Why so many magazines and articles removed as 'Classified' from Mar-a-Largo

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If an attorney is giving information on how to commit a crime, they are an accessory to the crime and "privilege" is out the window.

a reply to: JIMC5499

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

For the purposes of this topic, this is the relevant portion.

This is why there are lawyers and where attorney client privilege stems.

I'd even argue the point from where executive privilege comes from. Unless our potus can no longer speak on things that will make them a criminal as soon as they leave office.

Like we are seeing potentially now.

a reply to: JinMI

The funny part is that the currant Administration is changing the rules as they see fit and then trying to hold the previous Administration responsible for them retroactively.

I didn't name the Administrations on purpose. This is to show how much danger there is if this sets a precedent.

There's a book I read several years ago. "The Last Centurion" by John Ringo. Little did I realize that it would become a guide book for the last three years.

a reply to: JIMC5499

It would do readers well to take note of exactly what you said:

The funny part is that the currant Administration is changing the rules as they see fit and then trying to hold the previous Administration responsible for them retroactively.

The entire networking with NARA and the DoJ to the raid is predicated on the nebulous and so far unchallenged notion of a potus revoking a former potus' privilege.

Also, i thin it would be folly not to mention the timeline the DoJ has put upon themselves. That being no charges until after the midterms.....when the senate and quite possibly the house swings back.

This gives the DoJ a narrative and an out. Which is kind of impressive if it wasn't so constitutionally damaging.

a reply to: JinMI

I think an argument could be made that the 5th Amendment covers attorney-client privilege, which kind of proves the original point I was trying to make. Which is that attorney-client and executive privilege have nothing to do with the particularity requirement of the 4th Amendment and they certainly don't have anything to do with the particularity requirement applying differently to former Presidents.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
So I've been reading the list of items that were removed from Trump"s Mar-a-Largo location and I can't believe how many magazines and public articles were included in the confiscated items. Since when are publications to the public classified? Looking through the list, it all seems so ridiculous.

It is seriously a joke. Is that an oxymoron?

storage.courtlistener.com...

They needed something to fill the boxes that they carried out before the media. Funny how nobody know who alerted the media about the "raid".

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JinMI

I think an argument could be made that the 5th Amendment covers attorney-client privilege, which kind of proves the original point I was trying to make. Which is that attorney-client and executive privilege have nothing to do with the particularity requirement of the 4th Amendment and they certainly don't have anything to do with the particularity requirement applying differently to former Presidents.

I think they certainly do.

Opening up former presidents to illegality based upon talks and decisions made during their term sets a very dangerous precedent. If you allow for it, then 5th 6th and 14th amendments still apply.

As it stands, we still aren't sure where the courts sit on Bidens move to remove that privilege and I'm wondering why exactly it's not been challenged.

a reply to: JinMI

But we're not talking about decisions Trump made during his Presidency. We're talking about decisions he made in the 18 months following his presidency. Namely, refusing to return Presidential records to NARA, mishandling classified documents, and not complying with a subpoena.

Declass doesn’t even enter the thought process at this late date.
Wow

a reply to: Xcalibur254

There was no refusal to return documents. As a matter of fact 15 boxes were returned. The remaining documents were allowed to be examined and recommendations about their storage were followed. There is an issue on whether the documents are classified or not. The President has the ultimate authority over classification. At the time the documents were declared as "unclassified". The subpoena I believe is about his testimony for the Jan. 6th committee, not about the documents.

www.facebook.com...

If there was something that Trump could be found criminally in the wrong, he would have been hauled out in handcuffs in front of the media.

Keep pushing the "classification" bit. It could come around and bit Hilary in the a$$.

With the precedent set I certainly hope the next Pres raids the warehouse Obama stored 30 million documents in when he left office and confiscates ones that are retroactively marked.

a reply to: JIMC5499

They were returned 12 months after they were supposed to be turned over and after numerous requests from NARA. And, as we now know, these 15 boxes were just the tip of the iceberg of what he had.

As for the classification status, why did Trump's lawyers admit to Judge Cannon that the special master would need TS/SCI clearance to review the documents if they're all declassified.

a reply to: jjkenobi

You mean the NARA facility?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

How do we know what he had?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JinMI

But we're not talking about decisions Trump made during his Presidency. We're talking about decisions he made in the 18 months following his presidency. Namely, refusing to return Presidential records to NARA, mishandling classified documents, and not complying with a subpoena.

Yes, overdue library books that even if true have 0 penalty

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JinMI

But we're not talking about decisions Trump made during his Presidency. We're talking about decisions he made in the 18 months following his presidency. Namely, refusing to return Presidential records to NARA, mishandling classified documents, and not complying with a subpoena.

Yes, overdue library books that even if true have 0 penalty

a reply to: JinMI

Mishandling of classified documents and not complying with a subpoena have very serious penalties.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Did you not see the detailed inventory released the other day?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JinMI

Mishandling of classified documents and not complying with a subpoena have very serious penalties.

He certainly was complying with the supboena.

As far as mishandling, youre going to have to get over the 24/7 ss detail hurdle.

Gluck.

a reply to: JinMI

During the execution of search warrant, investigators found more than double the number of classified documents as were turned over with the subpoena. How is that complying with the subpoena?