3 ms·

Or Pence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence_classified_documents_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence_classified_document... It's apparentl

Or Pence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence_classified_documents_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence_classified_document... It's apparently a problem for many high ranking government officials. The differentiator is what one does when it's discovered.

HumblyTossed 3y ago
> The differentiator is what one does when it's discovered. This is the point that many, so so many, either miss or refuse to see.
- lliamander 3y ago
  The key difference is that Trump, as president, was the ultimate authority on what documents are his personal documents. Any documents that he took with him are presumed personal - and that legal precedent was established with Bill Clinton[1]. Consider too that no executive branch agency can have authority over the president - that would be violation of Article 2 of the constitution. The only legal option route for legal punishing a president requires impeachment first. [1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/22/tapes-stored-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-affec/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/22/tapes-store...
  - dubyah 3y ago
    That ruling doesn't support that assertion. >“We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 297 (D.D.C. 2012) Additionally: >“The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300-1 (D.D.C. 2012) Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not. [https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf#page=16 https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pd...]
    - lliamander 3y ago
      > The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed. >...Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b) https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives... The room for judicial review of a President's determination of personal vs. presidential records is so narrow the chances of it actually being successful in court are slim. > Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not. Looking at the context in which the statements were made, it is clear that Trump's primary intent was to signal the authoritative nature of the documents - in order to demonstrate that a senior military official had been lying about him (with regard to plans to invsde Iran). His statements about whether they are classified mean very little when his very act of retaining them makes them personal records. Saying "I could have declassified them" is simply another way of saying "I could have made them public" and is not a statement about his right as president be the sole arbiter over what constitutes a presidential record.

HumblyTossed 3y ago

> The differentiator is what one does when it's discovered. This is the point that many, so so many, either miss or refuse to see.

lliamander 3y ago
The key difference is that Trump, as president, was the ultimate authority on what documents are his personal documents. Any documents that he took with him are presumed personal - and that legal precedent was established with Bill Clinton[1]. Consider too that no executive branch agency can have authority over the president - that would be violation of Article 2 of the constitution. The only legal option route for legal punishing a president requires impeachment first. [1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/22/tapes-stored-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-affec/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/22/tapes-store...
- dubyah 3y ago
  That ruling doesn't support that assertion. >“We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 297 (D.D.C. 2012) Additionally: >“The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300-1 (D.D.C. 2012) Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not. [https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf#page=16 https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pd...]
  - lliamander 3y ago
    > The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed. >...Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b) https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives... The room for judicial review of a President's determination of personal vs. presidential records is so narrow the chances of it actually being successful in court are slim. > Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not. Looking at the context in which the statements were made, it is clear that Trump's primary intent was to signal the authoritative nature of the documents - in order to demonstrate that a senior military official had been lying about him (with regard to plans to invsde Iran). His statements about whether they are classified mean very little when his very act of retaining them makes them personal records. Saying "I could have declassified them" is simply another way of saying "I could have made them public" and is not a statement about his right as president be the sole arbiter over what constitutes a presidential record.