"Clinton Sock Drawer" Audio Tape Case Exonerates President Trump

submitted by iamonlyoneman from (oann.com)

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

for the lazy: the president can take documents when he leaves and nobody has a right to question him about them, according to a decade-old precedent

[–]blowininthewind 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

lol

[–]SoCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is interesting, but seems a stretch.

First, let's be clear that the case referred to, was not specifically about classified documents. What I've read of it so far, mentions recordings made of day-to-day duties, while doing things one would assume included observed classified information and talks, like calls to foreign leaders and military briefs. Yet, it did not seem to used or bring up classified in the case's ruling.

They were debating about 'presidential records', specifically and how they can be obtained by FOIA request. Someone wanted to sniff around in Bill Clinton sock drawer, but got shut down....

The ruling {PDF} pointed out the distinction between 'presidential records', which are required to be archived and made available, verses the president's 'personal records' of being in offices. The legal codes {44 U.S. Code § 2201} giving the president wide authority over them, designating which documents are 'personal', his right to withhold them from the national archives, and the very scant ability to argue against his designations of a document being personal. Apparently, the president is expected to have a lot to reflect on and given protected room to do so. This legal code did not seem to levee any restrictions, nor have a provision at all about classified documents, instead only about a former president's privacy and privileges, which its wording makes clear to continue after office.

I too think they've jumped the shark on an ugly, obvious, and desperate attack, again finding courts and DOJ willing to disregard normal procedure and legal standing, to make a ridiculous political attack....but I'm not seeing this being a clear exoneration. It's topic may make a good foot note, or corroborating context for other arguments, in Trump's legal defense. It sure muddies the water with an interesting perspective.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's never a clear exoneration in the current political climate. You can get done up for shooting someone who is shooting at you, in your own home, during a robbery! But, if orangemanbad can't get off this hook with this precedent in his pocket, then lawyers should all be hanged, as a class, and then it's Civil War III Electric Boogaloo because we have no more government left.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They have to prove that Trump gave access to classified documents to a spy or enemy of the state.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They only have to prove that he hung onto them, according to the lynchpin statute in most of the charges. Except he had an unquestionable right to do, according to Bill Clinton's sock drawer. The whole case is a nothingburger, which is why they gave it to a Trump appointee in Florida instead of a venue where it stood a chance of being a conviction which was overturned on appeal to the same justice on SCOTUS who wrote this decision!