The point that the archivist cannot determine what are presidential or personal records has been made. These decisions are made by the executive during his term. As she points out it’s there in the law.

Neither Archivist nor congress can determine what are or are not presidential records. From the precedent I linked to earlier:

Plaintiff’s entire APA claim is predicated on the notion that the Archivist of the United States has a statutory duty to make his own classification decision and “to assume custody and control” of all Presidential records. There are a number of flaws with this argument. To begin with, the plain language of section 2203(f) of the PRA does not say what plaintiff claims it does – that the Archivist must assume custody and control of all materials that fall within the definition of Presidential records. Tr. at 29:23–30:2. Rather, it states: “the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.” 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f)(1) (emphasis added).

Court construes this language as requiring the Archivist to take responsibility for records that were designated as Presidential records during the President’s term. Even plaintiff tentatively agreed that the obligation to assume custody and control arises after a determination has been made that the documents are Presidential records. Tr. at 30:3–6. If certain records are not designated as Presidential records, the Archivist has no statutory obligation to take any action at all, and there is nothing to compel under the APA.

In order to accept plaintiff’s theory that section 2203(f)(1) of the PRA creates a mandatory duty for the Archivist to assume custody and control of what he or she considers to be Presidential records regardless of how the President designated the documents, the Court would be required to ignore the rest of the PRA’s statutory scheme. This it cannot do. See Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 420 U.S. 395, 403 (1975) (stating that a statutory provision must be “read together with the rest of the Act”).

Section 2203(a) of the PRA directs the President, not the Archivist, to take:

all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented, and that such records are maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section . . . .

44 U.S.C. § 2203(a). The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency. It provides: “materials produced or received by the President, [and other Executive Office employees], shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b). The PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President “categorized” and “filed separately” as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only “assumes responsibility for . . . the Presidential records.” Id. § 2203(f)(1).8

17. Pursuant to Executive Order 13526, information classified at any level could be lawfully accessed only by persons determined by an appropriate United States government official to be eligible for access to classified information and who had signed an approved non-disclosure agreement, who received a security clearance, and who had a “need-to-know” the classified information. After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents.

But during his presidency, Trump was authorized to posses, declassify, and determine as personal records those documents.

A state bureaucrat through and through, concerned with state secrets before the country at large. One of the documents Trump is accused of showing was plans for the invasion of Iran, written by Mark Milley, current chairman for the joints chiefs of staff of the United States. I’m glad we now know. Aren’t you?

Isn't that exactly what he did? If not, how would you describe what he did?

Not during any time when he was not president.

I don't believe he was indicted for stealing documents, but for retaining them, hiding them, and lying about having them.

I’m fairly certain the argument for the defense will be that he has the right to keep them for the same reason he had the right to take them. He was the president. They are his documents. As the top authority on what is or is not classified, what is or is not his documents, nothing can be said that they are not his.

Do you really think Trump walked into the white house and took documents?

I’m fairly certain that the president’s authority can override whoever marks documents as classified, unless executive authority is invested in the Dept. of Justice or someone else I am unaware of.

Thanks for the low down, but I was citing Judicial Watch vs. NARA, which observes other cases besides Armstrong.

It’s not irrelevant if those are his personal records. He can dispose of them as he pleases, according to the constitution and precedent.

But he decides what are presidential or personal records. So it is the case.

“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Trump could roll a blunt with those documents for all I care. Neither the DOJ nor NARA have the power to designate documents presidential or personal records. That discretion lies solely with the executive.

The suggestion underlying all the finger-wagging is that the unelected bureaucrats at the DOJ, NARA, and overzealous prosecutors like Jack Smith, and not the duly elected president, have discretionary power over the president’s documents and what is or isn’t classified. Of course that’s just not true.

The precedent has been already set.

The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-08/memorandum%20opinion.pdf

I’m curious how a lawyer would get around this.

I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did. But I’m certain they will do everything in their power to get him.

The thing about the hypocrisy is that it goes both ways. Trump was president. Clinton wasn’t. Trump had unilateral declassification power. Hillary didn’t. The only reason to bring up Hillary is to point at the preferential treatment she got. She stored classified info in her basement. She and her staff destroyed evidence. No indictment. People fell over themselves to defend her, call Trump a fascist, and look at those people now.

I don’t think Trump has the manipulative abilities you pretend he does. It is a witch hunt. They are literally inventing laws in New York, for example, to make his life hell. People campaign on getting him. There is no other way to describe it when your political opponents do that to you.

Rather, I believe his detractors are being manipulated, for instance by the years-long Russia hoax, which people fell for world-wide and still repeat it. I won’t name names but people here thought I was Russian. There has yet to be a single moment of clarity even after that whole charade. We’re in the midst of mass hysteria.

I asked what you thought his most egregious crime was, then you listed off all of them. You couldn’t answer the question. You just parroted the indictment.

Appealing to law is a fallacy for a reason, and following the law is no sign of morality. Nazis followed the law as they rounded up Jews. Dr. MLK was a criminal. You’re going to need a better argument.

All those laws are designed to protect state power and prestige, not to protect citizens and their human rights. There is nothing morally wrong with what Trump did.

What do you think is Trump’s egregious crime? One that could net him 100 years in prison?

Ridicule me all you want. Call me any name. Pretend I’m a bot. Use emojis if it helps. I believe you guys need it for catharsis and I genuinely care about your mental health.

As for the indictment, I don’t care. The FBI, the DOJ, are some of the most corrupt institutions ever created. Trump is just another victim of its malfeasance.

4 years of trying to nullify Trump’s presidency with lies and conspiracy theories that reached the highest echelons of the intelligence community and the world press, but Trump does a little rally at the National Mall and it’s a threat to “our democracy”. :rofl: So good.

The president can take documents to Mar-a-lago, as he did throughout his entire presidency. He did it openly, as is his right as president. Obstructing injustice is above board, especially with a glorified paperwork dispute.

Sorry, which part wasn’t true?

Clinton destroyed evidence with hammers. Biden kept classified docs in his garage. Neither of them had the unilateral declassification powers that a president had. No indictments for them; nothing.

Meanwhile Assange is rotting in prison. Snowden is in hiding. Trump is getting the full force of the US government on his back.

Old news parrot... nothing found criminal... waste of taxpayer dollars... example of using the government to punish one's political rivals.

Old news that you believed and helped spread, despite its falsity. The irony.

Give this report a read, friend. But I know you won’t.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

That doesn’t seem to have been proven true from what I can find. If it is true he shouldn’t be held accountable.

What do you know that few others seem to know?

I don’t know if it’s true. What I do know is that the media, the intel community, ran with any allegation against Trump for years, won Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting, or were lauded for their persecutory delusions, and all was found to be false and unjust. If they did the same for everyone it would all be fine, but of course it appears they’re working hard to discredit it before seeing the documents in question.

Biden’s son loses a gun near a school, buys crack, scores prostitutes, and now an informant brings evidence of bribery against dad, but no, Trump said something I didn’t like. :rofl: Just beautiful.

The laptop was not the subject of the first investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/biden-inquiry-republicans-johnson.html

…and the second investigation is not over. The second investigation unearthed some shady things.

https://archive.ph/4RQtP

Whistleblowers have asserted that the FBI, the IRS, are slow-walking the investigations.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hunter-biden-investigation-whistleblower-disclosures-allege-fbi-procedures-not-followed-chuck-grassley-james-comer/

Just the other day the house oversight committee claim they have evidence that Joe Biden accepted bribes.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jun/9/biden-accused-pocketing-5-million-bribe-while-vice/

It’s weird you don’t mention any of this.

I’m as materialist as they come but I don’t believe in determinism.

I’ll pass. I’m just giving you some info. It looks like you’re misinformed.

New? It’s been going on since 2018, despite what you say.

Hunter’s taxes and foreign business dealings have been under investigation by a federal grand jury in Delaware since at least 2018. His membership on the board of a Ukrainian energy company and his efforts to strike deals in China have raised questions by Republicans about whether he traded on his father’s public service.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/08/white-house-prepares-for-possible-charges-against-hunter-biden

It is a pity they were duped by misinfo, all of which was coordinated by the Biden campaign.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/biden-campaign-blinken-orchestrated-intel-letter-discredit-hunter-biden-laptop

Hunter is still under investigation, despite what creativesoul says.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-being-mishandled-irs-whistleblower-says

Here’s mark Zuckerberg regretting it, blaming the FBI, despite creativesoul’s claims.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/zuckerberg-blames-fbi-for-censoring-the-posts-hunter-biden-scoop/amp/

This is the specific article that was suppressed before the election.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/amp/

They had congressional hearing about it. Here’s Twitter’s Jack Dorsey regretting that he censored it.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hunter-biden-story-was-total-mistake/amp/

I thought I was a Russian bot. I see we’ve expanded the goalposts a bit.

I think you’re right. The fallacy of appealing to law, and positive law in general, makes it clear to me that some believe law is determinative of behavior, despite the very notion being nonsensical.

It is nefarious. Recall that true information was suppressed in the lead up to the election.

I did, yes.

Not only that but many of Trump’s legal losses are not the result of him committing crimes, but the result of anti-Trump lawmakers creating and altering laws to get him.

For instance, New York Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal is the one who signed into law the Adult Survivors Act, which gave that woman a one-year window to sue Trump over allegations long past their statute of limitations. He also did many others, aimed specifically at one man. So some victims of gaslighting can pretend Trump is losing, and not that the system is being rigged in a fashion that can only be described as persecution.

https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2023/04/ny-bills-specifically-targeted-donald-trump/384793/