Trump indicted in classified documents case in Florida

a reply to: matafuchs

Me voting for DJT in 2024?

That's certainly not on my bucket list.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: MrInquisitive

If you do not realize what a 'Progressive' is you need to read some history books man. The current state of our country started with Woodrow Wilson. They figured it would take 100 years to accomplish what they wanted and that was the control all aspects of our country. He called his vision the New Freedom kind of like Obamas 'Change'.

If you cannot see how one sided all of this is, how anyone who is associated is also being attacked, and how the US government is no longer, by ANY means, run by the POTUS and his circle I feel bad for you.

Can you not see that they are charging Trump with things EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT has done but since they want him out of the way they are pressuring him to get out.

They will have to kill him for him not to run in 2024.

This guy is simply a trap to get you penalized and banned. He offers an endless filibuster of things he knows aren true, and just keeps repeating them no matter how badly he’s spoofed.
You can’t engage him without finding some kind of trouble, because he’ll annoy you right into it, doesn’t care how bad he looks, will just keep doing it until you get PO’d and blow up.

a reply to: stevieray

Do you ever post on topic or do you just rreeee against folk who disagree with you and insult their intelligence?

Asking for a friend.

a reply to: Erno86

That is your right as a US citizen. I voted for Mr T twice. People told me I wasted my vote. F'k em. It is my vote. That is what makes America great but at least I voted.

I would love to see 2 new candidates in 2024. However, if it comes down to the two that will be there I cannot vote for Biden. He honestly is one of the worst administrations in our history as a country. I'd rather have HRC running the show and that is crazy to say.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: stevieray

Do you ever post on topic or do you just rreeee against folk who disagree with you and insult their intelligence?

Asking for a friend.

I just say what I want. There’s not enough of you to do anything about it.
There’s topic, and then there’s the need to discuss people who make everything worse with BS, childish nonsense, and endless repetition just to annoy.

Both are equal parts of the process. All of us know the names of these people, could make a list, and I’ll bet you’d be on the lists.
It’s good to not let people do this crap with no downside. They should be highlighted and laughed at.
It’s good for the community, good for the soul.

a reply to: stevieray

Make your list.

I'm scared.

Ooh. clutches pearls?.......

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: stevieray

Do you ever post on topic or do you just rreeee against folk who disagree with you and insult their intelligence?

Asking for a friend.

The friend in your mirror.....



Clearly and demonstrably.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: stevieray

Make your list.

I'm scared.

Ooh. clutches pearls?.......

When somebody describes something embarrassing that you do, your reply shouldn’t be to jump right up and do it loud and proud.
You make this too easy. But maybe you just can’t do differently, it’s OK ….. bless your heart.

I doubt if trump will have enough money to run a successful campaign. Now he is using his campaign money to pay his lawyers. Plus his big campaign contributors like the Koch bros have bailed.

news.yahoo.com...

and he just stepped in it again....bless his heart!

Get yourself more of those hero cards, trump dollars and coins.

www.kitco.com...

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Who has the final authority?

If the POTUS and this unnamed 'process' doesn't agree, who decides.

Heres news: the classification system is already chaotic.

If the POTUS doesn't tell anyone he declassified it, then the error is on the side of caution, right? In a sense, it remains classified.

But he did. He told his staff, if I pack it up and take it out of the oval, consider it unclassified. They would then start the process. Do you think POTUS writes his own memo? Or looks up the business process documentation and performs his own steps in the process? Who determined the process? Is the process delineated in a legal document?

I'd imagine that if POTUS and the official bureaucratic process disagree that SCOTUS or a lower court would weigh in, except in matters of extreme national security, where it usually defers to the military.

I couldn't agree with you more about erring on the side of caution about such matter.

As for your next paragraph regarding the packing up and moving scenario, how do his assistants even know what he has already boxed away? Talk about chaotic. The system isn't that chaotic, although if you have a president shoving things down the toilet and tearing other documents into bits, which his minions must tape back together, then yes, that is a f'n chaotic mess. If you seriously don't think there is some designated procedure for the president to declassify or attempt to declassify documents, then there is no explaining the matter to you.

As for what the formal procedures are, why would you expect me to know? I never worked in the WH or any other place with classified documents. I don't even know the procedure for calling in sick to the WH. I'm supposed to be an expert on all government procedures and protocols, yet you evidently can't be bothered to read my posts in full. The government and its bureaucracy has a myriad of procedures and rules for just about everything under the sun. Your demanding that the specific procedures for declassifying documents be provided in order to make my argument complete is ridiculous. And I said specifically that there are some secrets -- nuclear secrets -- which by law the president does not have the authority to declassify on his own. Congress has enacted a law delineating that process, which involves officials from the Dept. of Energy.

@olaru12 provided additional links on the classifying of documents, and here is a salient point from the American Bar link:

The system of classifying national security documents is largely a bureaucratic process used by the federal government to control how executive branch officials handle information, whose release could cause the country harm. The government has, however, prosecuted cases for both mistaken and deliberate mishandling of information. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders.

Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.

Here is some more discussion of the matter:

Historically, both Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive orders (EO), which spell out detailed sets of procedures, to implement this authority. In 2009, President Barack Obama issued EO 13526, the most recent EO which provided such guidance to federal agencies. But as a previous ABA Legal Fact Check noted, presidents can modify or nullify EOs although there is no evidence that then-President Trump did so with the Obama executive order.

Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

In all cases, however, a formal procedure for recording and memorializing classification decisions is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point in denying the paper access to documents after tweets by then-President Trump regarding a covert program in Syria. “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said, citing Obama’s 2009 executive order in a footnote.

The closest recent example of a president brushing aside declassification channels was when George W. Bush, in his first term, authorized disclosure of parts of a classified National Intelligence Estimate to a reporter, effectively declassifying the material. The disclosure led to the 2007 conviction of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for obstruction of justice, lying under oath and making false statements. But Libby was not charged with disclosing classified information, leaving the legality of Bush’s declassification untested.

Presidential Authority & Classification - American Bar Association

And here is a document by the Congressional Research Service on the Subject:

Procedures for Declassifying Intelligence of Public Interest

In other words, the president saying to his minions, "hey, anything I pack into these boxes is to be declassified before I leave office," doesn't cut it. I don't understand how anyone would think that there weren't standard procedures for declassifying documents. How on earth could such a system function?

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

So it didn't work, Trump didnt drop out of the race, didn't flea the country, didn't stop campaigning and his polls didn't drop, they went up!

So pile on even MORE charges....er, logs on the pyre. The witch refuses to burn.

What do you mean it didn't work? You and others are the ones claiming that this was the reason for the launching of investigations against Trump and eventual indictments. That's your folk's conspiracy hypothesis. I've consistently said it was to uphold the law and bring accountability to a scoff law president who flouted illegally retaining and handling classified documents and attempt to retain power through seditious means. It just so happens that these things bother folk in the DOJ, particularly when such crimes are brazenly done.

No one forced Trump to call for protests in DC on Jan 6, and then urged his followers to go to the Capitol to show congress that they meant business. No one forced Trump to take classified and declassified documents with him when he left office, and he was given every opportunity to turn them over before push came to shove, legally speaking. I could go on with his other dubious actions that are being investigated elsewhere, but won't bother. This guy brought his legal troubles on himself, and I really can't understand why people defend him or apologize for him in this regard.

Yeah, sure, there are utterances of "But Biden...". As I have written any number of times in these threads, I have no problem with investigations of Biden or his family members if evidence warrants it. Let justice be served. Yet the Trump lovers/Biden haters ignore the overwhelming evidence against Trump, but in the same breath say that Biden is a traitor and should have been locked up a long time ago. The hypocritical double standard is mind numbing. If such folk can't see that Trump should be prosecuted for the actions he has taken, I don't see how they can even justify an investigation of Biden on the flimsy evidence so far provided, and said evidence seems to have eroded in the last few days in terms of the one supposed witness to the bribery allegations against Biden.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: MrInquisitive

If you do not realize what a 'Progressive' is you need to read some history books man. The current state of our country started with Woodrow Wilson. They figured it would take 100 years to accomplish what they wanted and that was the control all aspects of our country. He called his vision the New Freedom kind of like Obamas 'Change'.

If you cannot see how one sided all of this is, how anyone who is associated is also being attacked, and how the US government is no longer, by ANY means, run by the POTUS and his circle I feel bad for you.

Can you not see that they are charging Trump with things EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT has done but since they want him out of the way they are pressuring him to get out.

They will have to kill him for him not to run in 2024.

And here I thought Progressivism started with Teddy Roosevelt. Woodrow Wilson was a bit a progressive, but he was a racist and a chauvinist who fought the Women's Suffrage Movement tooth and nail. You really think he had some hundred year plan to control all aspects of the US? I don't dispute that he was behind the Federal Reserve Act, but that's a far cry from controlling every aspect of our country.

You make Progressivism sound like a bad thing. Don't know about you but I appreciate food regulatory laws, labor laws and child labor laws, work-place safety laws, direct election of US Senators, women's suffrage, anti-trust laws, laws against unfair and unethical business practices, and the rights of referendum, recall and initiative. etc. I'll admit, however, I am no much for an income tax or Prohibition.

You're saying the country is no longer run by POTUS and his circle? Yet some of your ideological allies are saying it is the Biden DOJ that is going after Trump, and it's all Biden's bidding? Which is it?

In addition, I don't know what civics course(s) you had, but actually Congress and SCOTUS has something to do with running the country too.

Every single president who lost re-election called on his followers to come to Washington and then whipped them up into a fury and urged them to go to the Capitol to stop the certification of the new president? Tell that to Jimmy Carter and George H W Bush -- and Teddy Roosevelt for that matter.

Every president took a trove of classified documents with them and didn't give them back when they were requested for by the government, and then went on to lie about it to the government, lie about it to his lawyers, and even attempt to move around and hide some of the documents, as well as show some of the documents to persons without a security clearance? Do tell -- who and when? To be clear, there are procedures that are followed for presidents who are building a presidential library, and classified documents are indeed kept in them, but there are security measures in places and only people with clearance are able to view them.

I will grant you that Trump, unlike previous ex-presidents, did have his security clearance revoked. Seems it was done for good reason, given how he handled such documents, spoke secretly with Putin, and gave away high-level intelligence from an ally to the Russian Sec. of State and Ambassador to the US in the Oval office. That he tried to blackmail a friendly foreign country by threatening to withhold military aid, and attempted to foment sedition before he was to leave office probably didn't help either. You folk seem to ignore these facts when discussing these matters and treat Trump as if he has been unfairly treated, and hasn't done anything wrong or illegal.

As for his running again, don't see anything stopping him, although his time on the campaign trail may be limited.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: MrInquisitive

If you do not realize what a 'Progressive' is you need to read some history books man. The current state of our country started with Woodrow Wilson. They figured it would take 100 years to accomplish what they wanted and that was the control all aspects of our country. He called his vision the New Freedom kind of like Obamas 'Change'.

If you cannot see how one sided all of this is, how anyone who is associated is also being attacked, and how the US government is no longer, by ANY means, run by the POTUS and his circle I feel bad for you.

Can you not see that they are charging Trump with things EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT has done but since they want him out of the way they are pressuring him to get out.

They will have to kill him for him not to run in 2024.

This guy is simply a trap to get you penalized and banned. He offers an endless filibuster of things he knows aren true, and just keeps repeating them no matter how badly he’s spoofed.
You can’t engage him without finding some kind of trouble, because he’ll annoy you right into it, doesn’t care how bad he looks, will just keep doing it until you get PO’d and blow up.

I really am not trying to get anyone penalized or banned. I offer an endless filibuster of things I know that aren't true? You mean facts? You're welcome to use facts to make your case as well, rather than just personally attacking me. If my arguing my point of view annoys you and causes you to blow up, that's on you, not me.

It seems people on your side of the aisle here at ATS have a real hard time with facts, and often can't make cogent arguments to make their points. So they resort to name calling or personal attacks, and waving a broad brush to paint all people who disagree with them as knowing nothing, lying or even consorting with evil politicians.

You claim I say things that aren't true. Give a couple of examples and provide evidence otherwise. I do spend considerable effort to be scrupulous with the information I provide, but am willing to admit I am wrong if proven otherwise.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: stevieray

Do you ever post on topic or do you just rreeee against folk who disagree with you and insult their intelligence?

Asking for a friend.

I just say what I want. There’s not enough of you to do anything about it.
There’s topic, and then there’s the need to discuss people who make everything worse with BS, childish nonsense, and endless repetition just to annoy.

Both are equal parts of the process. All of us know the names of these people, could make a list, and I’ll bet you’d be on the lists.
It’s good to not let people do this crap with no downside. They should be highlighted and laughed at.
It’s good for the community, good for the soul.

Seems you are describing yourself. You generally don't add anything to the subject of a thread, and primarily attack and denigrate the people who disagree with you and your ilk.

As for the part of your diatribe about there not being many of "us", so there is nothing to do about it on our part, you seem to be arguing for mob power on a discussion board rather than discussing a subject articulately and rationally, and providing evidence/facts to make one's point. That's a very sad POV. I think you should reflect on that and reconsider your form of discourse here.

The short answer is yes. I watched him show documents to people at Mar-a-Lago on the dining room patio. So he has no respect for classified information. Never did.

Those are the words of former White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham.

Source

Nauta's search for a local lawyer has come to an end. He has settled on Sasha Dadan. She appears to have extremely limited experience appearing in federal court. In fact, her name doesn't appear at all on PACER.

originally posted by: Threadbare
Nauta's search for a local lawyer has come to an end. He has settled on Sasha Dadan. She appears to have extremely limited experience appearing in federal court. In fact, her name doesn't appear at all on PACER.

Could his choice be intentional, so that he can appeal any possible conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel? Also wonder if it is a lawyer suggested by Trump's team. They have a history of offering his minions lawyers who aren't working in the clients best interest, but in Trump's. A lawyer representing Nauta's best interests would have him flip on Trump.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

A lawyer representing Nauta's best interests would have him flip on Trump.

That's a pretty bold assumption, considering so many details that you are not privy to.

Acquittal would be the best outcome.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

We've been hearing that "flip on Trump" phrase for years now...Since 2017 I believe, when General Flynn coerced into confessing by dirty FBI agents, in order to protect his son.

By now only the mentally slowest members of the population think Donald Trump has broken any major laws.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: MrInquisitive

A lawyer representing Nauta's best interests would have him flip on Trump.

That's a pretty bold assumption, considering so many details that you are not privy to.

Acquittal would be the best outcome.

Sure, acquittal would be the best outcome for Nauta, but how likely is that? Given the amount of evidence in the overall case, including CCTV footage and multiple witness testimonies, I suspect that the feds have Nauta dead to rights. Sure, that's a supposition on my part, but it seems warranted by how the evidence is shaping up.

It's not a terribly bold assumption, unlike what Trump cultists and Biden haters are saying, i.e. that Biden has committed treason and should be hanged, based on flimsy evidence at best and without the completion of the investigation, never mind their having no idea of how limited the definition of treason is in the Constitution.

Given how Trump only cares about himself, and has a history of throwing his minions under the bus when push comes to legal shove, I can see team Trump blaming the whole documents matter on Nauta. Nauta would be a fool to trust his codefendant -- even more so than a person normally would in any case with a codefendant. Again, not a terribly bold statement.

As for being privy to details of the case, there's plenty of information already disclosed in the indictments.

n the indictment handed down last month by a federal grand jury in Florida that had been convened by special counsel Jack Smith, Nauta was charged with six counts related to the documents investigation, including conspiracy to obstruct justice and concealing records. Five of those counts named Trump as a co-defendant.

Nauta was charged individually with lying to investigators during an interview with the FBI in May 2022. Prosecutors alleged he lied about what he knew about dozens of boxes allegedly containing classified material that had been taken to Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort as he left the White House.

The indictment accused Nauta of working with Trump to move and conceal the boxes, which also included personal items from Trump's time in office. Prosecutors said the pair knew that some of the boxes contained sensitive material and that they were aware of the government's interest in getting those records back into federal custody, but worked to resist those efforts.

On May 11, 2022, a grand jury in Washington, D.C., issued a subpoena requiring the former president's representatives to hand over any and all documents with classified markings in his possession.

A Trump attorney arranged to travel to Mar-a-Lago to search for the documents, the indictment said. The indictment alleges that ahead of the search, Nauta helped move 64 boxes from a Mar-a-Lago storage room in which they were being held and brought them to the residential area of the resort, allegedly at Trump's direction, to conceal them from the attorney.

In the boxes that remained in the storage room, the Trump attorney found 38 sensitive documents and arranged for Justice Department officials to collect them at Mar-a-Lago on June 3, 2022, according to the indictment.

Investigators later secured access to Mar-a-Lago security camera footage and allegedly saw the boxes being moved from the storage room before the attorney's search. The indictment said federal investigators executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago for any remaining documents with classified markings. That August 2022 search yielded 103 documents marked classified.

According to a newly unsealed version of an affidavit that supported the August 2022 search warrant, investigators said Nauta — described in the document only as "Witness 5" — was allegedly seen in the video moving about 50 "Bankers boxes" from a room in Mar-a-Lago in the days after his FBI interview.

Walt Nauta, Trump aide indicted in classified documents case, pleads not guilty

Seems that is enough details to know that Nauta is in a heap of trouble. That's why his best defense strategy would be to turn state's evidence. Videotape evidence is usually quite damning in court cases, and lying to FBI investigators usually ends up in a conviction; the latter can also be further evidence of criminal intent, which will make other charges easier to prove.