Trump's safe...

Clong83a

I.T.S. Senior
Nov 15, 2014
1,020
925
113
Thats the rumor that the libstream is circluating.. he sold nuke stuff to the Saudis to get LIV Tyler to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses..

I dont consider myself a Trumpist.. but i know a political hit job when I see one..

Its too bad Biden doesnt have someone with Che Gueveras balls to do his dirty work.. instead he has that mouse Garland. Che would deal with the opposition.
He may have done wrong without doing that specifically, but it’s nice to know he’s completely innocent in your mind.

If he has nuke documents in his house for any reason, he is and ought to be in serious trouble.

And before you go there, because Trump is already claiming it: the FBI can’t plant those. They don’t have the proper clearance to access those docs. You‘d need a Q cleared person from the DoE. And now you are talking about a massive conspiracy and coverup from the DoJ that is completely intractable and extremely risky. Occam’s razor applies.
 

noble cane

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Feb 25, 2002
8,759
2,619
113
He may have done wrong without doing that specifically, but it’s nice to know he’s completely innocent in your mind.

If he has nuke documents in his house for any reason, he is and ought to be in serious trouble.

And before you go there, because Trump is already claiming it: the FBI can’t plant those. They don’t have the proper clearance to access those docs. You‘d need a Q cleared person from the DoE. And now you are talking about a massive conspiracy and coverup from the DoJ that is completely intractable and extremely risky. Occam’s razor applies.
I never said he was innocent (everyone is guilty of something)... just, i know a political hit job..

Last Occam that I knew had a full beard...
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,409
8,358
113
The Democratic Q rumor mill is just that, a rumor mill. Seriously doubt that goes anywhere, or holds any merit. That junk is just muddying the waters.

But him having highly classified documents at this point, does have merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a

Clong83a

I.T.S. Senior
Nov 15, 2014
1,020
925
113

He had SCI documents at his home according to the warrant. Whatever the subject of that document was, that is about as bad as it gets for him. It’s the highest level of classification in top secret (TS), and also has the most restrictive category of SCI.

If that is true then nobody should defend him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05 and TU 1978

TU 1978

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2009
10,495
3,797
113
Investigation for Espionage Act Violations. What a surprise.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,262
5,628
113
How ironic would it be for Trump to be charged with a felony for removing classified docs. An act which wasn’t necessarily a felony until 2018…when he signed it into law. So after years of investigations, his own law finally gets him and prevents a 2024 run. Now the top secret docs may pose a different problem if there were any.
 

TU 1978

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2009
10,495
3,797
113
How ironic would it be for Trump to be charged with a felony for removing classified docs. An act which wasn’t necessarily a felony until 2018…when he signed it into law. So after years of investigations, his own law finally gets him and prevents a 2024 run. Now the top secret docs may pose a different problem if there were any.
10+ years in prison can give him some time for reflection.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,262
5,628
113
10+ years in prison can give him some time for reflection.
Yeah…not sure what the elements are to be convicted under the Espionage act. Would assume there must be an act to transmit the classified material to a third party. Maybe the reckless storage like we saw from Hillary? Going to be interesting. Curious to see exactly what he had in the house.

Garland said yesterday that the warrant was narrow in scope. Reading the warrant this does not appear to be true. They were authorized to seize anything government related during his time as President.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,167
628
113
la la land
Haven’t yet heard of the (formerly) high ranking Dem that allegedly has nuclear secrets at their home for no apparent reason.

That‘s the rumor on Trump. If true (and yes, it is still an if at this point), that is leagues away from anything anyone has ever done before outside of out and out espionage.

I might comment further about his ’unclassification’ powers if it comes to that and he tries to lean on it. It will depend what really was in those documents. He does have say so, but it’s not a get out of jail free card. If the stuff is obviously highly sensitive, and he never bothered to have classification guidance manuals changed to reflect his new decree on how to classify something, then the information is still classified. And if he merely ‘unclassified’ a classified document because he can, even if the information is actually still classified, then he needs to change the markings on the documents or it didn‘t happen. And intentionally misclassifying a document (deeming it unclassified when it in fact is clearly not) is also a crime, so that’s not a perfect defense either.

It would seem he didn’t do either. That said, as I said before, it is kind of an untested legal gray area when POTUS is involved. If it is something rather mundane, he probably comes out okay, even if it is still something that would get me fired and maybe thrown in prison. If not, he has real exposure here.

I will also point out that unlike what his toady said to the press, there are very few things involving nuclear secrets that are ‘no big deal’. True, you could maybe find some things out on your own with a computer, but you wouldn’t be able to verify it and there is also a lot of erroneous information out there too. So it matters. And there is a LOT more than that that you’d never find on the internet.
no have you heard of the fake dossier presented to the court. 4 times.
have you seen that hrc lost 30,000 emsils, distroyed computer hardware, have you seen that hunter biden received million for the big. guy, or the clintion foundation payto play while hrc was ussos. numerous dem congress members are in default on their taxes. shumer advocated for people to break the law the presure judges to change a
court decision.
 

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,011
172
63
Restoring documents is a separate crime, so once he took the documents he was is a catch 22. Can’t admit he has them and can’t get caught destroying them.

Also no way he did this alone. Fall guys and tipsters TBD?
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,167
628
113
la la land
The past 6 years have made me highly skeptical anything comes of this and sticks to Trump. Hoping at the least he is disqualified from running in 2024. Again….skeptical.
why didnt they take the document when they were made available a few months ago?
 

TU 1978

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2009
10,495
3,797
113
I’m interested in the $2 billion investment Jared received from the Saudis. I’m sure they didn’t do it out of the goodness in their hearts.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,208
5,413
113
Yeah…not sure what the elements are to be convicted under the Espionage act. Would assume there must be an act to transmit the classified material to a third party. Maybe the reckless storage like we saw from Hillary? Going to be interesting. Curious to see exactly what he had in the house.

Garland said yesterday that the warrant was narrow in scope. Reading the warrant this does not appear to be true. They were authorized to seize anything government related during his time as President.
So in this quote we have some "what-about-ism" we have some downplay on severity.

I think what we've all learned is that the federal archivists are not to be screwed around with. They're librarians with attitude.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,208
5,413
113
the government doesnt archive documents,?
digital or photo copy?
I’m sure they do for many. I wouldnt be surprised if some were exceptionally sensitive and dont get photo copied. Specifically top secret ones. The more copies you have the easier they become to lose track of.
 

Clong83a

I.T.S. Senior
Nov 15, 2014
1,020
925
113
I’m sure they do for many. I wouldnt be surprised if some were exceptionally sensitive and dont get photo copied. Specifically top secret ones. The more copies you have the easier they become to lose track of.
This. If it is a highly sensitive document, then the photocopy of it is also a highly sensitive document that is held accountable. You don't get to photocopy it and call it good because the original was returned. You've just created a new accountable document that needs to be returned.

A lot is being made of whether or not Trump actually declassified anything, which is likely what he will argue when the time comes. He will say, "I didn't have anything classified because I declassified it!". He did have very broad powers to declassify things, but he still has to change the markings or legally, it is not declassified. He didn't do that. But it creates a weird enough gray area since he was POTUS that he could probably just get away with it if it were something mundane. It is still obnoxious and weaselly though.

It's worth mentioning that although the POTUS's power to declassify is broader than anyone else in DC, it is not absolute. There are certain topics that have their classification level codified into law by Congress, rather than being up to the executive branch. That includes nuclear weapons information, which he CANNOT declassify without an accompanying act of congress, at least by my understanding. So again, it really depends on what the heck was in those documents.

And if his defense is ignorance because he didn't know he couldn't declassify certain highly senstive information, I can only respond by saying that it is an extremely good example of why he shouldn't have ever been president to begin with.
 

rusty-c

I.T.S. Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Dec 28, 2009
3,189
2,035
113
There is a great deal that we won't know about until it is spelled out and disseminated to the public. I'll have an continue to have an open mind, and will continue to side with Trump until it is proven that he acted nefariously. At that point he deserves the consequences of his actions. In my mind it's the way we all should be treated no matter party, gender, status, or the pigment of ones skin. If wrong has been done then it should be punished in a fair, firm, and consistent manner (I know, only in a dream world). Regardless, this entire situation wreaks of partisan grandstanding and theater where trusted institutions are being utilized to destroy political enemies.

In the case of actors such as HRC, and in kind the Clinton Foundation, they were clearly profiting from the access position, insight, and power the office held provided. We can look at the annual reports of the Clinton Foundation and it is clear that massive donations ceased when HRC's influence and access were cut off. The Biden's are a completely different animal all together. With the Bidens a case can be made that there is clear evidence of influence peddling by Hunter Biden, his uncle, and likely POTUS.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,409
8,358
113
There is a great deal that we won't know about until it is spelled out and disseminated to the public. I'll have an continue to have an open mind, and will continue to side with Trump until it is proven that he acted nefariously. At that point he deserves the consequences of his actions. In my mind it's the way we all should be treated no matter party, gender, status, or the pigment of ones skin. If wrong has been done then it should be punished in a fair, firm, and consistent manner (I know, only in a dream world). Regardless, this entire situation wreaks of partisan grandstanding and theater where trusted institutions are being utilized to destroy political enemies.

In the case of actors such as HRC, and in kind the Clinton Foundation, they were clearly profiting from the access position, insight, and power the office held provided. We can look at the annual reports of the Clinton Foundation and it is clear that massive donations ceased when HRC's influence and access were cut off. The Biden's are a completely different animal all together. With the Bidens a case can be made that there is clear evidence of influence peddling by Hunter Biden, his uncle, and likely POTUS.
He was given multiple opportunities to turn over all documents and it took a surprise search warrant to get them all turned over unwillingly. It's only a matter of how nefarious his actions were, not an issue of whether they were or weren't.
 

drboobay

I.T.S. University President
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
9,751
4,879
113
There is a great deal that we won't know about until it is spelled out and disseminated to the public. I'll have an continue to have an open mind, and will continue to side with Trump until it is proven that he acted nefariously. At that point he deserves the consequences of his actions. In my mind it's the way we all should be treated no matter party, gender, status, or the pigment of ones skin. If wrong has been done then it should be punished in a fair, firm, and consistent manner (I know, only in a dream world). Regardless, this entire situation wreaks of partisan grandstanding and theater where trusted institutions are being utilized to destroy political enemies.

In the case of actors such as HRC, and in kind the Clinton Foundation, they were clearly profiting from the access position, insight, and power the office held provided. We can look at the annual reports of the Clinton Foundation and it is clear that massive donations ceased when HRC's influence and access were cut off. The Biden's are a completely different animal all together. With the Bidens a case can be made that there is clear evidence of influence peddling by Hunter Biden, his uncle, and likely POTUS.
I am in accordance to a degree but neglect can be criminal too. Not just nefarious intent.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,208
5,413
113
There is a great deal that we won't know about until it is spelled out and disseminated to the public. I'll have an continue to have an open mind, and will continue to side with Trump until it is proven that he acted nefariously. At that point he deserves the consequences of his actions. In my mind it's the way we all should be treated no matter party, gender, status, or the pigment of ones skin. If wrong has been done then it should be punished in a fair, firm, and consistent manner (I know, only in a dream world). Regardless, this entire situation wreaks of partisan grandstanding and theater where trusted institutions are being utilized to destroy political enemies.

In the case of actors such as HRC, and in kind the Clinton Foundation, they were clearly profiting from the access position, insight, and power the office held provided. We can look at the annual reports of the Clinton Foundation and it is clear that massive donations ceased when HRC's influence and access were cut off. The Biden's are a completely different animal all together. With the Bidens a case can be made that there is clear evidence of influence peddling by Hunter Biden, his uncle, and likely POTUS.
”I think everyone should be innocent Until proven guilty…. As long as it’s my token Republican and not Hillary Clinton.… clearly she was guilty and benefited from her position…. “


gross.
 

Clong83a

I.T.S. Senior
Nov 15, 2014
1,020
925
113
There is a great deal that we won't know about until it is spelled out and disseminated to the public. I'll have an continue to have an open mind, and will continue to side with Trump until it is proven that he acted nefariously. At that point he deserves the consequences of his actions. In my mind it's the way we all should be treated no matter party, gender, status, or the pigment of ones skin. If wrong has been done then it should be punished in a fair, firm, and consistent manner (I know, only in a dream world). Regardless, this entire situation wreaks of partisan grandstanding and theater where trusted institutions are being utilized to destroy political enemies.

In the case of actors such as HRC, and in kind the Clinton Foundation, they were clearly profiting from the access position, insight, and power the office held provided. We can look at the annual reports of the Clinton Foundation and it is clear that massive donations ceased when HRC's influence and access were cut off. The Biden's are a completely different animal all together. With the Bidens a case can be made that there is clear evidence of influence peddling by Hunter Biden, his uncle, and likely POTUS.
I get it. But there has been a clear escalation in recent years. Influence peddling should certainly be prosecuted as well. Maybe they didn't have a good case, or maybe they know more than we do and didn't think she was guilty. Or maybe you are right and she was very guilty but the DoJ gave her a lot of leeway given her public profile. I dunno.

But in any case, taking home TS/SCI information, or nuclear weapons information as some kind of a souvenir is a line too far, and is clearly provable.

Anyways, this type of escalation has to stop at some point. We've been dealing for decades now with "Yeah, but Bill Clinton committed perjury." "Yeah, but Reagan had Iran-Contra!" "Yeah, but Barack Obama...", "Yeah, but Bush II..."

If crimes go unpunished by the most powerful, they will continue to escalate and somebody will soon be defending a future POTUS by saying, "Yeah, but Trump took home nuclear secrets and nothing happened, so President SomeGuy is in tested waters here!"

You have to start enforcing the law somewhere, or it becomes precedent, not exceptionally bad behavior.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,409
8,358
113
Securing Secret Documents is the responsibility of a Secure Document Custodian. This person did not do his job
When you ask for documents three or four times,(politely and by subpoena) and are only given part of the documents in small batches each time, what choice do you have left. Only two other presidents made the government resort to a subpoena for 'documents' besides Trump.

Thomas Jefferson was subpoenaed for materials that he at first refused to give.(to be used in the treason trial of Aaron Burr) He then gave over part of the requested materials. Nixon was subpoenaed for audio tape 'documents' and resigned. But neither of those 'document' collections were Classified material.

What was the Secure Document Custodian supposed to do after having the subpoena issued? Karate chop Trump until he submitted? He/she does not have the tools available to force the President. It must then be taken to another agency, notably the DOJ. He/she must go to the DOJ for the subpoena, and then if necessary the DOJ must issue a search warrant. You act like he didn't do his job, when he did.

Only three Presidents have forced a subpoena for documents.

Only one had classified materials, and forced a search warrant. Every other president has complied.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,262
5,628
113
Do we have the list of the classified docs which were retrieved from Trump’s house ?
 

Clong83a

I.T.S. Senior
Nov 15, 2014
1,020
925
113
i worked dod with top secret clarence.
Cool. I work DoE with a Q.

If the POTUS came to me and I was showing him some documents out of my safe, am I supposed to say "No" to the POTUS when he says he wants to take them to his office and will return them later? What am I supposed to do? Who has the power in that situation?

No, they aren't supposed to leave the limited area without precautions, but he's the freakin' POTUS and I am just a salaried fed contractor. I can inform him of his responsibilities in transferring them, but I am not law enforcement.

If someone takes documents and does an improper hand carry between secure sites, that is NOT on me, that is on whomever took responsibility for them when I gave it to them. Much less if they didn't even go to another secure site, but went to someone's freakin' house. I would of course report the "transfer" immediately to my superiors after the documents left, but that's about as far as anyone would hold me accountable.

And if he leaves my office and they were never returned, and I have reported it and the DoJ or the IG starts an investigation into the location of the missing documents, determines that the (now former) POTUS still has them, and actually has them at his house, and asks nicely for them back, and he refuses, how is that my fault? And when they subpeona him to give them back and he refuses? And when they ultimately have to issue a search warrant to get them back because he was non-cooperative?

Yeah, go ahead and try to shift the blame to the guy who failed to karate chop and drag the POTUS back into the vault.

EDIT:

Your defense of Trump here is along these lines: "The buck stops not with Trump, but with that civil servant over there. He should have known Trump was going to mishandle TS information before he gave it to him. The buck never stops with Trump!"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: watu05 and drboobay

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,011
172
63
What I don't get is that people watch everyone who does Trumps' bidding end up in jail or being cast aside like something stuck on the bottom of his shoe, and they go along with it over and over. Cohen, Guilianni, most of his initial cabinet, his early group of advisors have all been tossed aside like garbage or had to be pardonned . No one's reputation has been enhanced by dealing with him and after he tosses them aside, his followers continue to harrass or threaten them (aka Pence).

Clong's example above is just one more episode of Trump's sad, desperate efforts to blame someone else to cover up his breaking the law. But his backers don't care. It is truly amazing.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,167
628
113
la la land
Cool. I work DoE with a Q.

If the POTUS came to me and I was showing him some documents out of my safe, am I supposed to say "No" to the POTUS when he says he wants to take them to his office and will return them later? What am I supposed to do? Who has the power in that situation?

No, they aren't supposed to leave the limited area without precautions, but he's the freakin' POTUS and I am just a salaried fed contractor. I can inform him of his responsibilities in transferring them, but I am not law enforcement.

If someone takes documents and does an improper hand carry between secure sites, that is NOT on me, that is on whomever took responsibility for them when I gave it to them. Much less if they didn't even go to another secure site, but went to someone's freakin' house. I would of course report the "transfer" immediately to my superiors after the documents left, but that's about as far as anyone would hold me accountable.

And if he leaves my office and they were never returned, and I have reported it and the DoJ or the IG starts an investigation into the location of the missing documents, determines that the (now former) POTUS still has them, and actually has them at his house, and asks nicely for them back, and he refuses, how is that my fault? And when they subpeona him to give them back and he refuses? And when they ultimately have to issue a search warrant to get them back because he was non-cooperative?

Yeah, go ahead and try to shift the blame to the guy who failed to karate chop and drag the POTUS back into the vault.

EDIT:

Your defense of Trump here is along these lines: "The buck stops not with Trump, but with that civil servant over there. He should have known Trump was going to mishandle TS information before he gave it to him. The buck never stops with Trump!"
i am not defenfing trump, i am adding information that the journalists fail to.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,262
5,628
113
So they released the affidavit they used to get the warrant but redacted all information related to probable cause for the warrant ?
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,262
5,628
113
I know you know that info would have given away witnesses and future efforts to prosecute.
Redact the names then? They redacted absolutely everything which was used to get the warrant. Which is fine but then what is the point of releasing the affidavit ?

I still remain skeptical of a prosecution and conviction btw.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,409
8,358
113
Redact the names then? They redacted absolutely everything which was used to get the warrant. Which is fine but then what is the point of releasing the affidavit ?

I still remain skeptical of a prosecution and conviction btw.
When they give activities and substantial knowledge the person had, it is probably fairly easy for Trump and his legal team to figure out who the people and prosecutions would be, even minus the names. As an attorney I would think you would be aware of this.
 

Latest posts