it protects the U.S. Constitution and the
United States.

How else would a President expose the Coup D`etat attempts against him.

Which by the way is the real story here, why is the FBI attempting a
Coup D`etat that keep TRUMP from running for office since it's obvious
TRUMP will win in 2024.

>
> But it doesn't matter.  This is just Trump trying to fling shit.
> Whether or not they were declassified — and they were *not* — they were
> nonetheless *stolen*. They were U.S. government property,

NO they are information, and TRUMP declassified them by deciding yo take
them when he declassified them and removed them from the classified
archives and didn't return them to their classified archives.

The President isn't subject to the laws and Executive Orders that the
Executive Branch WORKERS are, because the President isn't a worker the
President is the Executive Branch all others are there to serve the
President who serves us.

> and Trump
> *stole* them when he *illegally* took them out of the White House after
> he was booted out of office (much as you were booted out of the air force).

[Scout]

On 8/19/2022 9:23 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his

scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 8/19/22 2:11 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On 8/18/2022 9:49 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>> https://justthenews.com/
>>
>> A lie site.
>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> Donald Trump's office told Just the News on Friday
>>
>> No, Trump's "office" did not speak with that lie site.
>>
>>>> that the classified materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate were
>>>> declassified under a "standing order"
>>
>> They were not.  There was no such "standing order."
>
>
> Doesn't need to be anything more than TRUMP doing with that material what ever
> he wanted which

Trump, and the lying cocksuckers around him who are telling him what to say,
think there needed to be one. That's why they lied and said there was one. But
we know there wasn't any such order.

[Mighty Wannabe]

"The Right Scoop .com" is a right wing lie site, you shameless fucking asshole !!!!!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-right-scoop/

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate The Right Scoop Right biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda and conspiracies and the use of poor sourcing techniques, and numerous failed fact checks.

---

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Canada (14/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

The Right Scoop does not have an about page; however, a Whois search reveals the domain was registered privately in 2009 and appears to be from Ontario, Canada. The writers/posters on The Right Scoop use screen names rather than their real names. Right Scoop is a mid-sized website that receives around 1.5 million page views per month, according to Similar Web.

Funded by / Ownership

The Right Scoop does not disclose ownership and the site appears to generate revenue through online advertising, donations, and subscription fees.

Analysis / Bias

The Right Scoop reports news with a right-wing bias in story selection and loaded wording that favors the right: Sarah Sanders releases blistering statement on Omarosa. Rather than sourcing this story, they offer a block quote and opine about the statement. This is the norm for most stories on The Right Scoop; take a snippet of a news article and editorialize it with a right-leaning bias.

Editorially, all stories favor a conservative right perspective and frequently denigrate the left, such as this The left is using a new woke term, and it will make you roll your eyes HARD. Further, throughout 2020-2021 they published misinformation regarding Covid-19 and Election Fraud. For example, they claimed that Joe Biden was the only person to wear a mask at the climate summit in April 2021. According to Politifact and other fact-checkers, this is not true. Finally, they also frequently repeated the false election fraud claims of former President Trump and “My Pillow Guy” Mike Lindell. In general, The Right Scoop is far-right biased and frequently publishes false and misleading information.

Failed Fact Checks

• The Obama administration shut down the Amber Alert program because of the government shutdown. – False
• “Shredded Pennsylvania Mail-in ballot Applications discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump.” – False
• “America is dead.” Geez. Joe ‘Eeyore’ Biden. – False
• Hillary Clinton said in a speech that Christians in America must deny their faith in Christianity. – False
• In the summer of 2018, President Donald Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary to the Department of the Interior for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. – False

Overall, we rate The Right Scoop Right biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda and conspiracies and the use of poor sourcing techniques, and numerous failed fact checks. (8/15/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 5/07/2021)

Source: http://therightscoop.com/

[Mighty Wannabe]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote on 8/16/2022 1:04 PM:

"The Right Scoop .com" is a right wing lie site, you shameless fucking
asshole !!!!!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-right-scoop/


QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits /one or more/ of the following: extreme

bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency,

and/or is fake news. Fake News is the /deliberate attempt/ to publish

hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More

<https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/05/31/being-more-media-savvy-wont-stop-the-spread-of-fake-news-heres-why/>).
Sources listed in the Questionable Category /may/ be very untrustworthy

and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources

on this list /are not/ considered /fake news/ unless specifically

written in the reasoning section for that source. See all

Questionable sources. <https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fake-news/>

* *Overall, we rate The Right Scoop Right biased and Questionable

based on the promotion of propaganda and conspiracies and the use of

poor sourcing techniques, and numerous failed fact checks.*

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: *Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda,
Fake News, Failed Fact Checks**
*Bias Rating:*RIGHT
*Factual Reporting: *MIXED
*Country: *Canada (14/180 Press Freedom)
*Media Type: *Website
*Traffic/Popularity: *Medium Traffic
*MBFC Credibility Rating: *LOW CREDIBILITY*


/*History*/

The Right Scoop does not have an about page; however, a Whois search

<http://whois.domaintools.com/therightscoop.com> reveals the domain was

registered privately in 2009 and appears to be from Ontario, Canada. The
writers/posters on The Right Scoop use screen names rather than their
real names. Right Scoop is a mid-sized website that receives around 1.5
million page views per month, according to Similar Web.

/*Funded by / Ownership*/

The Right Scoop does not disclose ownership and the site appears to
generate revenue through online advertising, donations, and subscription
fees.

/*Analysis / Bias*/

The Right Scoop reports news with a right-wing bias in story selection
and loaded wording that favors the right: Sarah Sanders releases
blistering statement on Omarosa.

<http://therightscoop.com/sarah-sanders-releases-blistering-statement-on-omarosa/>

Rather than sourcing this story, they offer a block quote and opine
about the statement. This is the norm for most stories on The Right
Scoop; take a snippet of a news article and editorialize it with a
right-leaning bias.

Editorially, all stories favor a conservative right perspective and
frequently denigrate the left, such as this The left is using a new woke
term, and it will make you roll your eyes HARD

<https://therightscoop.com/the-left-is-using-a-new-woke-term-and-it-will-make-you-roll-your-eyes-hard/>.

Further, throughout 2020-2021 they published misinformation regarding
Covid-19 and Election Fraud. For example, they claimed that Joe Biden

<https://therightscoop.com/joe-biden-wears-mask-on-video-call-with-world-leaders-and-hes-the-only-one/>

was the only person to wear a mask at the climate summit in April 2021.

According to Politifact <https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/> and
other
<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-mask-zoom-climate-summit/>
fact-checkers, this is not true
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/26/viral-image/no-biden-wasnt-only-world-leader-wear-mask-during-/>.

Finally, they also frequently repeated the false election fraud claims
of former President Trump

<https://therightscoop.com/trump-speaks-lights-up-pa-dems-refusing-to-allow-observers-points-out-most-ever-votes-for-sitting-president/>

and “My Pillow Guy” Mike Lindell

<https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lindell-tv/>. In general, The Right

Scoop is far-right biased and frequently publishes false and misleading
information.

/*Failed Fact Checks*/

* The Obama administration shut down the Amber Alert program because
of the government shutdown.
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/oct/07/tweets/tweets-and-bloggers-say-obama-used-shutdown-close-/>
– *False*
* “Shredded Pennsylvania Mail-in ballot Applications discovered in a

trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump.”

<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/08/blog-posting/social-posters-spread-election-misinformation-abou/>
– *False*
* “America is dead.” Geez. Joe ‘Eeyore’ Biden.
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/31/blog-posting/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-america-dead/>
– *False*
* Hillary Clinton said in a speech that Christians in America must

deny their faith in Christianity.

<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-christians-must-deny-faith/>
– *False*
* In the summer of 2018, President Donald Trump donated his entire

$400,000 annual salary to the Department of the Interior for the
purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries

<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-salary-military-cemeteries/>.
– *False*

Overall, we rate The Right Scoop Right biased and Questionable based on
the promotion of propaganda and conspiracies and the use of poor
sourcing techniques, and numerous failed fact checks. (8/15/2016)
Updated (D. Van Zandt 5/07/2021)

<http://therightscoop.com/>