Could Trump ever be convicted in a Court of Law?

[airplanemechanic]

What you leave out is that the actual declassification isn't carried out by the president but by the department or agency with primary responsibility.

The president as chief executive commands that agency to declassify. Direct presidential declassification would have to be in the form of a publicly made executive order (EO).

Agency declassification can be from a presidents oral command, but direct presidential declassification requires it be in writing as an executive order.

DUDE I LEFT IT OUT BECAUSE ITS WRONG!!!

ACTUAL DECLASSIFCATION IS DONE BY THE FUCKING PRESIDENT!!!!!! By all means, enlighten us on what "agency" is in charge of declassification of material if it's not the president. This should be good.

You obviously didn't read the fucking gov't document I gave you. So there is no hope of you admitting you're wrong. You just ignore everything put in front of your face and continue on this bullshit tirade about "The president doesn't actually declassify anything." YEA HE DOES, DUMBFUCK. Read the fucking new york slimes article I put in front of your fucking face.

 

[forkup]

And it should be difficult.

Can it happen sure. Will it happen? Likely not. And if/when it happens, there will be appeal after appeal after appeal until hell freezes over.

What it really highlights is two things. We need to get rid of the Presidential pardon and we need to separate the DOJ from the Executive branch. I think we need to start electing the Attorney General myself. Its not a complete thought in my mind about the plusses and minuses but when you have a president who can dangle complete pardons in return for clear violations of federal law... that is a system designed to be abused. And Trump abused it.

The rule of law is paramount. A president shouldn't be able to pardon the well-connected while someone convicted of the same crime can't get that consideration.

A few outliers notwithstanding I see no clear evidence that the judicial system is incapable of handing out impartial justice. I'm not saying I always agree with the rulings but it's the only branch of government that seems to be holding. My post was me highlighting this.

Even the DOJ although more prone to misschief has been somewhat fair. I'm heartened by the fact that for instance in both the Stone and Flynn case the line prosecutors resigned when they felt improper pressure from the politically appointed AG. And by the fact that Durham is allowed to continue despite the fact that in my opinion he isn't acting as a prosecutor looking to actually prosecute a crime. These things point to a DOJ that is resistant to political pressure both within and without, so I'll be reluctant to change it.

The same can be said of the pardon power. It has and is in general a good thing that a chief executive can show leniency in certain cases and I'd be reluctant to change that purely because a president can abuse it. For the same reason I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I don't think that closing the chance for certain deserving individuals the right to clemency because some undeserving people will receive it too is enough reason to change a Constitutional right.

 

[meaner gene]

DUDE I LEFT IT OUT BECAUSE ITS WRONG!!!

ACTUAL DECLASSIFCATION IS DONE BY THE FUCKING PRESIDENT!!!!!!

You obviously didn't read the fucking gov't document I gave you. So there is no hope of you admitting you're wrong. You just ignore everything put in front of your face and continue on this bullshit tirade about "The president doesn't actually declassify anything." YEA HE DOES, DUMBFUCK. Read the fucking new york slimes article I put in front of your fucking face.

YOur document clearly states:

§ 2001.33 Mandatory review for
declassification.
(a) U.S. originated information—(1)
Regulations. Each agency shall publish,
and update as needed or required, in the
Federal Register regulations concerning
the handling of mandatory
declassification review requests, to
include the identity of the person(s) or
office(s) to which requests should be
addressed.
(2) Processing—(i) Requests for
classified records in the custody of the
originating agency. A valid mandatory
declassification review request must be
of sufficient specificity to allow agency
personnel to locate the records
containing the information sought with
a reasonable amount of effort. Requests
for broad types of information, entire
file series of records, or similar nonspecific requests may be denied by
agencies for processing under this
section. In responding to mandatory
declassification review requests,
agencies shall make a final
determination within one year from the
date of receipt. When information
cannot be declassified in its entirety,
agencies shall make reasonable efforts to
release, consistent with other applicable
laws, those declassified portions of the
requested information that constitute a
coherent segment. Upon denial, in
whole or in part, of an initial request,
the agency shall also notify the
requestor of the right of an
administrative appeal, which must be
filed within 60 days of receipt of the
denial. Agencies receiving mandatory
review requests are expected to conduct
a line-by-line review of the record(s) for
public access and are expected to
release the information to the requestor,
unless that information is prohibited
from release under the provisions of a
statutory authority

 

[meaner gene]

ACTUAL DECLASSIFCATION IS DONE BY THE FUCKING PRESIDENT!!!!!!

No more than a presidential pardon is done by the president except by executive order. All presidential pardons have to be issued through the department of justice pardon attorney and delivered to the person being pardoned. The US supreme court was quite specific on the process requirements, otherwise the pardon is null and void.

 

[candycorn]

The president can do just that, BUT.... there is actually much more to it. That in and of itself doesn't declassify anything. The president has to tell someone like his chief of staff, or the white house counsels office, Attorney General, etc. who prepare the paperwork, they send to the originator of the document, informing them of the presidents decision. And only after that agency declassifies the document, does it become declassified.

Any break in the chain, VOIDS the declassification statement.

Well, obviously. I don't know how you convict anyone of having classified material or mishandling classified material if nobody knows what is classified and what isn't.

 

[candycorn]

A few outliers notwithstanding I see no clear evidence that the judicial system is incapable of handing out impartial justice. I'm not saying I always agree with the rulings but it's the only branch of government that seems to be holding. My post was me highlighting this.

But would you allow for the path to clear abuse is there?

Isn't it true that Nixon just kept firing folks who wouldn't do his bidding?

Even the DOJ although more prone to misschief has been somewhat fair. I'm heartened by the fact that for instance in both the Stone and Flynn case the line prosecutors resigned when they felt improper pressure from the politically appointed AG. And by the fact that Durham is allowed to continue despite the fact that in my opinion he isn't acting as a prosecutor looking to actually prosecute a crime. These things point to a DOJ that is resistant to political pressure both within and without, so I'll be reluctant to change it.

What is being described is a reliance on people to do the right thing when it should be codified (as much as it can be) that they do the right thing. The line between doing the right thing and not can be as thin as a mortgage payment being due and not wanting to be without a job.

The same can be said of the pardon power. It has and is in general a good thing that a chief executive can show leniency in certain cases and I'd be reluctant to change that purely because a president can abuse it. For the same reason I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I don't think that closing the chance for certain deserving individuals the right to clemency because some undeserving people will receive it too is enough reason to change a Constitutional right.

I'll disagree on this.

I'm not saying get rid of the pardon. I am saying get rid of the presidential pardon. Have all of the interworkings you currently have but leave it to 3 of the SCOTUS justices to vote on whether or not a pardon is issued. The most senior, the fifth most senior, and the newest justice sit on a committee that meets every January to consider pardons.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Republicans in Congress have already shown a willingness to ignore Trumps transgressions no matter how egregious

Irony

 

[Seymour Flops]

Trump bragged he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it

Democrats never forget that. When the word "hyperbole" is explained to them, they forget that immediately. But that bit of hyperbole from Trump they obsess over and can never forget. It is central to their lives.

 

[WorldWatcher]

WRONG.
Since Trump did not paper work, then he did NOT at all "declassify" the original docs as kept at the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, etc.
All he declassified was his copy that he wanted to retain for his personal library.
That is perfectly legal.
Just a little sloppy.

See this is what people that don't understand "classified" shows. Documents are not "declassified" it is the information in the document that is declassified.

For example lets say that there are 6 copies of a specific document containing specific classified information. One located in the White House, 5 located amongst various agencies which also need the document. In addition there are subordinate documents that contain (either in part of in whole some of the same classified information).

Under a normal process when the information contained in a highly classified documents is declassified (or downgraded) that impacts all copies of the document (it's information, and subordinate documents containing the same information in whole or portions of a subordinate document).

So If the FPOTUS "declassified" a document, he is really declassifying the information in that document. If the FPOTUS, while acting as POTUS, "declassified" the information without telling anyone (either directly or in writing) for that specific document, you end up with:

• One copy of the information located at the White House being "declassified", and
• Five copies of the information located at the responsible agencies still being classified as the responsible agencies will not know the information was declassified because they FPOTUS (while POTUS) just mentally declassified the information in his head.

The result is someone could be prosecuted for improper handling of classified material for actions related to the 5 responsible agency documents, but not for improper handling of the exact same document if the source of the document was the White House. But they contain the same information. By this we are talking about the information in the document and subordinate information which sourced the document which can have even wider reaching impacts.

The national security infrastructure cannot function in a reasonable way if the same information is both classified and declassified at the same time simply because the POTUS chooses not to tell anyone.

Kind of a Schrodinger's Classified document where the same information is both classified and declassified at the same time until someone asks the FPOTUS to find out if he mentally and secretly declassified it without telling anyone while still POTUS. Normal people wouldn't know just be looking at the document.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

All he has to do is declassify it for all those who work for him at Mar-a-lago, and would be likely to see it.
The president is NOT at all effected by or under any classified document laws or regulations, in any way.

This is incorrect. There is no such thing as selective declassification.

What you are describing is giving his POTUS staff the clearance and need-to-know (the two requirements of access to classified information).

If he declassified the document then the janitor at MAL would be able to view it. By allowing the POTUS staff to view it, the information remains classified - he's designating who has access.

(Of course this is moot since as of noon on January 20, 2021 the POTUS became the FPOTUS and was no longer entitled to retain government property including classified documents.).

WW

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats never forget that. When the word "hyperbole" is explained to them, they forget that immediately. But that bit of hyperbole from Trump they obsess over and can never forget. It is central to their lives.

It is not hyperbole if it is proven true

 

[bripat9643]

Trump bragged he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it
Republicans proved that to be true by continually covering for him.
Does not make the investigations phony it only shows how little character Republicans have

Pointing out facts is not "covering for him," numskull.

 

[dudmuck]

Trump bragged he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it
Republicans proved that to be true by continually covering for him.
Does not make the investigations phony it only shows how little character Republicans have

 

[forkup]

Isn't it true that Nixon just kept firing folks who wouldn't do his bidding?

That is true. I want to point out though that when I talk about the judiciary I'm talking about the courts. They are part of the judicial branch. The DOJ however is part of the executive branch. Which is why Nixon was able to fire all these folks. I want to point that out in case I was confusing you.

But would you allow for the path to clear abuse is there?

Both the Executive and Judicial branches have a way to sanction clear abuse. It's called impeachment for judges or the president, and it comes in the form of all kinds of rules and laws for those other people dealing in the legal profession.

Sanctioning these people though is exceedingly rare, and in my view for good reason. When judging whether or not people in these positions are corrupt all possible benefit of the doubt is given. This is because the system relies on all parties accepting that the other people are honest brokers. This is of course not always the case but the justice system can survive bad actors. A breakdown from the basic premise that all arguments have to be examined on merit would destroy it.

On the subject of basic premises, I also want to say that if anybody finds "the rule of law" important, he or she has to realize that that comes at a cost. The cost is accepting that no matter your personal belief and in some cases near certainty of something, some clearly guilty will walk.

It takes zero conviction to believe in the rule of law when that law does stuff that you agree with. It takes a whole lot of courage to stick by the rule of law when it means your sense of fairness is shaken to its core. I believe that forgetting that lesson is at least partly the reason why the country is in the position now that a sizable portion of the population feels that no matter what the courts say about certain issues they can simply chalk it of to bias and continue trying to push through their will. It is by the way also the main premise of the OP.

leave it to 3 of the SCOTUS justices to vote on whether or not a pardon is issued.

I think that is a bad idea. The role of SCOTUS judges is to apply the law. You are asking them to simultaneously be in charge of making judgement calls on the fairness of the laws. I think that would be very compromising to their position that as I said is based on the premise that they judge in good faith. A pardon is a political act, judges are not supposed to show a bias to what laws they agree or disagree with.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is not hyperbole if it is proven true

It isn't.

 

[rightwinger]

It isn't.

Trump has been getting away with shit his whole life

That is why he made the Firth Avenue brag

 

[rightwinger]

You would prefer to pack it with people like you? Could you personally give him a fair trial?

The evidence is pretty cut and dry

Did he have classified documents and were they properly secured?

Not hard for a Jury to decide

 

[Seymour Flops]

The evidence is pretty cut and dry

Did he have classified documents and were they properly secured?

Not hard for a Jury to decide

At least one juror will say, "no, because he declassified them, and yes because they were in a secure building guarded by Secret Service."

Four is the most likely number who will say that, but it would only take one.

 

[rightwinger]

At least one juror will say, "no, because he declassified them, and yes because they were in a secure building guarded by Secret Service."

Four is the most likely number who will say that, but it would only take one.

And that is why I think no jury would ever convict Trump.
There will always be at least one juror who will blindly believe what Trump says regardless of the evidence to the contrary

 

[Correll]

The evidence is pretty cut and dry

Did he have classified documents and were they properly secured?

Not hard for a Jury to decide

And of course, you answer a question I did not ask you.

You are just a troll. Go away.