FBI 'raided' Mar-a-Lago

[TheTexan]

Perhaps, but the mileage they've gotten out of Trump as an excuse to ramp up the "domestic terrorism extremist" narrative is unprecedented. Almost like the lifelong NYC Democrat is helping it happen....

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Isn't it odd how all of Trump's drama ends up only further demonizing the right by giving the media reason to post smear "articles" and further fearmonger and giving the Feds and social media ammo to "crack down" on something new?

Must be coincidence.

Doubt it.

Although I don't support the raid of course, there is two observations - Trump did absolutely nothing to help the everyday citizens of this country from having the same abuse happen to them - as it's been going on awhile, and it was his JOB to. In fact - either putting in place or not firing the absolutely worst people was one of the worst things he did - oops, look at me and what I did. And with the entire conservative movement telling him not to. over and over. William Barr is an example, well known as bad.

Two, there seems to be a blindness in certain circles that Trump can do no wrong - like a cult saying it over and over. So when I see pictures of Trump and Melanie standing
next to Epstein and his handler/procurer, and they say nothing there! and ignore things like Melania's past hard porno pictures, or hosting the log cabin republicans at mara-largo and receiving an award from them - I don't see Epstein pictured with them as accident.

Trump isn't what he appears, and he likes to create drama - has obviously liked it ever since his days with the apprentice show. He likes getting two other people to fight, and sits back watching. Possibly his whole routine of 'talk loudly, and carry No stick' is geared towards that. It certainly does no good.

Trump created this problem by not doing anything when he was the chief executive, and possibly even on purpose. So, he probably deserved it in some sense, even if false. In any case, it's his fight - and this time let him fight it himself. i fully support a fair justice system for him, and even consider that he may be victimized - but Trump can pay for it himself. If he had acted right in office, he would have reformed the judicial system. But instead he put people like Barr in charge of it.

This isn't our fight.

 

[TheTexan]

Doubt it.

Trump is a giant douche but he brings out the worst in the left, and the best (read: better) in the right

 

[ClaytonB]

Trump is a giant douche but he brings out the worst in the left, and the best (read: better) in the right

In my opinion, this explains the Trump phenomenon in a single image:

Trump may be this, Trump may be that. Trump's policies may be this, they may be that. But it is an undeniable fact that Washington, DC haaaaaaaaaaates Donald Trump. They regard 2017-2020 as four years of hell on earth and they would sooner drink bleach than see Trump back in office. And that is why Trump exists as a political force. That's why people love him. And, in its own weird way, it makes sense. Regardless of all other considerations about the man and his policies, he is both able and willing to crack the whip on a Federal government that has grown a million times beyond out-of-control, and nobody else out there right now can really fill that role. Whether that's enough for any individual libertarian to overcome their policy/personal reservations about Trump and join the momentum is a separate question. First, you have to understand why Trump really exists, why 2016 happened. Without that, you're just going to go in circles with pointless questions about whether he sincerely opposes Big Pharma or secretly supports them or pointless Russia-hoax nonsense or, now, pointless Mar-a-Lago nonsense...

 

[Sonny Tufts]

When has a President not taken classified materials to his home? I would assume this is commonplace. And what is this all about "without telling the incoming administration"? Why does that even matter lol

It matters because the material doesn't belong to the ex-President, regardless of whether it's classified, and he has no legal authority to possess it. It belongs to the federal government. But if if the material is classified, it's a more serious situation.

As far as other Presidents go, the National Archives had this to say about Obama 8 days ago:

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

Look, when a President leaves office he's going to be taking a lot of stuff with him. Personal stuff, for sure, but there could be some Presidential records (as defined in the Presidential Records Act) mixed in with the other stuff. I would think that the National Archives would inventory the stuff that the President takes with him before he leaves, but I don't know if that's the standard procedure. Maybe the Archives people visit the ex-President shortly after he's left and makes sure that any Presidential Records are returned. It would be instructive to know how this works. But it was a full year after Trump left office before the first boxes of records were retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. That's way too long.

A Congressional Research Service Report describes the situation as follows:

After a presidency, the responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and access to presidential records shifts to the Archivist. Additionally, statute requires the Archivist to make the former President’s records publicly available as rapidly and as completely as possible.

The PRA does not provide the former President with a process for disposing of presidential records after leaving office. In contrast to the disposal request process for incumbent Presidents, the Archivist may dispose of a former President’s presidential records if they are deemed by the Archivist to have insufficient value to warrant their continued preservation. The Archivist must publish a notice in the Federal Register at least 60 days in advance of the proposed disposal date.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46129

When has anyone's home been raided, over having classified documents? President or otherwise??

Here's one. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-martin-2031#N196673

 

[acptulsa]

Trump may be this, Trump may be that. Trump's policies may be this, they may be that. But it is an undeniable fact that Washington, DC haaaaaaaaaaates Donald Trump.

I deny it.

Nobody that the swamp hates gets that much publicity. Nobody.

You sit there and say nobody can deny it, bit you've seen me do so many times. Whether you see the sense in my reasoning or not, you have not one leg to stand on when you say it can't be done.

This soap opera is no more real than the WWE, or The Young and the Restless. You want to believe. Fine. But can't you have a smidgeon of respect for Asoapoperaists?

 

[ClaytonB]

It matters because the material doesn't belong to the ex-President, regardless of whether it's classified, and he has no legal authority to possess it. It belongs to the federal government. But if if the material is classified, it's a more serious situation.

He had the nuclear codes and unitary decision-making power to launch them for four years. He had unilateral decision-making power to declassify any document in the Executive at his sole discretion. But God forbid he should possess any documents for which he (still) has lifetime clearance because some petty bureaucrat who, just a year ago, worked for him could throw a tizzy-fit about it under some arcane statute that has nothing to do with 'holding ex-Presidents accountable' and has everything to do with keeping petty federal bureaucrats in their lanes.

But the concern-trolling train must roll on...

 

[Invisible Man]

He had the nuclear codes and unilateral decision-making power to launch them for four years. He had unilateral decision-making power to declassify any document in the Executive at his sole discretion. But God forbid he should possess any documents for which he (still) has lifetime clearance because some petty bureaucrat who, just a year ago, worked for him could throw a tizzy-fit about it under some arcane statute that has nothing to do with 'holding ex-Presidents accountable' and has everything to do with keeping petty federal bureaucrats in their lanes.

But the concern-trolling train must roll on...

Lifetime clearance? This is the first I've heard of that. Source?

 

[ClaytonB]

Lifetime clearance? This is the first I've heard of that. Source?

All senior Federal officials have lifetime TS clearance. The reasons are obvious -- if you can't trust somebody for life, you can't trust them for some number of years. I can't recall where I heard this, I think it was a Snowden interview. Every senior Bush administration official is still read in to this day. They don't "lose their clearance" after leaving office. Clearance can be revoked for other reasons, of course. And even TS clearance is not sufficient to get access to any particular SCI program.

 

[ClaytonB]

I deny it.

Nobody that the swamp hates gets that much publicity. Nobody.

You sit there and say nobody can deny it, bit you've seen me do so many times. Whether you see the sense in my reasoning or not, you have not one leg to stand on when you say it can't be done.

This soap opera is no more real than the WWE, or The Young and the Restless. You want to believe. Fine. But can't you have a smidgeon of respect for Asoapoperaists?

OK, I mean, if 5%/95% is "support" as you define it, there's nothing further to discuss between us on that topic.

 

[Invisible Man]

All senior Federal officials have lifetime TS clearance. The reasons are obvious -- if you can't trust somebody for life, you can't trust them for some number of years. I can't recall where I heard this, I think it was a Snowden interview. Every senior Bush administration official is still read in to this day. They don't "lose their clearance" after leaving office. Clearance can be revoked for other reasons, of course. And even TS clearance is not sufficient to get access to any particular SCI program.

Obviously the duty to keep secrets they know lasts a lifetime. But that wouldn't necessitate lifetime clearance.

 

[acptulsa]

OK, I mean, if 5%/95% is "support" as you define it, there's nothing further to discuss between us on that topic.

Where did that number come from?

I'm not talking about any manufactured polling among bureaucrats. I'm talking about the real decision makers, the ones who devised this game.

I suppose they are handily outnumbered in D.C
by useful idiots sucking the teat. I just don't know why anyone would care more about what these tax tickets think.

 

[ClaytonB]

Obviously the duty to keep secrets they know lasts a lifetime. But that wouldn't necessitate lifetime clearance.

I'm not confusing those two. TS information is regulated by a bunch of laws that prevent all forms of disclosure, whether now or later, whether from documents or from memory, and so on. Those regulations are separate from the clearance-status itself. It is the TS-clearance status that most Federal officials hold for life. That wouldn't give a Trump admin official access to Biden admin SCI info because those are entirely separate programs. But if a Biden admin official wants to read in a Trump admin official (or any former President's administration), they already hold TS clearance and it's just a matter of reading them in. That is my understanding, and no I'm not going to go dig up my references because it's been a few years since I watched the interview where I learned about this and I can't remember how to find the interview. I only recall this important detail from it.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I deny it.

Nobody that the swamp hates gets that much publicity. Nobody.

You sit there and say nobody can deny it, bit you've seen me do so many times. Whether you see the sense in my reasoning or not, you have not one leg to stand on when you say it can't be done.

This soap opera is no more real than the WWE, or The Young and the Restless. You want to believe. Fine. But can't you have a smidgeon of respect for Asoapoperaists?

Even Jimmy Dore, who doesn't even like Trump, can see that this is primarily to keep Trump from running again. My guess is that it takes a lot of effort to keep Trump in line, compared to a dementia-riddled potato like Biden.

You can argue that there's really no point to trying to prohibit Trump from running again, seeing as he did give them what they wanted on a few major issues (regardless of the motives), but I don't think you can argue that they don't want him back.

 

[ClaytonB]

Where did that number come from?

I don't know. I assume Hannity is competent to get a reliable number for the vote-totals in DC from the Trump/Biden election. If that's not good enough for you, go check the numbers yourself. I don't think you're going to find something different.

 

[ClaytonB]

Even Jimmy Dore, who doesn't even like Trump, can see that this is primarily to keep Trump from running again. My guess is that it takes a lot of effort to keep Trump in line, compared to a dementia-riddled potato like Biden.

You can argue that there's really no point to trying to prohibit Trump from running again, seeing as he did give them what they wanted on a few major issues (regardless of the motives), but I don't think you can argue that they don't want him back.

No, no, it's all fake. It's all an elaborate theater. All of Washington DC has gotten together and carefully rehearsed pretending to "hate" Trump while, of course, totally loving him and wanting nothing more than to have him back in the Oval Office. </sarcasm>

 

[Sonny Tufts]

it's not like they can't be trusted with some documents they had full read-access to while in office and, of course, they retain TS clearance for life.

It's not a question of trust. It's a question of whether as private citizens they have the legal authority to possess the documents. The fact is, they don't. Here's the standard Nondisclosure Agreement people sign to have access to classified information. Paragraph 7 provides:

I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have, or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or that provided me access to classified information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law. https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/sf312.pdf

According to the Information Security Oversight Office:

By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and
other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.

https://www.wrc.noaa.gov/wrso/forms/standard-form-312_booklet.pdf page 66

Given that the Constitution spells out the qualifications for President, Vice President, and members of Congress, it's likely that requiring such persons to sign a nondisclosure agreement would be unconstitutional.

The assumption that members of Congress meet the standard of trustworthiness requires a huge leap of faith, but I suppose it's a nesessary one.

 

[acptulsa]

Even Jimmy Dore, who doesn't even like Trump, can see that this is primarily to keep Trump from running again.

Well, that's his opinion. Others believe he was hoarding damaging evidence on his rivals. I think they just did this to piss you off. There are other theories.

You can argue that there's really no point to trying to prohibit Trump from running again, seeing as he did give them what they wanted on a few major issues (regardless of the motives), but I don't think you can argue that they don't want him back.

I think you mean that I can't argue that they do want him back. I don't know if they do or not; all I know is they obviously wanted him to give Republicans the blame for Big Pharma being paid to develop that gene therapy poison, because if they didn't he would have been someone Who Must Not Be Named. And he clearly wasn't that. What Michael Malice said. He's the dam, and when they think the time is right for martial law, he will burst.

No, no, it's all fake. It's all an elaborate theater. All of Washington DC has gotten together and carefully rehearsed pretending to "hate" Trump while, of course, totally loving him and wanting nothing more than to have him back in the Oval Office. </sarcasm>

Well, whatever. By D.C. you mean bureaucrats and welfare recipients. I should have guessed. I was thinking of the people giving the orders. I suppose they can find better places than a swamp to live, so fair enough.

You win. Here. . Now tell me why pissing off the various employed and unemployed Karens on the D.C. voting rolls should matter to me. It's not like that's a challenge. It doesn't take Donald Trump to do it.

 

[ClaytonB]

It's not a question of trust. It's a question of whether as private citizens they have the legal authority to possess the documents. The fact is, they don't. Here's the standard Nondisclosure Agreement people sign to have access to classified information. Paragraph 7 provides:

According to the Information Security Oversight Office:

Given that the Constitution spells out the qualifications for President, Vice President, and members of Congress, it's likely that requiring such persons to sign a nondisclosure agreement would be unconstitutional.

The assumption that members of Congress meet the standard of trustworthine requires a huge leap of faith, but I suppose it's a nesessary one.

I'm not going to debate Federal codes with Random Internet Person. You're digging up links so here you go:

You know what that is? That's the Thread Trophy of the Thread. You officially WIN. Now beat it. I'm not interested in crossing tin-swords with bots, I am posting in this thread for the few RPFers who have not yet been converted into remote-controlled NPC Beast World Order bots. If somebody sincerely wants me to look up the details regarding post-career TS clearances for senior Federal officials, I'll dig around. In the meantime, take your little trophy and go celebrate or whatever it is you professional bot trolls do...

 

[acptulsa]

They've sure done a fine job of keeping us focused on pissing each other off when we need to be saving the nation instead.