‘We Need to Start Killing’: Trump’s Far-Right Supporters Are Threatening Civil War

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

But in this case the Presidential Records Act supersedes the Espionage Act, which is much older. It will become immediately apparent that the DoJ and Special Counsel Smith redefined the Mar-a-Lago documents so that the Espionage Act applies to them, in an attempt to turn a non-crime into a crime. That case holds no water.

They are separate charges and don't impact each other. Trump is primarily charged with espionage and obstruction, not PRA violations.

[rattlesnake]

56 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not sure what your point is, The indictment includes evidence of Trump on tape talking about highly secret documents. 

 

Trump retained documents related to national defense that were classified at the highest levels, and some so sensitive they required special handling.

That includes one “Top Secret” document, dated June 2020, “concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign county” found at Mar-a-Lago, according to the indictment.

 

"SCIF. These documents are not supposed to be reviewed in a Secret Service-secured place, but in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF."

 

Why did Trump lie to his own lawyers and hide boxes with documents from his own lawyers?

 

“I don't want anybody looking, I don't want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don't, I don't want you looking through my boxes,”

 

You should read the full indictment not just summaries. Here's a good copy that has notes attached to each relevant page:

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/politics/annotated-trump-indictment-dg/

 

 

 

 

My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA.

 

The DoJ and Smith redefined the documents as documents of “national security interest” according to their legal intent.

 

But Congress did not specify that the Espionage Act superseded the PRA when they enacted it. If the Espionage Act means Presidents can’t retain classified documents, then the PRA is meaningless.

 

In a nutshell: Trump was allowed to retain these documents and changing their definition to make them fit under a prior, non-superseding act is legally invalid.

 

They might fine him on minor stuff though, such as obstructing access etc., hence my earlier reference to a slap on the wrist.

 

We will know soon enough anyway.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA.

 

The DoJ and Smith redefined the documents as documents of “national security interest” according to their legal intent.

 

But Congress did not specify that the Espionage Act superseded the PRA when they enacted it. If the Espionage Act means Presidents can’t retain classified documents, then the PRA is meaningless.

 

In a nutshell: Trump was allowed to retain these documents and changing their definition to make them fit under a prior, non-superseding act is legally invalid.

 

They might fine him on minor stuff though, such as obstructing access etc., hence my earlier reference to a slap on the wrist.

 

We will know soon enough anyway.

Can you link to where he was allowed by the PRA to have these documents?

 

The National Archives is pushing back on claims made by former President Donald Trump, his lawyers and his allies over his retention of classified documents, for which he now faces a federal indictment.

On Friday, the Archives took the rare step of releasing a public statement rebuking claims suggesting that Trump was allowed to keep classified materials under the Presidential Records Act.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/national-archives-refutes-trump-claim-classified-documents-indictment/index.html

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA.

 

The DoJ and Smith redefined the documents as documents of “national security interest” according to their legal intent.

 

But Congress did not specify that the Espionage Act superseded the PRA when they enacted it. If the Espionage Act means Presidents can’t retain classified documents, then the PRA is meaningless.

 

In a nutshell: Trump was allowed to retain these documents and changing their definition to make them fit under a prior, non-superseding act is legally invalid.

 

They might fine him on minor stuff though, such as obstructing access etc., hence my earlier reference to a slap on the wrist.

 

We will know soon enough anyway.

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA."

 

Wrong.  Where do you get this stuff?  The PRA states the opposite:

 

"Enacted November 4, 1978,^[4] the PRA changed the legal ownership of the President's official records from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records. ...The law superseded the policy in effect during Nixon’s tenure that a president’s records were considered private property, making clear that presidential records are owned by the public. The PRA requires the President to ensure preservation of records documenting the performance of his official duties (44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)), provides for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to take custody and control of the records (44 U.S.C. § 2203(g)), and sets forth a schedule of staged public access to such records (44 U.S.C. § 2204)."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act

 

More succinctly:

 

"Specifically, the PRA:

• Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office"   https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

 

 

[rattlesnake]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA."

 

Wrong.  Where do you get this stuff?  The PRA states the opposite:

 

"Enacted November 4, 1978,^[4] the PRA changed the legal ownership of the President's official records from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records. ...The law superseded the policy in effect during Nixon’s tenure that a president’s records were considered private property, making clear that presidential records are owned by the public. The PRA requires the President to ensure preservation of records documenting the performance of his official duties (44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)), provides for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to take custody and control of the records (44 U.S.C. § 2203(g)), and sets forth a schedule of staged public access to such records (44 U.S.C. § 2204)."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act

 

More succinctly:

 

"Specifically, the PRA:

• Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office"   https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

 

 

If you were right, Smith would use the PRA to prosecute instead of requalifying the documents to make them fit under the Espionage Act, which wasn't even designed for this type of case.

 

Now all is left to do is see how the proceedings unfold.

[rattlesnake]

59 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Can you link to where he was allowed by the PRA to have these documents?

 

The National Archives is pushing back on claims made by former President Donald Trump, his lawyers and his allies over his retention of classified documents, for which he now faces a federal indictment.

On Friday, the Archives took the rare step of releasing a public statement rebuking claims suggesting that Trump was allowed to keep classified materials under the Presidential Records Act.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/national-archives-refutes-trump-claim-classified-documents-indictment/index.html

If Smith could prosecute under the PRA, he would.

 

Let's leave the biased news outlets aside and see what actually happens in Court.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

If you were right, Smith would use the PRA to prosecute instead of requalifying the documents to make them fit under the Espionage Act, which wasn't even designed for this type of case.

 

Now all is left to do is see how the proceedings unfold.

There are no penalties or enforcement mechanisms for the Presidential Records Act.  Perhaps this will change based on Trump's violation of the act.  However for now there would be no reason to to include them in the charges.

[rattlesnake]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There are no penalties or enforcement mechanisms for the Presidential Records Act.  Perhaps this will change based on Trump's violation of the act.  However for now there would be no reason to to include them in the charges.

Violations of the Presidential Records Act are rarely prosecuted indeed. That doesn't mean it can't be done, and Smith certainly would if he thought he had a chance.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explainer-doj-probes-draw-attention-presidential-records-act/story?id=96417220

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

If Smith could prosecute under the PRA, he would.

 

Let's leave the biased news outlets aside and see what actually happens in Court.

Bias news....LOL where exactly are you getting your news from, I already asked for for a link to your claims.

 

Poor deflection, it is a statement released on the 9th June direct from National Archives:

 

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2023/nr23-016

 

Oh and you may want to familiarize your self on the potential charges that were in the FBI search warrant. They were the Espionage Act and Obstruction. 

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/08/mar-a-lago-raid-warrant-charges-explained.html

Edited June 14, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Violations of the Presidential Records Act are rarely prosecuted indeed. That doesn't mean it can't be done, and Smith certainly would if he thought he had a chance.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explainer-doj-probes-draw-attention-presidential-records-act/story?id=96417220

Rarely prosecuted because there are no penalties.  The US Constitution and many of the laws pertaining to the Presidency were written under the assumption that US Presidents would be honorable men who wouldn't do certain things, especially break clearly written laws, because that would be dishonorable.  Trump has shown what a bad assumption that was.  Times have changed.

[rattlesnake]

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Bias news....LOL where exactly are you getting your news from, I already asked for for a link to your claims.

 

Poor deflection, it is a statement released on the 9th June direct from National Archives:

 

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2023/nr23-016

 

Oh and you may want to familiarize your self on the potential charges that were in the FBI search warrant. They were the Espionage Act and Obstruction. 

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/08/mar-a-lago-raid-warrant-charges-explained.html

Let me make it clearer for you. The question is about the nature of the documents, despite the way the news is portraying it.

 

The national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17 2023:

https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1219

 

The National Archives and the DOJ did not request a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things. Most documents with classification markings are not classified documents.

 

Let's look at testimony of the national archivist office:

During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they knew a complete return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is quite enlightening:

 

 

Source pdf, testimony transcript – pages 43 and 44:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/3.1.23_nara_briefing_transcript.pdf

 

The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” which is very dubious and obtuse wording intended to imply something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists:

 

Source, page 41:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

 

There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. When a document is declassified, the markings are not removed.

 

I'm telling you that indictment is going nowhere, despite what the news outlets are repeating over and over again, and we will have to wait for further Court proceedings for confirmation of that.

[rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

So you're saying you know more than Jack Smith and the whole of the DOJ?  Without even reading the indictment?  Impressive.  Well there's been subject matter experts who have poured through that indictment and every last one has said that it's a powerful and airtight document.  We're talking experts in all manner of constitutional law, national security, historical/legal precedents, etc.  Heck, Trump's own AG Bill Barr just said that Trump is toast.

 

You're engaging in what I would call "wishful thinking."  Don't quit your day job.  

Why are you assuming I have not read the indictment?

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Let me make it clearer for you. The question is about the nature of the documents, despite the way the news is portraying it.

 

The national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17 2023:

https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1219

 

The National Archives and the DOJ did not request a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things. Most documents with classification markings are not classified documents.

 

Let's look at testimony of the national archivist office:

During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they knew a complete return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is quite enlightening:

 

 

Source pdf, testimony transcript – pages 43 and 44:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/3.1.23_nara_briefing_transcript.pdf

 

The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” which is very dubious and obtuse wording intended to imply something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists:

 

Source, page 41:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

 

There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. When a document is declassified, the markings are not removed.

 

I'm telling you that indictment is going nowhere, despite what the news outlets are repeating over and over again, and we will have to wait for further Court proceedings for confirmation of that.

With holding classified documents  is part of the obstruction charge. 

 

Your previous claim:

 

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA."

 

Still waiting for you to back that up?

 

Your new claim:

 

 “classified markings,” which is very dubious and obtuse wording intended to imply something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists:

 

Can you provide a link to that?

 

Because these look pretty damning to me, from the indictment:

 

"SCIF. These documents are not supposed to be reviewed in a Secret Service-secured place, but in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF."

 

"Five Eyes documents spilled on the floor and then were photographed. The documents that spilled onto the floor included the marking “FVEY.”

 

How about when Trump was asked if he could declassify them?

 

This is what he said, its in an audio recording.

“Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.” Trump asked a staffer if the war plans could be declassified. He clearly knew that he had lost the ability to declassify things now that he’s no longer president.

 

You keep making claims and have nothing to back them up.

[ThailandRyan]

Here is some info for those not understanding things clearly on many items brought forth regarding the Trump investigation.

 

Trump classified document indictment fact checks: What's true and what's false? (msn.com)

 

Timeline of Trump’s classified docs investigation and indictment (nbcnews.com)

 

Trump has claimed that he declassified the documents before he left the White House. But the indictment argues that Trump knew his administration did not complete the accepted declassification process, and it accuses Trump of having shown the documents to people without security clearance, including a book author.

 

The indictment, which does not name the author, includes a transcript of the July 2021 conversation Trump had with the writer about a classified military document described as a “plan of attack” against another country. The conversation, which the indictment says was recorded with Trump's knowledge, was first reported by CNN.

 

In May 2021, the National Archives began asking Trump and his staff to return all missing presidential records, according to email communications between the archives and Trump's lawyers that were later made public.

 

Two of Trump’s aides returned 15 boxes of records to the National Archives eight months later, in January 2022. The Archives soon determined that 14 of the boxes contained classified documents and referred their discovery to the Justice Department, the indictment says.

[rattlesnake]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

With holding classified documents  is part of the obstruction charge. 

 

Your previous claim:

 

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA."

 

Still waiting for you to back that up?

 

Your new claim:

 

 “classified markings,” which is very dubious and obtuse wording intended to imply something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists:

 

Can you provide a link to that?

 

Because these look pretty damning to me, from the indictment:

 

"SCIF. These documents are not supposed to be reviewed in a Secret Service-secured place, but in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF."

 

"Five Eyes documents spilled on the floor and then were photographed. The documents that spilled onto the floor included the marking “FVEY.”

 

How about when Trump was asked if he could declassify them?

 

This is what he said, its in an audio recording.

“Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.” Trump asked a staffer if the war plans could be declassified. He clearly knew that he had lost the ability to declassify things now that he’s no longer president.

 

You keep making claims and have nothing to back them up.

"Your previous claim:

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA.

Still waiting for you to back that up?"

 

I am claiming he was allowed to retain the documents because they are not classified but "contain classified markings" based on what I have read. I also believe the media are portraying things in a way which is purposely unfavourable to Trump.

 

I am giving my strictly personal opinion, inferences and interpretations based on original documents which I have linked above.

 

I know you disagree with me, what I am telling you is that time will tell, and if I am wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

[Pink Mist]

Time to reel it in folks, the bickering and baiting needs to stop.  Agree to Disagree and move on.  Should you persist your ability to post in this OP will be removed.

[scottiejohn]

17 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

"Your previous claim:

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA.

Still waiting for you to back that up?"

 

I am claiming he was allowed to retain the documents because they are not classified but "contain classified markings" based on what I have read. I also believe the media are portraying things in a way which is purposely unfavourable to Trump.

 

I am giving my strictly personal opinion, inferences and interpretations based on original documents which I have linked above.

 

I know you disagree with me, what I am telling you is that time will tell, and if I am wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

Which bit of a document marked/stamped "contain classified markings" don't you understand?

It means they contain classified material!

[rattlesnake]

10 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Which bit of a document marked/stamped "contain classified markings" don't you understand?

It means they contain classified material!

I'll let the former Secretary of Defence chief of staff explain it to you:

"All previously classified documents have classification markings on them, it shows they used to be classified."

https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/trump-associates-stated-plan-to-publicly-release-declassified-documents/

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

"Your previous claim:

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA.

Still waiting for you to back that up?"

 

I am claiming he was allowed to retain the documents because they are not classified but "contain classified markings" based on what I have read. I also believe the media are portraying things in a way which is purposely unfavourable to Trump.

 

I am giving my strictly personal opinion, inferences and interpretations based on original documents which I have linked above.

 

I know you disagree with me, what I am telling you is that time will tell, and if I am wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

He was not allowed to retain any documents without the approval of NARA.

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I'll let the former Secretary of Defence chief of staff

Please name this person and a specific link to the actual statement.

Edited June 14, 2023 by scottiejohn

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Please name this person and a specific link to the actual statement.

He's referring to Kash Patel, who made a lot of dubious claims. As for Kash Patels tenure as chief of staff...

"After the November 2020 elections, Patel was dispatched to the Defense Department as chief of staff to the acting defense secretary where, among other activities, he reportedly pursued the idea that Italian military satellites had been used to turn votes to Joe Biden in the presidential election, according to Jonathan Karl’s book and the House Select Committee hearings. Since leaving office, Patel has joined the board of directors for the former president’s media company, Trump Media & Technology Group. On June 19, 2022, Trump sent a letter to the National Archives designating Patel as one of the former president’s “representatives for access to Presidential records of my administration.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/trump-associates-stated-plan-to-publicly-release-declassified-documents/

 

Patel was subpoenaed to testify to the Grand Jury investigating Trump and has gone remarkably quiet since then.

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Patel was subpoenaed to testify to the Grand Jury investigating Trump and has gone remarkably quiet since then.

Thanks for your very interesting response.

I can now ignore the misleading post I referred to and to which you have now clarified.

Well done Sir!!

[placeholder]

It makes little difference whether Trump declassified documents at heart of federal indictment: legal scholars

FIRST ON FOX: Legal experts tell Fox News Digital it makes little difference whether former President Trump declassified the documents at the heart of his federal indictment.

Under the Espionage Act, the crime would be improper retention or disclosure of sensitive defense information, not classified documents, according to former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy, who told Fox News Digital that he's "argued for a long time that Trump’s declassification claims are a red herring."

"The Espionage Act crime is willful retention of national defense information, not classified information," McCarthy said. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/makes-little-difference-whether-trump-declassified-documents-heart-federal-indictment-legal-scholars

[darksidedog]

Just now, rattlesnake said:

"Your previous claim:

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA.

Still waiting for you to back that up?"

 

I am claiming he was allowed to retain the documents because they are not classified but "contain classified markings" based on what I have read. I also believe the media are portraying things in a way which is purposely unfavourable to Trump.

 

I am giving my strictly personal opinion, inferences and interpretations based on original documents which I have linked above.

 

I know you disagree with me, what I am telling you is that time will tell, and if I am wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

You are absolutely wrong. Trump was allowed zero of those documents under the PRA, a very simple fact. Upon termination of his period, EVERY single document becomes the possession of the archives, secret, classified or mundane.

Its not hard to understand. You need to be blinkered or of sub par intelligence for that fact not to sink in.

A jury of his peers, made up of Democrats and Republicans listened to the evidence and decided to indict Trump.

Nothing to do with Biden, or the DOJ, just normal folk listening to the truth and making a decision based on that.

Stop listening to right wing spin and start to look for the truth and reality and these facts will become VERY apparent to you, though most Republicans seem to prefer to look for loopholes and "whaboutism" on much debunked and baseless mud slinging garbage to deflect from the truth.

Basic fact reiterated. Trump could not have one single document that belongs to the archives, secret, declassified or not.

You are wrong. Not even close to right. Spouting garbage even.

[candide]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It makes little difference whether Trump declassified documents at heart of federal indictment: legal scholars

FIRST ON FOX: Legal experts tell Fox News Digital it makes little difference whether former President Trump declassified the documents at the heart of his federal indictment.

Under the Espionage Act, the crime would be improper retention or disclosure of sensitive defense information, not classified documents, according to former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy, who told Fox News Digital that he's "argued for a long time that Trump’s declassification claims are a red herring."

"The Espionage Act crime is willful retention of national defense information, not classified information," McCarthy said. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/makes-little-difference-whether-trump-declassified-documents-heart-federal-indictment-legal-scholars

Exactly. Same for the MAL warrant.

However, the level of classification marking for each document is quite relevant  as it designates how sensitive certain information is.

[rattlesnake]

14 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

You are absolutely wrong. Trump was allowed zero of those documents under the PRA, a very simple fact. Upon termination of his period, EVERY single document becomes the possession of the archives, secret, classified or mundane.

Its not hard to understand. You need to be blinkered or of sub par intelligence for that fact not to sink in.

A jury of his peers, made up of Democrats and Republicans listened to the evidence and decided to indict Trump.

Nothing to do with Biden, or the DOJ, just normal folk listening to the truth and making a decision based on that.

Stop listening to right wing spin and start to look for the truth and reality and these facts will become VERY apparent to you, though most Republicans seem to prefer to look for loopholes and "whaboutism" on much debunked and baseless mud slinging garbage to deflect from the truth.

Basic fact reiterated. Trump could not have one single document that belongs to the archives, secret, declassified or not.

You are wrong. Not even close to right. Spouting garbage even.

Let's leave my IQ out of this.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Let's leave my IQ out of this.

I’m curious all the bloviating and excuses  out the window how do you feel about trump putting americas and our Allie’s national security at risk in such a reckless manner?

[rattlesnake]

13 minutes ago, Tug said:

I’m curious all the bloviating and excuses  out the window how do you feel about trump putting americas and our Allie’s national security at risk in such a reckless manner?

What are you talking about?

[Tug]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

What are you talking about?

Are you kidding?this thread is about trump supporters threatening violence because of his indictment over  stealing classified top secret documents + storing them in an unsecured manner therefore putting the United States and our allies national security at risk how do you feel about that fact?

[SunnyinBangrak]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Are you kidding?this thread is about trump supporters threatening violence because of his indictment over  stealing classified top secret documents + storing them in an unsecured manner therefore putting the United States and our allies national security at risk how do you feel about that fact?

You can't just jail a President on any old scuttlebut or hoax(of which we have seen so many). There needs to be a proper TRIAL using actual EVIDENCE under law which is supposed to be applied EQUALLY to all.

 Again we see the false and misleading phrase "stealing"!!?