CONFIRMED: As Gateway Pundit Reported — FBI Doctored Mar-a-Lago Photo

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So you're sticking to your guns.

"KAy.

Glad you own it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

That's all fine and good, and you have a point that, there could very well have been very serious issues with how sensitive material was handled by Trump and hist team.

Now, what I would like you to do, is explain how any of this will result in anything more than a slap on the wrist, or verbal chastisement, as the precedent of NOT charging high-level government officials for careless, borderline criminal negligent handling of classified material, *has already been set*.

The not complying with subpoenas and various other subterfuge is, as we have seen, a common thing in these types of cases.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Own what? An investigation initiated due a report made by an unbiased person that has since turned up 150+ pages of improperly stored classified information found exactly where a witness said it would be found?

Not even Trump's team is denying these documents were found during the lawful execution of a search warrant. So if Trump isn't indicted or convicted it would only be due to a technicality.

Do you own the fact that you're defending a man who, at best, potentially put the safey of the nation at risk due to negligence?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

Own what? An investigation initiated due a report made by an unbiased person that has since turned up 150+ pages of improperly stored classified information found exactly where a witness said it would be found?

Not even Trump's team is denying these documents were found during the lawful execution of a search warrant. So if Trump isn't indicted or convicted it would only be due to a technicality.

Do you own the fact that you're defending a man who, at best, potentially put the safey of the nation at risk due to negligence?

So says the same democrats and fbi who have been making false accusations about Trump for 7 years.

Hence the special master request, nobody believes you anymore, and for good reasons.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

Own what? An investigation initiated due a report made by an unbiased person that has since turned up 150+ pages of improperly stored classified information found exactly where a witness said it would be found?

Not even Trump's team is denying these documents were found during the lawful execution of a search warrant. So if Trump isn't indicted or convicted it would only be due to a technicality.

Do you own the fact that you're defending a man who, at best, potentially put the safey of the nation at risk due to negligence?

This is a bull# contest
It's an investigation in search of a crime.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Do you own the fact that you're defending a man who, at best, potentially put the safey of the nation at risk due to negligence?

This line is over 6 years old at this point.

Your appeal to emotion is a spent one X.

Not even Trump's team is denying these documents were found during the lawful execution of a search warrant. So if Trump isn't indicted or convicted it would only be due to a technicality.

It's up to the DoJ to prove they are illegal for him to have had.

a reply to: DBCowboy

They had evidence of a crime in January when the Fifteen Boxes were retrieved. They had more evidence of a crime in June when more classified documents were retrieved. They then received evidence of a crime in the form of a CI's testimony which was corroborated by materials found during the search.

If it's an investigation in search of a crime, how were the FBI able cite three specific statutes in their warrant application and then provide evidence to support those claims in their affidavit?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Some (if not all) the docs "seized" has executive privilege attached "at the time" they (the docs) were generated. 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Some (if not all) the docs "seized" has executive privilege attached "at the time" they (the docs) were generated. 😎

Many of them are still under Executive Privilege.

Same with Obama and every president before him.

a reply to: Xcalibur254


So says democrats and fbi stooges that have been playing Wiley Coyote on getting Trump for 7 years.

So this time it's real?

Only democrats are that gullible.

a reply to: JinMI

It's up to the DoJ to prove they are illegal for him to have had.

As I've said before, that's pretty easy to prove. The PRA makes it very clear that any Presidential records become property of the US government upon the conclusion of a president's term(s).

But that's not what the case is about. It's about if Trump mishandled classified information, and if so, how egregious was the offense.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JinMI

It's up to the DoJ to prove they are illegal for him to have had.

As I've said before, that's pretty easy to prove. The PRA makes it very clear that any Presidential records become property of the US government upon the conclusion of a president's term(s).

But that's not what the case is about. It's about if Trump mishandled classified information, and if so, how egregious was the offense.

So Obama isn't still illegally claiming Exec Priv on fast & furious docs?

Good to know.

Be right back, gotta go make a call.




Pro tip: Obama is still claiming Exec Priv on those docs and it isn't illegal because Exec Priv lasts forever for many classes of documents.

Making your entire claim untrue.

But it IS what democrats and their msm department have been saying 24x7.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The PRA makes it very clear that any Presidential records become property of the US government upon the conclusion of a president's term(s).

Which is a non sequitur via Judicial Watch V NARA as we already established.

But that's not what the case is about. It's about if Trump mishandled classified information, and if so, how egregious was the offense.

Right. So the onus is on the DoJ. So Trump et al doing anything else other than waiting in any manner they choose for the charges should be obvious.

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Former Presidents do not have executive privilege.

If you believe that Trump still has executive privilege, what happens if Biden says that he waives executive privilege for these documents? Whose executive privilege teaches precedent? The current President or the former President?

I have no idea and no else has any idea besides the FBI of the documents at MAR A LAGO are classified. I mean I saw a bunch of white papers and covet sheets but the cover sheets themselves aren’t classified.

There is no evidence put forward by the DOJ OR FBI that the public has seen that proves any documents at MAR A LAGO are classified. ALL I reading are a bunch of assumptions and suppositions.

During the election I heard over and over from people “ where is the evidence that the election was rigged”

Well that question comes full circle back to you dems and leftists. “ Where is the evidence that Trump had committed a crime?”

Crickets….

Oh and by the way a bunch of people talking on Tv saying this and that isn’t evidence neither is photo with no evidence at all.

And even POLIFACT leftist fact checker says the president had supreme authority to declassify at will at anytime with no “ committee” to go through

www.politifact.com...

The president’s classification and declassification powers are broad
Experts agreed that the president, as commander in chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When people lower in the chain of command handle classification and declassification duties — which is usually how it’s done — it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan — which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance — addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."

In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not "obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed," Aftergood said. "And he can change those."

Indeed, the controlling executive order has been rewritten by multiple presidents. The current version of the order was issued by President Barack Obama in 2009.

The national-security experts at the blog Lawfare wrote in the wake of the Post’s revelation that the "infamous comment" by President Richard Nixon — that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" — "is actually true about some things. Classified information is one of them. The nature of the system is that the president gets to disclose what he wants."

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

He's not claiming executive privilege. He's claiming restricted access which is allowed by the PRA for up to 5 to 12 years depending on the document.

That said, those documents are still in possession of NARA. He's not keeping them in boxes strewn across his house.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Navy v Egan

It's been brought up before and remains important:

Held: In an appeal pursuant to § 7513, the Board does not have authority to review the substance of an underlying security clearance determination in the course of reviewing an adverse action. Pp. 484 U. S. 526-534.

(a) The grant or denial of security clearance to a particular employee is a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call that is committed by law to the appropriate Executive Branch agency having the necessary expertise in protecting classified information. It is not reasonably possible for an outside, nonexpert body to review the substance of such a judgment, and such review cannot be presumed merely because the statute does not expressly preclude it. Pp. 484 U. S. 526-530.

(b) The statute's express language and structure confirm that it does not confer broad authority on the Board to review security clearance determinations. A clearance denial is not one of the enumerated "adverse actions" that are subject to Board review, and nothing in the

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Is anybody connected with the government or government agency ever going to get arrested over there?

It all seems to be turning into a comedy or tragedy, I can't decide.

Going to be a "Dark Winter"


C O N T E N T S

__________

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

The Dark Winter Scenario and Bioterrorism

October 25, 2001
www.govinfo.gov...

What does Dark Winter have to do with any of this?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I see. But no whistleblowers for the laptop. Gotcha. If they knew the documents were there why would they need a CI?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

They had evidence of a crime in January when the Fifteen Boxes were retrieved. They had more evidence of a crime in June when more classified documents were retrieved. They then received evidence of a crime in the form of a CI's testimony which was corroborated by materials found during the search.

If it's an investigation in search of a crime, how were the FBI able cite three specific statutes in their warrant application and then provide evidence to support those claims in their affidavit?

If there was evidence, then jail him.