Mar-A-Lago Legally Searched by FBI

[Dr Exiled]

It looks like there may be a push to use 18 U.S.C. § 2071 and its disqualification language to argue that Trump cannot run in 2024, if convicted of holding onto classified documents. The same argument was used against Clinton back in 2015 and shot down. Qualifications for president are constitutional and can't be changed by statute, only by amending the constitution. This snopes article lays out the arguments: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hilla ... qualified/

By this reasoning, could Trump serve as president from a federal penitentiary?

Trump can always be impeached and then convicted for these crimes. Separation of powers means that this is the mechanism to get him out should he be elected again, if he were to have been convicted of these crimes at the time of his election. However, I'd say that he won't be convicted of taking classified documents as his declassification defense has legs and the documents in question were taken prior to his leaving office.

[Res Ipsa]

By this reasoning, could Trump serve as president from a federal penitentiary?

Trump can always be impeached and then convicted for these crimes. Separation of powers means that this is the mechanism to get him out should he be elected again, if he were to have been convicted of these crimes at the time of his election. However, I'd say that he won't be convicted of taking classified documents as his declassification defense has legs and the documents in question were taken prior to his leaving office.

I agree with your comments about the constitution. The qualifications are in the Constitution, and Congress can’t change them. In addition to impeachment, the 25th amendment could apply to an incarcerated person elected President. The 13th Amendment also has a disqualification provision. But that’s it. Congress cannot disqualify someone from becoming President other than through processes provided by the Constitution.

But I don’t think the declassification argument has legs at all. It’s just more of the throw everything at the wall and pray something sticks that Trump and his defenders use every time.

[Binger]

Trump can always be impeached and then convicted for these crimes. Separation of powers means that this is the mechanism to get him out should he be elected again, if he were to have been convicted of these crimes at the time of his election. However, I'd say that he won't be convicted of taking classified documents as his declassification defense has legs and the documents in question were taken prior to his leaving office.

I agree with your comments about the constitution. The qualifications are in the Constitution, and Congress can’t change them. In addition to impeachment, the 25th amendment could apply to an incarcerated person elected President. The 13th Amendment also has a disqualification provision. But that’s it. Congress cannot disqualify someone from becoming President other than through processes provided by the Constitution.

But I don’t think the declassification argument has legs at all. It’s just more of the throw everything at the wall and pray something sticks that Trump and his defenders use every time.

Oh. Funny.

So when did application of the process provided by the US Constitution become patriotic instead of treasonous or an insurrection? Was that a recent reversal?

[Dr Exiled]

Trump can always be impeached and then convicted for these crimes. Separation of powers means that this is the mechanism to get him out should he be elected again, if he were to have been convicted of these crimes at the time of his election. However, I'd say that he won't be convicted of taking classified documents as his declassification defense has legs and the documents in question were taken prior to his leaving office.

I agree with your comments about the constitution. The qualifications are in the Constitution, and Congress can’t change them. In addition to impeachment, the 25th amendment could apply to an incarcerated person elected President. The 13th Amendment also has a disqualification provision. But that’s it. Congress cannot disqualify someone from becoming President other than through processes provided by the Constitution.

But I don’t think the declassification argument has legs at all. It’s just more of the throw everything at the wall and pray something sticks that Trump and his defenders use every time.

Here is the Supreme Court case cited regarding this issue:

Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/

Here is the main quote:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 444 U. S. 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 389 U. S. 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 345 U. S. 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, 92 U. S. 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.

The president has the power to classify and declassify documents, rooted in the constitution. Perhaps it is just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. But, this might have some superglue on it.

[Binger]

Trump can always be impeached and then convicted for these crimes. Separation of powers means that this is the mechanism to get him out should he be elected again, if he were to have been convicted of these crimes at the time of his election. However, I'd say that he won't be convicted of taking classified documents as his declassification defense has legs and the documents in question were taken prior to his leaving office.

I agree with your comments about the constitution. The qualifications are in the Constitution, and Congress can’t change them. In addition to impeachment, the 25th amendment could apply to an incarcerated person elected President. The 13th Amendment also has a disqualification provision. But that’s it. Congress cannot disqualify someone from becoming President other than through processes provided by the Constitution.

But I don’t think the declassification argument has legs at all. It’s just more of the throw everything at the wall and pray something sticks that Trump and his defenders use every time.

I believe that Trump’s political prosecutors and their agents are throwing everything at the wall. Its been that way since 2016. When the pasta doesn’t stick, then we have calls of “racist, woman, parent, privileged, cis, ICE-driver, etc.” hurled the walls of America to insult or demote Americans.

Hey counselor, does Trump deserve a fair defense or no? He has rights, or no?

[honorentheos]

The classification of nuclear secrets do not derive from the President but are "born secret", and classified at conception. To remove their classification requires procedures be followed.

That said, this could prove the final test. If partisanship proves more important than patriotism in Congress to the point a President who sold state secrets for private gain would not be held to account by their own party, the Republic already fell and the Constitution is meaningless.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I agree with your comments about the constitution. The qualifications are in the Constitution, and Congress can’t change them. In addition to impeachment, the 25th amendment could apply to an incarcerated person elected President. The 13th Amendment also has a disqualification provision. But that’s it. Congress cannot disqualify someone from becoming President other than through processes provided by the Constitution.

But I don’t think the declassification argument has legs at all. It’s just more of the throw everything at the wall and pray something sticks that Trump and his defenders use every time.

Here is the Supreme Court case cited regarding this issue:

Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/

Here is the main quote:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 444 U. S. 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 389 U. S. 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 345 U. S. 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, 92 U. S. 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.

The president has the power to classify and declassify documents, rooted in the constitution. Perhaps it is just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. But, this might have some superglue on it.

Are there people saying the President can’t declassify something? What I’m seeing is the President can order something be declassified, but it has to go through a thorough vetting and procedural review.

AND aside from that there are second and third order effects ref related classified docs/programs as the Cabinet orders departments to adjust accordingly. It’s a big process that also doesn’t guarantee the President would get his wish.

The Presidency is an Office, not a man who gets to do what he wants because President = Autocrat. It simply isn’t that, which I think a lot of Americans don’t, won’t, or can’t understand.

- Doc

[ajax18]

Evidence Suggests Trump Tried to Sell Out America for Profit

Despite Donald Trump’s many campaign rally boasts that he knows “everything” about nuclear energy, he can’t tell you the difference between an atomic bomb and a hydrogen bomb. He’s a con artist, a know-nothing without even rudimentary knowledge of nuclear weaponry (the subject of Barack Obama’s senior college thesis) or national security.

What Trump does know is this: Foreign governments whose dictatorial leaders he admires–North Korea, Russia and Saudi Arabia among them–would pay fortunes to acquire America’s most sensitive nuclear secrets. And what Donald knows is how to find buyers who will pay premium prices for whatever he has to unload.

What had been the unthinkable idea that any American president would sell our national security secrets is suddenly front and center. From private citizen Trump’s Florida home the FBI recovered extensive national security materials belonging to our government. No previous American president has been the subject of a criminal investigation, much less one that raises the question of disloyalty for profit.

We should view this week’s events and what follows remembering a 2019 congressional investigation that drew only momentary attention. A rich trove of evidence showed that the Trump administration was lackadaisical about Saudi and corporate efforts to obtain our government’s nuclear secrets.

Journalists covering the FBI and national security also report that signals intelligence materials were also recovered during the search, which adds to concern about what foul deeds Trump was doing.

Ask yourself this: What legitimate reason could Donald Trump possibly have to take to Mar-a-Lago what’s known in spy world as SIGINT or signals intelligence? Our National Security Agency silently gathers SIGINT from telephone calls, emails and heavily encrypted electronic messaging. No private citizen has any business holding such records.

Foreign powers, especially those hostile to the United States, would pay vast sums, potentially billions of dollars, to access our SIGINT. They would look for details about our capacity to intercept such signals and hints to help them identify our spies and human assets in those countries so they could be captured, tortured and liquidated.

The Right Question

We don’t know for sure what, if anything, Trump sold, attempted to sell or left open for his Mar-a-Lago guests to peruse. That’s what trial after indictment is for, although public hearings by Congress would also be a brilliant idea.

But the question to ask now is this: What in hell was he doing with these materials? And why didn’t he turn them over when he was issued a subpoena for them months ago?

It’s hard to imagine any other reason Trump would take from the White House government documents so vital to our national security that authorized officials can examine them only in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or SCIF (pronounced skiff). The same holds for even talking about them. These are documents that Trump has no intellectual capacity to understand and no conceivable legitimate reason to possess.

Trump believes that while in office he had the power to declassify any document. If he is brought to trial by our federal government, as I fully expect, he would almost certainly assert this as a defense. That would be a typical Trumpian effort to muddy the waters and sow doubt about criminal intent among jurors. The likely defense claim would be that he thought he acted appropriately and made an honest mistake.

Crucial 1946 Law

But what Trump almost certainly doesn’t know is that the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 governs nuclear secrets. Under that law, a president cannot unilaterally declassify materials. Any declassification involves a complex process requiring approval by experts in nuclear weaponry and national security.

Should a federal grand jury indict Trump under that 1946 statute, his ignorance of the law would be no defense.

Clearly, Donald Trump had no right to take any national security documents. He is now just another private citizen. His possession of these secrets is a federal felony. Prosecution is necessary if he held such documents, especially if any evidence exists showing Trump tried to sell out America for profit.

This is true even though Trump claims he is above the law.

Claim of Unlimited Power

“When somebody is president of the United States, the authority is total and that’s the way it has to be,” Trump said in 2020. He instantly rejected challenging questions from reporters who understand the limited and temporary power granted to presidents by Article II of our Constitution. He’s also wrongly asserted that our Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want.”

Keep in mind that at issue here are not mundane documents of no consequence but our most sensitive nuclear and intelligence secrets, which only a handful of closely vetted individuals are allowed to see. The FBI would never have conducted a raid over documents of little value. If these were mundane documents, Trump would be claiming that and showing the inventory of items taken, which FBI agents turned over as they departed Mar-a-Lago.

That 2019 congressional investigation, cited above, showed that Saudi Arabia was trying to buy our nuclear secrets. Astonishingly Trump wasn’t alarmed about this. Indeed, the report indicates that Trump viewed our relationship with that country entirely in financial terms, just as he does everything else.

Love and Facts

At campaign rallies, Trump repeatedly praised the Saudis. He declared his love for them because they had put so much money in his pocket by buying apartments for tens of millions of dollars each and staying at his hotels and golf resorts.

The little-noticed 2019 congressional investigation began after multiple whistleblowers came forward to warn about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.

Keep this in mind in the context of four facts:

1. Trump’s refusal to sanction the Saudi regime for murdering an American journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, in a Saudi consulate. Our government
concluded the de facto dictator, Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, ordered his most trusted guards to kill.

2. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner developed a very close relationship with MBS, as the dictator is known, during the Trump era. They had hours-
long, late-night telephone calls.

3. The $2 billion that MBS gave Kushner to manage despite warnings by numerous Saudi financial advisers that Kushner lacked competency in money management and charged outrageously high fees.

4. Trump took the side of the Saudis and their friends in the United Arab Emirates against the government of Qatar, home to America’s most
important military base in the Middle East, after the Qataris declined to extend a risky $800 million loan to Kushner.

That Donald Trump overrode the objections of national security experts and granted security clearances to his son-in-law Kushner and his daughter Ivanka, Kushner’s wife, assumes even greater importance in light of the events this week. They repeatedly revised the SF-86 forms that all candidates for security clearances must submit. A single omission or misstatement typically results in denying a security clearance. Trump approved his daughter and son-in-law despite many revisions and against the advice of security experts.

How these facts connect, if indeed they do, won’t be known for some time. But keeping these acts and connections in the forefront of your mind will help you understand what happens as this case progresses.

To be clear, we don’t know what the search warrant specified, a warrant that was calmly and professionally delivered on midmorning Monday by FBI agents wearing suits and in the presence of Trump lawyers. However, we know that this search was so vital to our national security that Attorney General Merrick Garland personally approved the search. A federal magistrate authorized the search after being presented with an affidavit showing probable cause that Donald Trump committed crimes against the United States.

The harsh reality is that what’s going on is worse than you think.

P.S.: An atomic bomb uses fission to create an explosion, while a hydrogen bomb momentarily uses fusion, which powers our sun, to produce a much more powerful blast.

As concluded by the article, the harsh reality is far, far worse than what Binger and Hawkeye are willing to admit! The whataboutism pushed by Hawkeye about the supposed ill supported claims of about HC and Obama's misdeeds, even if they were true, don't even begin to hold a candle to what Trump and his administration have tried and are still trying to get away with!

It is astonishing to me how in the course of this thread how oblivious those two remain to the fact that they have only succeeded in making themselves seem ever more and more ridiculous and irrational by their own arguments!

This is full of speculation similar to your last three attempts to get Trump and his supporters. Are you ready to admit you were lied to for years about the Russian collusion hoax, the dossier, the FISA warrant, and every other scheme you've come with to beat a political opponent you couldn't beat in a fair election?

Nope, you're sicking the IRS on small buainessmen in a politically partisan manner just like Lois Lerner but worse.

[Vēritās]

Are you ready to admit you were lied to for years about the Russian collusion hoax

The hoax that revealed ten impeachable crimes Trump committed but Mueller wouldn't indict because of a longstanding DOJ policy not to indict sitting Presidents? The Mueller investigation proved what most people with brains already knew. Trump violated his oath to the Constitution and committed numerous impeachable offenses. The only reason he wasn't convicted by Congress was because it needed 60 votes and Senate Republicans put party before country. They did this because they knew that idiots like you would interpret this as Trump winning or Trump being exonerated or whatever spin your preferred fake news sources gave you.

Then afterwards the Republican led Senate Intel report revealed the ties between Trump campaign and Russia went much deeper than we realized. Your idiotic logic says the trial against OJ Simpson was just a hoax because he was declared not guilty. But not guilty isn't even what Mueller was willing to say about Trump. He made it perfectly clear Trump had not been exonerated, but that didn't stop Bill Barr from immediately taking to the podium and explicitly lying about what the report said. In fact all the whining about the politicization of the justice dept is coming from the Right, who had absolutely no issues with Trump constantly trying to get the AG to do his bidding.

Of course we've told you this stuff about a thousand times over the past few years, but as with everything else, you don't care about facts or reality. You live in a made up vortex of Right Wing spin. It is who you are. It is a sad state for anyone to be in, but that's all part of being in the current cult.

Moreover, the idiotic infatuation with the Steele Dossier pretends that it was the basis for the investigation, which has been proven false time and time again. It also ignores the fact that it was originally funded by the Right Wing Washington Freebeacon.

[Vēritās]

I believe that Trump’s political prosecutors and their agents are throwing everything at the wall. Its been that way since 2016. When the pasta doesn’t stick, then we have calls of “racist, woman, parent, privileged, cis, ICE-driver, etc.” hurled the walls of America to insult or demote Americans.

Hey counselor, does Trump deserve a fair defense or no? He has rights, or no?

You quite literally just quoted the talking point propagated by Hannity/Beck/O'Reilly/Carlson. Get a brain already, you're making a fool of yourself. As we've already school ajax on the subject ad nauseum, the only reason Trump wasn't convicted in the Senate is because Republicans (not all but almost all) put party before country.