Rubber Chicken, the two wrongs vs right was not directed at you.
Maralago warrant and aftereffects --
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Hüsker Dü
DA
You are setting conditions for your approval that endanger agents and national security. Exactly what trump wants to happen. You are obviously siding with trump over a federal judge, the DOJ and the FBI while parroting trump talking points about how those are all tainted by politicization which he himself tried to do and now claims is the case. The tactics are obvious to those of us on the outside.
Again, you may feel you are a neutral, unbiased observer but your language says otherwise.
You were discussing some theoretical obligation of sitting presidents to use executive privilege to cover the ass of their predecessor.
Under that theory, why didn’t Trump assert executive privilege to cover Hillary’s ass?
Nothing about your theory said anything about which former executive official needed their ass covered, or why it needed covering.
Failed attempt #1- because hrc wasn’t president. Executive privilege applies to the whole branch, not just the person. This is why Trump had no problem asserting it on behalf of any number of his subordinates. If EP applies to Trump’s subordinates, then it also applies to Obama’s.
Failed attempt #2- because hrc didn’t have the power to declassify documents. Trump repeatedly asserted EP to shield subordinates, none of whom had the ability to declassify documents. Declassification authority is irrelevant. Presidents can, and do, assert EP on behalf of people who cannot classify or declassify documents.
So, why didn’t Trump assert EP to cover for Hillary? He knew how to assert it, and he apparently thinks it should be used to shield people who no longer have an executive branch role. If Biden is supposed to cover Trump’s ass, then why didn’t Trump cover Hillary’s?
If you say so.
Just out of curiosity (even though I might regret it), what are you on the "outside" of?
Just to settle a misconception that is being bandied about here -- Presidents have the authority to declassify documents in most cases, but it is not an absolute power. They must inform the managers of the information he has done it for bureaucratic reasons, and some documents require approval by other groups, such as nuclear weapons design information. locations of ballistic submarines, the identity of sources in other countries, etc. Declassifying documents in the manner described in the last few days is a fault that may be seen anywhere from just poor administration all the way to treason, depending on the material disclosed, the reason for disclosing it, and those who received it.
Multi Sport
DA
You haven't shown proof of any "Top Secret" documents that President Trump was not allowed to take with him. Your decision to believe an agency that already has personal that have disdain for the President only shows me your lack of understanding..
That's the bottom.line.
Do you realize that you are pursuing what is known as the "no true Scotsman" argument?
Pollo Elastico
BRONZE
Nope.
I was saying that Biden was talking about taking away the cover of executive privilege that Trump was claiming. This has never been done before.
Sitting Presidents don't do that. Especially to rivals who may run against them. Not sure why that concept for you is hard to understand. There are so many things the Ds have done outside of norms in an attempt to get T.
Why would he? She wasn't claiming any. And further she isn't a past president.
Obama didn't make the claim that she could have her own server and have documents. Not sure why this fact escapes you.
What is unprecedented is a sitting President taking away executive privilege claimed by a former President.
Last try. Trump didn't attempt to take away executive privilege asserted by the former admin. In this case it appears Biden did in order to allow the FBI to raid Trumps house.
Not sure why that rather big difference escapes you.
Pollo Elastico
BRONZE
What is interesting about dad, husker and espola is that you can tell by their responses they read/watch only one type of news source.
They are unaware of certain fact patterns and/or arguments for or against certain policies, etc.
They act surprised when they hear or read something they have not come across and immediately dismiss it. If the NY Times hasn't discussed it, it didnt happen or something.
Missing out on basic common knowledge. Like when dad said Clintons have been pretty good about accepting election outcomes. That shows a certain willful blindness. It takes all of a second to do a search and come across numerous examples. Or had you been exposed to other news sources you would have read or watched her make those statements countless times in the past.
Take the Mar A Lago stuff. It is clear dad, husker or espola haven't been exposed to legal and other commentary discussing the issues the feds may have in doing the raid and the possible defenses against what is claimed. In other words they dont have a rounded or nuanced view. It is not to say one side is right or wrong, time will tell. But to be informed one should look at a variety of sources and a variety of legal opinions regarding the latest. If one did, one wouldn't claim it is a slam dunk (dad saying the FBI said it was classified so there it must be and T is guilty).
It is like husker and espola loving the J6 hearings. They act like it was on the up and up. Their preferred sources didn't really touch on the fact that the Ds did not allow the R's to place their own people people in the hearings (as has always been done). Instead the Ds got a few Rs that dislike T and created a kangaroo court. If one has any sense in propriety and how things should be done, it should have been clear from the start these hearings were completely partisan in nature. But husker and espola read and watch their preferred news sources and those sources assured them that this time t would go down.
Kind of amazing to watch that one sidedness. But it happens, and it happens to people of either party. And the ones that agree with me on things but dont read/watch the other side, I tell them do do the same. Go out and get a more nuanced view of what is happening.
They are unaware of certain fact patterns and/or arguments for or against certain policies, etc.
They act surprised when they hear or read something they have not come across and immediately dismiss it. If the NY Times hasn't discussed it, it didnt happen or something.
Missing out on basic common knowledge. Like when dad said Clintons have been pretty good about accepting election outcomes. That shows a certain willful blindness. It takes all of a second to do a search and come across numerous examples. Or had you been exposed to other news sources you would have read or watched her make those statements countless times in the past.
Take the Mar A Lago stuff. It is clear dad, husker or espola haven't been exposed to legal and other commentary discussing the issues the feds may have in doing the raid and the possible defenses against what is claimed. In other words they dont have a rounded or nuanced view. It is not to say one side is right or wrong, time will tell. But to be informed one should look at a variety of sources and a variety of legal opinions regarding the latest. If one did, one wouldn't claim it is a slam dunk (dad saying the FBI said it was classified so there it must be and T is guilty).
It is like husker and espola loving the J6 hearings. They act like it was on the up and up. Their preferred sources didn't really touch on the fact that the Ds did not allow the R's to place their own people people in the hearings (as has always been done). Instead the Ds got a few Rs that dislike T and created a kangaroo court. If one has any sense in propriety and how things should be done, it should have been clear from the start these hearings were completely partisan in nature. But husker and espola read and watch their preferred news sources and those sources assured them that this time t would go down.
Kind of amazing to watch that one sidedness. But it happens, and it happens to people of either party. And the ones that agree with me on things but dont read/watch the other side, I tell them do do the same. Go out and get a more nuanced view of what is happening.
Not a fan of the Constitution's right to due process? I missed the part in the Constitution where due process was conditional. Don't worry you are in good company when it comes to your opinion of the Constitution.
Time and time again you seeing them basing their conclusions solely on the source and not the substance. Often times, not even looking at the information due to its source.
TDS
Hüsker Dü
DA
The legal process is my litmus test and you said yours would be “minimal redactions”.
Executive privilege is not inherent in any documents. It must be asserted. And it can only be asserted by a current President. This has been obscured to a degree because traditionally current presidents will assert it on behalf of former presidents as a courtesy and because in most cases they argue that the assertion is in the interests of the office of the presidency generally. There is in fact a formal process by which former presidents may object when efforts are made to obtain documents from their time in office. But, critically, those are actually requests to the current president and more specifically those working on his or her behalf. The current President makes the actual decision with his or her authority.
What Is Executive Privilege?
We're covering this in other pieces today. But I want to zoom in on the issue of executive privilege, which Trump's lawyers have repeatedly invoked in their latest court action. The filing has been…
talkingpointsmemo.com
Projecting once again.....
Pollo Elastico
BRONZE
This one is for dad.
How testing is done in NY.
medium.com
How testing is done in NY.
Guessing C For Every Answer Is Now Enough To Pass The New York State Algebra Exam
My student, River, spent more time in the courtroom than the classroom last year. One Friday night in September, a drunk friend called and…
medium.com
Perhaps dad4 suffers from the same comprehension problems as daffy...
There is a reason it seems unprecedented.
It has been a long time since anyone was stupid enough to try claiming that executive privilege granted some kind of immunity to former officials.
I think the last time was Nixon in 1974. He got laughed at, too.
Changing the topic because it's hard to explain why Trump had top secret documents in his closet?This one is for dad.
How testing is done in NY.
Guessing C For Every Answer Is Now Enough To Pass The New York State Algebra Exam
My student, River, spent more time in the courtroom than the classroom last year. One Friday night in September, a drunk friend called and…
From today's news, it appears that he not only had top secret documents in his closet, but he knew he did because he went through them personally when deciding which documents to return on the several visits by representatives of the National Archives. If true, that would mean his fingerprints are literally all over them.