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.

We'll see. Presumably the federal grand jury and Smith see the law somewhat differently, or they would not have bothered indicting him.

They are his documents. — NOS4A2

Enacted November 4, 1978,[4] the PRA changed the legal ownership of the President's official records from private to public ... The Presidential Records Act was enacted in 1978 after President Richard Nixon sought to destroy records relating to his presidential tenure upon his resignation in 1974. The law superseded the policy in effect during Nixon’s tenure that a president’s records were considered private property, making clear that presidential records are owned by the public. — wiki

I'm not sure whether any of the documents in question count as presidential records, rather than some other type of government document, but it seems that if they are, then they are not his, as a matter of law.

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. — Paragraph 17 of the indictment

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-barr-trumps-indictment-very-damning-even-half-true

""He was totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents. Those documents are among the most sensitive secrets the country has.""

For be it for me to be redundant, but this is the man's own Attorney General saying this. What say you?

Fitting that the indictment document is headed 'United States of America vs Donald J. Trump' (and accomplice).



That says clearly and precisely what is at stake. (Personally, I am confident that the United States will prevail.)

:100: :up:

if Trump is elected, he could make it go away — frank

He could pardon himself on day one, then the trumped up supreme court majority would rule on a challenge a year or two later. In the meanwhile, who knows what he would do with the country.

"what about Hillary?" — GRWelsh

Just like Trump, Hillary stupidly acted in spite of technical and legal advice. She was guilty as hell, and as a consequence, and directly due to Comey's last minute antics, lost the election.

The question remains, though. In these sad times, no matter how clearly it is shown that the law has been violated, will it matter? What is or is not lawful doesn't seem to be a concern in our politics, nor does it seem to be a concern of many of our politicians. — Ciceronianus

Perhaps the legal battle only serves as a prelude to create even sharper lines of division between constitutional/democratic and tyrannical/self serving political forces. Smearing Trump with his own doodoo is fair and necessary politics, just as it was with Hillary. Should Trump be reelected he will surely militarize the country to raise himself above all laws meant for us ordinary folk.

Does he? It's as simple as him saying "this is mine" and all the rules about handling and disclosure are out the window? — Srap Tasmaner

Of course not. Just saying it isn't sufficient. He also has to think it!

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?

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.

But during his presidency, Trump was authorized to posses, declassify, and determine as personal records those documents. — NOS4A2

According to the PRA:

(3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,[2] of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

So many of Trump's hires turn against him. What's that about?

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

The ruling is only that:

The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.

Nothing in this says that Trump can avoid being charged under the Espionage Act for retaining documents related to national defence.

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.

The Espionage Act has nothing to do with the Archivist.

It has everything to do with whether those are his personal records or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/trump-presidential-records-act.html

To start, presidents also routinely handle documents produced by departments and agencies like the Pentagon and the C.I.A. As agency records, they are instead governed by the Federal Records Act, which has no provision allowing a president to declare any to be his personal property.

The Presidential Records Act states that presidential records do not include “official records of an agency.” A 1993 ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit says the law avoids any “potential definitional overlap” by making clear that if a document qualifies as an agency record, that trumps any possibility it could also be considered a presidential record.

“Certainly anything produced by an agency and given to a president would be considered an agency record,” Ms. Kwoka said.

Barr is a longtime proponent of the unitary executive theory of nearly unfettered presidential authority over the executive branch of the U.S. government. — wiki

If anyone would think the President has the sort of unchecked authority you think he has, it would be Bill Barr, and evidently he does not think so.

Remember that the main point of the PRA was to prevent a President from destroying documents.

Trump regularly shredded "both sensitive and mundane" papers while at the White House, at Mar-a-Lago, and on Air Force One,[11][12] despite repeated admonishments from at least two of his chiefs of staff and from White House counsel.[11] His aides had developed special practices and protocols early in his presidency to retrieve the piles of torn paper and attempt to tape documents back together with the help of staffers from the Office of the Staff Secretary or the Oval Office Operations team.[11][13] — wiki

If all he had to do to legitimate such behavior was designate it as a personal rather than a presidential record, the law would serve no purpose at all. Evidently Bill Barr does not believe that, nor did Trump's staff or counsel think that.

Maybe Congress did inadvertently leave such a loophole, and maybe no attorney or official who ever considered such matters noticed. I consider that unlikely, but we'll see. For now, the theory that the President can do whatever he likes with any document is akin to the theory that the Vice President can refuse to certify the votes of duly appointed Electors.

That's very helpful. Answers one of my questions.

If the president cannot do whatever he wants with documents he is given from agencies over which he is the executive, then the constitution of the United States, the separation of powers, checks and balances, is meaningless, and the people have zero power or representation in government.

Nonetheless, this is all unprecedented, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

There's still Congress, of course, but it's true there is some tension here, insofar as most of the executive branch was created by legislation, and that means the President is responsible for carrying out the will of Congress in many areas. He has other powers specifically enumerated in the constitution that do not derive from Congress, and all of this will obviously continue to be a matter of debate and litigation.

Personally I think the PRA is an excellent reminder that we do not have a monarch, but only a President, and he is subject to the rule of law like everyone else.

Now we have an untouchable bureaucracy we have no ability to influence. I much rather an elected politician than an unelected administrative state, personally.

I much rather an elected politician than an unelected administrative state, personally. — NOS4A2

Just think of it as a corporation, which you endlessly defend.

Trump took classified documents, either out of spite or looking to make a buck somehow (as always), refused to return them after being asked multiple times, and of course lied every step of the way.

Pretty cut and dry.

Also, there’s a process to declassification. You can’t just will it in your sleep.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/814767

Of the 1 out of 50 who don't plead guilty, more than 4 out of 5 criminal defendants are convicted by federal prosecutors.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

Traitor/Seditionist-1 ain't "Teflon Don" no more. The next shoe will drop soon in a federal courthouse in Washington D.C. for the January 6th Insurrection Conspiracy and Incitement federal charges.

LOCK HIM UP! :victory: :mask:

It REALLY feels like it this time. Not sarcasm.

Trump took classified documents, either out of spite or looking to make a buck somehow (as always), — Mikie

Why Trump Did It.

He thrill-seeks. He breaks the law for entertainment. He thinks the rules apply to other people, not him. Brawling with societal norms, he must believe, raises his status in the pecking order. Normally, teenagers grow out of this behavior and stop joy-riding in stolen cars, bullying the weak and generally acting like a juvenile delinquent. But the latest indictment shows, as if we needed convincing, that Grandpa Trump has only grown into the behavior. — Politico

And here's the massive crowd of MAGA protestors milling around outside the courthouse.



Puts the Inauguration Day crowd to shame, don't it?

So if I'm following you correctly, Trump (if he so choose to do so) could have

1) Rquested the blueprints for building an H-Bomb (or the nuclear codes or a list of all foreign secret assets or etc),
2) Declared them to be his personal property,
3) Taken them with him when he left office (since they're now his personal property)
4) And then sell them to the highest bidder (or put them on Truth Social)

And all this would be perfectly legal. Am I getting this correct?

:rofl: :up: