Trump Seeks Dismissal of Classified Documents Indictment, Citing Presidential Immunity

 

Former President Donald Trump is moving to dismiss his classified documents case in Florida, citing presidential immunity. In court filings, Trump's attorneys argue that his designation of records as personal under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and their removal from the White House constitute official acts protected by immunity.

 

Key Points:
- Trump's lawyers contend that the charges against him, related to the handling of classified documents, should be dismissed due to presidential immunity.
- They argue that Trump is entitled to immunity for his official acts, including those related to the classification and removal of records.
- Trump's legal team filed three additional motions, addressing the vagueness of the statute he was charged with, the alleged unconstitutionality of special counsel appointments, and the Presidential Records Act.
- The former president's attorneys have previously indicated that they will argue the prosecution's probe into his handling of classified documents was politically motivated.
- Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
- De Oliveira also filed a motion to dismiss his charges separately.
- A federal appeals court recently rejected a similar immunity argument from Trump in another case, but he has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

 

Background:
- The charges against Trump stem from allegations of willfully retaining national defense information and ordering the deletion of security footage at his Florida estate.
- Trump's legal team maintains his innocence and argues that the prosecution's actions are politically biased.
- The outcome of this legal battle will have implications for Trump's future and his potential candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.

 

24.02.24

Source

 

8 minutes ago, Social Media said:

- They argue that Trump is entitled to immunity for his official acts, including those related to the classification and removal of records.

If I understand this correctly , hr is not indicted for his removal of the documents that might be covered under presidential immunity,since it happened when he was president, but his attempt to cover up the removal, his obstruction, and refusal to return them. 

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If I understand this correctly , hr is not indicted for his removal of the documents that might be covered under presidential immunity,since it happened when he was president, but his attempt to cover up the removal, his obstruction, and refusal to return them. 

• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

6 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

I think the operative word here is "incumbent"  and that where trump faces an uphill struggle.

I like to know what you think. 

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I think the operative word here is "incumbent"  and that where trump faces an uphill struggle.

I like to know what you think. 

Anything trump does is uphill... but what is legal prosecution and what is contrived will soon be decided... he should just plead that he forgot that he was not the "incumbent"... that's what joe would do.

Sorry, traitor, doesn't work that way.

 

The records are not about orders you gave staff to go pick up a bucket of Extra Crispy at KFC, what trump stole were documents classified TS, SCI,SAP, Codeword, SITK, HCS and RD. Not even KFC's secret recipe is rated like that.

 

The average country club director and wedding planner has no need for documents whose exposure endangers national security, and in the case of HCS documents, threatens the lives of clandestine assets and their families. Not even while actually serving as POTUS does a President have a 'need to know' the identities of clandestine assets. As a former case officer who both recruited and handled clandestine intelligence sources, it sickens me that that bloated, self-serving traitor would be so reckless and cavalier that he would put in danger people who risk their lives to help the US. Such assets and those willing to be such are not stupid. They see the news. They saw that fatboy is reckless and couldn't care less about their safety. Some assets likely quit. Others will never sign on. That leaves the US vulnerable to everything from understanding hostile nations' military capabilities and intent, to planned terrorist acts. Now if al Qaeda wanted to decimate Mar-a-Lago, I couldn't care less, and if there is any justice, let that be the canary.

 

The coward trump has no idea what it takes to either recruit and handle assets in hostile locations, nor the bravery of the assets who choose to aid the US and help keep it safe.

 

trump has zero immunity. Neither did he declassify, as that is a set process requiring sign-offs by agency heads and it leaves a paper trail. Also, not even a POTUS can declassify RD documents, as only the Dept of Energy has that legal authority.

 

Jail him, or execute him for treason, as it is patently obvious to anyone not caught up in his vapors that trump intended to monetize what he stole. putin would pay $billions to learn what 'sources and methods' US intel has working against him.

 

I can't imagine how much this has already cost. An entire damage assessment has to be done, as it has to be assumed what trump stole and kept in his club has been exposed. Undoubtedly some clandestine assets and their families probably had to be exfilled from denied areas, or it's also possible some were rolled up and killed. Effing trump, traitor.

 

Any co-opted elected official, such as an R Senator or Representative: If you buy trump's spurious argument, then let's take every document trump stole and publish them. Let's hand them out at Dulles Airport to incoming passengers. Send copies to putin, Xi, the mullahs in Iran, al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, trump's lover Kim Jong-un. Let's toss them in Happy Meals at McDonalds. If these co-opted Sens and Reps are unwilling to do that, then they can shut up and get behind the lawful prosecution of the traitor trump.

Edited February 23, 20242 yr by Walker88

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Anything trump does is uphill... but what is legal prosecution and what is contrived will soon be decided... he should just plead that he forgot that he was not the "incumbent"... that's what joe would do.

Personally I think he is losing it. Some might successfully argue that he lost it a  long time .

He was never the brightest light bulb in the Christmas tree, but all the pressure he is under can not be good for his cognitive health . There are several articles that suggest that he can't come up with the bond, with penalties it is already over 1/2 billion usd. If he could he would had paid it already to stop the interest. If it is difficult to secure X amount, I think it is fair to think that securing X+ would be more difficult. 

So seeing all that he thinks define his value crumble in front of him cant be easy. And I will tell you one thing, I am not sorry for him.

The clown keeps pushing the silly immunity defense. Maybe his appointed lackey Judge Cannon will agree.

 

He'd better hope not.

 

If she says "He's immune", then Biden should immediately send DEVGRU to eradicate the traitor and threat to national security, since Biden, too, would be immune. I would support that 100%. trump is a much greater threat to the US than ObL, and DEVGRU took care of that bad guy. Might as well do the needful and take out a worse guy.

 

Biden is likely only running because, as in 2020, he might be the only candidate who will beat trump. Maybe Newsom or Michelle Obama, but few Dems have the visibility, even if every last Dem is infinitely more qualified than trump. Do away with trump, using 'immunity', and then Biden could step down, free from any legal pursuit.

 

Of course the real reason trump filed these spurious appeals is because he knows his lackey judge will help him delay delay delay. He knows he's guilty and "effed" if this goes to trial.

 

 

12 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

You forgot this part:

 

"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."

This particular motion will go nowhere, unless it's intended for a pre-trial appeal to delay the case.

13 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

Sadly enough for some, Trump is NOT the president any more, neither AFAIK does he have presidential immunity.

15 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Anything trump does is uphill... but what is legal prosecution and what is contrived will soon be decided... he should just plead that he forgot that he was not the "incumbent"... that's what joe would do.

Your internet masters fooled you by not sending you the PRA language that prohibited Trump from retaining presidential records. I would be angry at them, if I were you.

 

Now that I have provided you with the pertinent section of the PRA, do you understand why Trump can't use the PRA in his legal defense?

According to psychologist Dr. John Gartner, formerly of Johns Hopkins University Medical School, Donald Trump's slurring and inability to sometimes formulate complete sentences appears to be a sign of growing dementia and possibly early stages of Alzheimer’s.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-dementia/

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

They used to keep their mouth shut in public. Trump gave them a voice.

So anyone who has a different opinion than yours should just keep their mouth shut... yes, the intolernt left is alive 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

They used to keep their mouth shut in public. Trump gave them a voice.

Yes, the way I describe it is Trump "gave them permission to crawl out from under the rocks where they had been hiding."

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So anyone who has a different opinion than yours should just keep their mouth shut... yes, the intolernt left is alive 

No, our point is they used to keep their mouth shut, but now they are speaking out. It's better that they do that for both their and our sakes, but it has shown me how corrupt the USA has always been, and that's what is disturbing for me.

8 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So anyone who has a different opinion than yours should just keep their mouth shut... yes, the intolernt left is alive 

 

They have a right to free speech. Society used to understand that toxic speech wasn't welcome. If they said what they said in my country most would be in jail right now.

 

In fact, many of the comments made on this board would be illegal in my country. Hate speech is illegal there.

Edited February 25, 20242 yr by ozimoron

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

They have a right to free speech. Society used to understand that toxic speech wasn't welcome. If they said what they said in my country most would be in jail right now.

So as long as they say the right things it's OK... no disagreeing.  So in your country there is not really free speech... more like acceptable speech... relying on the censors to determine what can and cannot be said.

2 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So as long as they say the right things it's OK... no disagreeing.  So in your country there is not really free speech... more like acceptable speech... relying on the censors to determine what can and cannot be said.

 

Correct until the last bit. There is no censorship, just the law. Everyone knows the law it's published. Quite apart from censorship. Courts enforce it not censors.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

Correct until the last bit. There is no censorship, just the law. Everyone knows the law it's published. Quite apart from censorship. Courts enforce it not censors.

So the lawmakers are the censors with the courts enforcement of "proper" speech... not free speech.

An off topic deflection post about the South Carolina primary election contravening our Community Standards and the replies have been removed.

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So the lawmakers are the censors with the courts enforcement of "proper" speech... not free speech.

My understanding of the law in my home country, the USA, is you are allowed free speech up to the point where you are inciting violence or illegal activities. In other words, if you're White, you can speak and write racist things about some other race, but you cannot advocate taking any illegal action against them, and that includes refusing them services.

7 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So the lawmakers are the censors with the courts enforcement of "proper" speech... not free speech.

 

Let me ask you this. Is there any free speech benefit to society in using the N word in public or marching down the street yelling "Jews will not replace us"?

 

Australians don't believe their free speech rights are impinged. It's a matter of civility. Some things have to give to keep the peace.

 

Coffee intermission. Going to the starbucks, pattaya beach. Back to fight debate  later LOL.

 

Edited February 25, 20242 yr by ozimoron

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

My understanding of the law in my home country, the USA, is you are allowed free speech up to the point where you are inciting violence or illegal activities. In other words, if you're White, you can speak and write racist things about some other race, but you cannot advocate taking any illegal action against them, and that includes refusing them services.

That is true... "you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater... however that is not the topic here... members here are advocating for others (mostly republicans who disagree with democrat policy)  to not be allowed to voice their disagreement in terms that might be offensive to the democrats... heaven forbid

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

That is true... "you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater... however that is not the topic here... members here are advocating for others (mostly republicans who disagree with democrat policy)  to not be allowed to voice their disagreement in terms that might be offensive to the democrats... heaven forbid

 

Heaven does forbid as far as I can tell. It's not just offensive, both of the examples ai gave are self evidently incitement to violence.

Edited February 25, 20242 yr by ozimoron

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Let me ask you this. Is there any free speech benefit to society in using the N word in public or marching down the street yelling "Jews will not replace us"?

 

Australians don't believe their free speech rights are impinged. It's a matter of civility. Some things have to give to keep the peace.

 

Coffee intermission. Going to the starbucks, pattaya beach. Back to fight debate  later LOL.

 

Whether or not there is a benefit to society in using the N word in public or marching down the street yelling "jews will not replace us" is not relevant... where would the good or bad qualifiers for speech come from and where would it stop?

 

Just because Australians don't believe their free speech rights are impinged... doesn't mean it isn't true... denial doesn't changed the definition.

 

If it's a matter of civility why does there have to be censorship... after all the public from both sides of the spectrum are totally civil... oh wait... neither side is and it is usually the side that perceives a threat to their agenda who calls for censorship.  Tolerance is usually not their forte.

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Heaven does forbid as far as I can tell. It's not just offensive, both of the examples ai gave are self evidently incitement to violence.

Right... 555  democrats look at everything as an incitement to violence... except the real violence... ie BLM just to name one.  

 

Believe it or not there is much wisdom in the proverbial... "sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you"  unless you want them to and let them.

29 minutes ago, metisdead said:

An off topic post trolling about the South Carolina primary election contravening our Community Standards and the replies have been removed.

I apologize for this post. I didn't intend it to be "trolling," nor directly about the South Carolina primaries. I intended it to show a profile of what I believe to describe most of the Trump supporters, including those who believe Trump is immune from prosecution because of his prior presidency. I accept @metisdead's removal and will try not to post "Off Topic" again. 

Having watched last night on Israeli Tv a middle east expert who was privy to the white house's

in and out going of Trump's presidency inner sanctum, saying that Trump was kowtowing to Putin  

phone calls in a subservient manners and addressed him with the out most respect,

which brings many to think that Trump will continue to be so if re-elected...

27 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Right... 555  democrats look at everything as an incitement to violence... except the real violence... ie BLM just to name one.  

 

Believe it or not there is much wisdom in the proverbial... "sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you"  unless you want them to and let them.

Words will hurt you if an unscrupulous leader uses them to incite his more deranged followers to go after you. And your family.

 

I suggest you take a look at an interview on YouTube featuring Andrew Hitt, one of the Michigan fake electors. In it, he admits to being terrified of the consequences if he did not go along with the scheme.

 

As far as immunity goes, the argument is ridiculous. As other posters have noted, Biden could order Trump to be assassinated if presidential immunity was upheld.

Edited February 25, 20242 yr by Lacessit