America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,011 comments
  • 1,484,987 views
Lain
I think the propaganda machine's running out of excuses. With this major bombshell dropping, I was curious to see how Fox News was handling it... they're just yammering on about Biden's health and whether he's fit enough to run again in 2024. lol
Click to expand...
From a quick watch:
-Some lunatic mentioning communist china and ranting about treating the president with respect
-As seen above - Trump didn't pack the boxes. He didn't touch the boxes and doesn't know what's in them. There's no case against him.
-Drawing parallels with Hilary's email scandal and the outcome of that
-We don't know what the FBI actually found. We don't know what we don't know.

So a lot of positions for Republicans to choose from.
 
Whoops:

1660339711657.png


That's prison for ever.
 
Hayden
Our news is calling it an espionage investigation.
He’s gonna need a much better lawyer than his pesty mate Rudy for this one.
Click to expand...
So, not that it's not, but the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793, one of three code provisions appearing on the warrant) covers just a staggering amount of crap. Given the nature of the search, 793 was obviously going to cited and its citation doesn't itself indicate that the search was actually pursuant to an espionage investigation.

...

This is now (well, "now" as of the time shown on the tweet):



The GOP's propaganda arm is kind of pathetic.
 
I was putting my grocery cart in the cart collection thing tonight and someone had wrote "Trump 2024" in chalk on the road near it. I just giggled and thought, not if he's in jail! 😄
 
Last edited:
Liquid
I would like to know what, if anything, would convice Republicans to actually turn on Donald Trump and actually say, "Okay, that's too far and he should be punished in a court of law."

If anything.
Click to expand...
It sort of feels like even if he's got boxes stacked full of classified nuclear documents and other state secrets in his house, receipts from selling it to Russia and Saudia Arabia, and video of him making the deals and handing over the intel in exchange for cartoon briefcases of money, Republicans would still be like "ehhh, I dunno, it seems like a setup, what about Obama and Hillary?"
TexRex
lol



****ing Heritage Foundation, man.
Click to expand...

Wtf. I assume America is like everywhere else where declassification (or reclassification) of information is a relatively long, annoying and paperwork heavy procedure. For reasons exactly like what we're seeing now, so that one person can't just wander off with important documents without other people knowing.

But nah, Trump should just be able to reclassify anything in his head. He should reclassify all the papers on Merrick Garland's desk as Top Secret without telling him, then they'll have to lock up Merrick Garland for mishandling classified documents.
 
Imari
Wtf. I assume America is like everywhere else where declassification (or reclassification) of information is a relatively long, annoying and paperwork heavy procedure. For reasons exactly like what we're seeing now, so that one person can't just wander off with important documents without other people knowing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, somebody did a good treatment on the declassification procedure on legal Twitter. It's definitely not a matter of "I declassify this and this and this." Can't find that right now but I'll keep it on my mind. This is one of those occasions it would be more convenient if I had a Twitter account, I'm sure. I was sort of counting on it being Bradley P. Moss or Marcy Wheeler, as they are an absolute treasure trove of information on this (especially Moss with his NatSec experience), but no dice. I like Marcy because she swears...like...a lot.

It was also mentioned here:
TexRex
www.justsecurity.org

Expert Backgrounder: Criminal Statutes that Could Apply to Trump's Retention of Government Documents

Experts survey the possible crimes underlying search warrants executed at Mar-a-Lago.
www.justsecurity.org www.justsecurity.org
Click to expand...
18 U.S.C. 1924 – Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material

Since reporting indicates that the documents the agents were searching for included classified ones, this statute appears at first glance to be an obvious possible violation. Section 1924 makes it a crime to knowingly remove classified documents with the intent to retain them in an unauthorized location. There are a few problems with this statute, however, as applied to Trump.

One potential stumbling block is that the statutory provision limits its scope to an “officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States.” There is scant case law addressing if the president of the United States would qualify as an “officer” in this particular statutory context, and the statute itself provides no clarity. A recent ruling in one of the January 6th civil lawsuits against Trump brought by, among others, two Members of Congress, concluded the statutory term “officer” could encompass holders of political office, such as a Member of Congress. While informative, how that analysis would be applied in a criminal context with respect to the then-president remains unclear.

There is also the issue of whether Trump actually declassified the records prior to the end of his presidency. Former Trump staffer Kash Patel has publicly made this very argument, claiming that many of the records were declassified by Trump.

If prosecuted under Section 1924 (or one of the Espionage Act provisions outlined below), this defense that Trump had declassified the records would certainly be front and center in the case. Whether that argument would hold up in court is difficult to predict with any real certainty because this is completely uncharted territory. There has never before been a president prosecuted for mishandling classified information. The only guidance that exists are the security classification rules that ordinarily apply to holders of access to classified information.

Strictly speaking, even if Trump ordered the declassification of the records (verbally or in writing), what is likely to matter for purposes of handling and storing the records after he left the White House was if the mandatory follow-on actions occurred. Classified documents have classification markings in the header and footer of each page, indicating the level of classification for the document as a whole. Furthermore, classified records have cover sheets that specifically indicate when the record was classified, by whom, and under what authority, as well as when the classification expires.

If Trump did in fact order the declassification, he still needed to make sure his staff took the necessary next steps to modify the classification markings on the documents before he could actually handle and store the records (as a private citizen) as if they were unclassified. Under security classification rules, a classification marking on a document has to be treated as valid and binding unless and until a subsequent marking replaces it. Appropriate government staffers would have needed to cross out the classification markings in the headers and footers, and stamped “declassified” on the record noting when it was declassified, by whom and under what authority. Since that does not appear to have been done with the classified documents reportedly identified to date, the documents remain classified and had to be treated as classified for handling and storage purposes.

These are Security Classification 101 procedures, but none of them were material to Trump while he was still the president. He held ultimate authority over classification issues until noon on January 20, 2021. When Joe Biden became the President, however, Trump became just another private citizen who was obligated by federal law not to willingly remove classified records from a secure location and place them in an unsecured basement at Mar-a-Lago. When he took the records from the White House, shipped them to Florida, and stored them at Mar-a-Lago, he arguably ran afoul of Section 1924. Further factual development will, of course, be necessary to know for sure.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
How many classified documents do you have to smuggle before sedition becomes outright treason?
 
Imari
Wtf. I assume America is like everywhere else where declassification (or reclassification) of information is a relatively long, annoying and paperwork heavy procedure. For reasons exactly like what we're seeing now, so that one person can't just wander off with important documents without other people knowing.
Click to expand...
It automatically becomes declassified after 25 years unless it falls under a handful of exceptions. After that, it's 50 years outside two exceptions. It can be upwards of 75 years with special permissions.

www.justice.gov

Declassification Frequently Asked Questions

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

To get some of the documents, you'll typically need to file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) which is a pain in the ass.
 
Joey D
It automatically becomes declassified after 25 years unless it falls under a handful of exceptions. After that, it's 50 years outside two exceptions. It can be upwards of 75 years with special permissions.

www.justice.gov

Declassification Frequently Asked Questions

www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

To get some of the documents, you'll typically need to file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) which is a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
Huh. Australia generally copies the American system for most of these things as far as I can tell, so I went and looked it up. It looks like we've got a similar thing after 20 years. Which sort of makes sense and I like, it makes it harder for people to just bury uncomfortable information forever. Today I learned. :)
 
If all of this results in mister Trump being charged with treason, and things go to court, would that involve a jury? If so, what would be the chances of finding an impartial jury?
 
Liquid
How many classified documents do you have to smuggle before sedition becomes outright treason?
Click to expand...
In the rhetorical sense or the legal one? It bears noting that both represent an incredibly high bar in the legal sense.

I don't like that either have so saturated the discourse. Obviously the terms weren't completely unknown prior, but they really became commonplace with the Trump base directing them at Trump's critics (largely because he did so himself), especially those in Congress because they literally serve as a check against the office of the president, at least in spirit even if they prove to be ineffectual, but then they became something of a "no u" after the assault on the Capitol. The latter is certainly more appropriate than the former, but neither are appropriate at all. It's all bluster and no substance.
Denur
If all of this results in mister Trump being charged with treason, and things go to court, would that involve a jury?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's literally the law of the land.
Denur
If so, what would be the chances of finding an impartial jury?
Click to expand...
Slim. Not necessarily none because impartial obviously doesn't mean "I don't feel a certain way about this." While it's not absolute, I think now represents the greatest opportunity to suss out who could be impartial, what with the prevalence of social media postings.
 
More people didn't vote for either Trump or Biden than voted for either Trump or Biden. It shouldn't be difficult to find people who are neither for or (sufficiently) against Trump.
 
Famine
More people didn't vote for either Trump or Biden than voted for either Trump or Biden. It shouldn't be difficult to find people who are neither for or (sufficiently) against Trump.
Click to expand...
I love your optimism, but remain skeptical that this excuse for a man will endure any prison time. But on the bright sight, this whole situation might be an inspiration for John Grisham. An inspiration that hopefully doesn't end up in a Berlin inspired bonfire by the time it comes out.
 
Denur
I love your optimism, but remain skeptical that this excuse for a man will endure any prison time.
Click to expand...
Not optimism, but I agree - if only because he might not survive to the end of a trial looking at the state of him at the recent LIV event where he hosted the government he's alleged to be selling nuclear secrets to and which recently gave his sex molester doll son-in-law $2bn for literally no reason.

1660393778798.png

 
Last edited:
Liquid
How many classified documents do you have to smuggle before sedition becomes outright treason?
Click to expand...
TexRex
In the rhetorical sense or the legal one? It bears noting that both represent an incredibly high bar in the legal sense.
Click to expand...
Both, I suppose.

His behaviour is indicative of someone who does not have the best interests of the United States at heart. We know why, he only cares about himself and who can give him money. But given his behaviour in an official capacity as an elected official, the elected official, it seems like this boundary is being pushed more and more. I just wonder what more it would take to officially be classed as something falling under the Espionage Act or falling under the constitution's definition of treason which, admittedly, is quite vague and based upon England's Treason Act 1357.

On the one hand it's an unprecedented situation to even be considering these possibilities but that's just it... what would it take in this current scenario for that possibility to indeed be considered?

On the other hand I strongly believe that everything will be done to keep punishment to a minimum no matter what can be proven out of that disgusting vanity wherein top-level politicians are usually immune from most forms of legal retribution out of geopolitical embarrassment. You don't want to look 'weak' in front of the other countries, your country has a massive peepee really.
 

Latest Posts

Back