# Well, this is interesting!



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

I find this so funny. Apparently the mar-a-lago document seizure was of empty folders. Whatever the truth is....this is amusing.


Trump Having 48 Empty 'Classified' Folders at Mar-a-Lago Raises Suspicion


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Amusing that he may have sold contents? Given them away? They might have been stolen? Did he misplace them? Did he stuff them in his mattress? 

What is so funny? Funny all the time and money that is being expended to recover these and find out what really happened to them?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Amusing that he may have sold contents? Given them away? They might have been stolen? Did he misplace them? Did he stuff them in his mattress?
> 
> What is so funny? Funny all the time and money that is being expended to recover these and find out what really happened to them?


So you still believe the FBI's story?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I sure don't believe Trump's 10 or so changing stories.


----------



## Nightstang (5 mo ago)

I find it incredible that evidence does not carry ANY weight with some people. No amount of proof or evidence will convince them. Willingly being ignorant is dangerous.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

painterswife said:


> Amusing that he may have sold contents? Given them away? They might have been stolen? Did he misplace them? Did he stuff them in his mattress?
> 
> What is so funny? Funny all the time and money that is being expended to recover these and find out what really happened to them?


If nothing else, it's funny that he has that much power over your thoughts and ideas.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

RJ2019 said:


> If nothing else, it's funny that he has that much power over your thoughts and ideas.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

10,000 government documents isn't all that funny.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

The whole thing stinks of planted “evidence”, especially since none of the family or staff were allowed to observe the search and the FBI made them turn off the security cameras.(From what I’ve seen reported anyway)


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The security cameras were turned off for a very short period of time. Trump and his family watched most of the entire search. That is according to Trump himself but then again he lied about even having the documents and then admitted they were there in this week's court documents.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

If the folders said classified on them and he de-classified the info, well then the stuff wouldn't belong in those folders anymore would it? It's perfectly logical to me. 🙄


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Did he declassify them? Even Barr finds that laughable.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565770780318769152


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

If any executive branch agency can classify or declassify its own documents... and if a President has ultimate charge of the operations of said agencies... by fiat, said President can classify or declassify documents/information. There may be rule and procedures in place but... the executive (aka the President) also has the power to add/change/remove said rules and procedures. That is of course subject to any codified laws.

Having said that, I have yet to see, nor can I find any actual law that bars the President from executing his executive powers... can anybody show me one???

As to the tweet... whether a citizen thinks the reason to is legitimate or not does not make it illegal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

They were not his documents. That was wrong in the first place. If there were sensitive national security documents (classified or not) that is even worse.

Obstruction is illegal.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

To be honest I have a lot more respect for Barr on this issue than anyone. He's in wait and see mode, and so that's where I'm at. Even if all Trump did was refuse to follow protocol like a petulant little brat, he deserves some kind of consequence. But I would still love to have one person point to the exact protocol. Really. I'm not being snarky.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

painterswife said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565770780318769152


I’m guessing that there was no legitimate reason for Clinton to have 30,000 classified emails on a server in her bathroom then eh?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> They were not his documents. That was wrong in the first place. If there were sensitive national security documents (classified or not) that is even worse.
> 
> Obstruction is illegal.


Every bit of work product, i.e.. documents produced by the executive branch agencies do, in effect, belong to the Executive overseeing/controlling those agencies... why do you think they have been using lawsuits to try to reclaim them. While they may not belong to him personally... they are under his command and control. They finally found a judge and a contorted way to get a search warrant... but that will be ruled unconstitutional and possibly outright illegal in the near future.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

Ahhh, the whataboutit defense.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

homesteadforty said:


> Every bit of work product, i.e.. documents produced by the executive branch agencies do, in effect, belong to the Executive overseeing/controlling those agencies... why do you think they have been using lawsuits to try to reclaim them. While they may not belong to him personally... they are under his command and control. They finally found a judge and a contorted way to get a search warrant... but that will be ruled unconstitutional and possibly outright illegal in the near future.


The second he left office, ALL those documents and records belonged to the National Archives.
Not him, not his advisors, not his lawyers.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

Nightstang said:


> I find it incredible that evidence does not carry ANY weight with some people. No amount of proof or evidence will convince them. Willingly being ignorant is dangerous.


I keep an open mind.
But, as you noticed, there are the True Believers.


----------



## harrylee (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> The security cameras were turned off for a very short period of time.


Why were they turned off at all?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Every bit of work product, i.e.. documents produced by the executive branch agencies do, in effect, belong to the Executive overseeing/controlling those agencies... why do you think they have been using lawsuits to try to reclaim them. While they may not belong to him personally... they are under his command and control. They finally found a judge and a contorted way to get a search warrant... but that will be ruled unconstitutional and possibly outright illegal in the near future.


What? He is no longer the President. He has no right to them now. Of course they got a search warrant. They were lied to. They had proof that he still had documents he had no right to have.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

wiscto said:


> But I would still love to have one person point to the exact protocol.


Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but if I'm not mistaken, Obama's executive order 13526 covers that topic and is still in effect.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Big_Al said:


> The second he left office, ALL *those documents and records belonged to the National Archives.*
> Not him, not his advisors, not his lawyers.





painterswife said:


> What? He is no longer the President. *He has no right to them now.* Of course they got a search warrant. They were lied to. They had proof that he still had documents he had no right to have.


True but that is not what they're contending... the warrant was predicated on him having _classified_ documents. Which, if he has the authority to declassify, he did not have _classified_ documents. At worst he may be found to have mishandle declassified documents by not sending them to the National Archives... but as far as I know that is not criminal and therefore the warrant was invalid.

I'm no expert on this stuff but it'll be interesting to see if I understand as well as I think I do  .


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> True but that is not what they're contending... the warrant was predicated on him having _classified_ documents. Which, if he has the authority to declassify, he did not have _classified_ documents. At worst he may be found to have mishandle declassified documents by not sending them to the National Archives... but as far as I know that is not criminal and therefore the warrant was invalid.
> 
> I'm no expert on this stuff but it'll be interesting to see if I understand as well as I think I do  .


No , the warrant mentioned nothing about classified documents. Your information is incorrect.

Correcting my post. It included the words government documents.

That means all documents that were property of the government. Classified or not.
Below is the wording in the actual affidavit. 
1. The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper
removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful
concealment or removal of govermnent records. The investigation began as a result of a referral
the United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) sent to the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) on Febmary 9, 2022, hereinafter, "NARA Referra"


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but if I'm not mistaken, Obama's executive order 13526 covers that topic and is still in effect.


Can executive orders of a prior president override a new presidents constitution authorities and duties??? _(legitimate question... not being snarky)_


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

This isn't going to be funny if he still has the contents of those folders. And less funny if he has sold them or passed them on to our enemies.

And it doesn't matter if the docs were classified. Still illegal for him to have them. 

Lock him up. Lock him up. Or something akin to what his minions were chanting in 2016.

He is a crazy Benedict Arnold who will take conservatism down with him. Ditch him, keep the policies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I wonder when they will be searching his other homes?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> No , the warrant mentioned nothing about classified documents. Your information is incorrect.
> 
> Correcting my post. It included the words government documents.
> 
> That means all documents that were property of the government. Classified or not.


There's the little bugger... buried all the way down on page 1, sec. 1. Of course there are several other mentions of classified materials throughout the unredacted parts of the affidavit... of course that doesn't take the redacted parts... hard to tell what's in there.

"The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces"

The words "government documents" is proceeded by the term "as well as'... which, in case you don't know, means in addition to.

So... they were looking for "classified" documents... in addition to whatever else they might find. BTW... they would have never obtained a warrant without \the implication that there were classified documents involved.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

I've read that executive order in the past.

This stands out in the order and quashes all the arguments that even if he declassified them he has a right to them.

From the order:
(c) An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency's control or direct that information be declassified in order to remove it from agency control.

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> There's the little bugger... buried all the way down on page 1, sec. 1. Of course there are several other mentions of classified materials throughout the unredacted parts of the affidavit... of course that doesn't take the redacted parts... hard to tell what's in there.
> 
> "The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces"
> 
> ...


There were looking for all documents. None of those documents were his to have. It is illegal for him to have them and he lied about having them. Classified or not.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

nodak3 said:


> And it doesn't matter if the docs were classified. Still illegal for him to have them.


It is not "illegal" for him to have declassified documents. It may be against procedure or department policy... but that does not make it illegal.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

robin416 said:


> (d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.


 And who has the _ultimate_ authority to give that authorization???


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> It is not "illegal" for him to have unclassified documents. It may be against procedure or department policy... but that does not make it illegal.


Yes, it is. They are the property of the US government . He is no longer the President. There are not his and he him signed the law that made it a felony with steeper consequences.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Time for another.....


an oldie but a goody...


*Word of the Day*

obtuse

ob·tuse
/əbˈto͞os,äbˈto͞os/
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...2ahUKEwj60uOqhPf5AhWFlIkEHcvEBncQ3eEDegQIAhAK

_adjective_


1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the poster was being deliberately obtuse"


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

homesteadforty said:


> And who has the _ultimate_ authority to give that authorization???


The agency that caused it to be classified.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Yes, it is. They are the property of the US government . He is no longer the President. There are not his and he him signed the law that made it a felony with steeper consequences.


So, you have seen the actual law somewhere... I've searched but can't find anything in written "law" that applies.

As per your established m.o. I know you won't post a link but it sure would prove me wrong if you did.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

robin416 said:


> The agency that caused it to be classified.


But who has ultimate authority over that agency???


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> So, you have seen the actual law somewhere... I've searched but can't find anything in written "law" that applies.
> 
> As per your established m.o. I know you won't post a link but it sure would prove me wrong if you did.


Nasty post from you but here you go.





Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) of 1974


Presidential Libraries Act Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) of 1974 Presidential Historical Materials are covered by PRMPA.




www.archives.gov










Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978


The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...




www.archives.gov





"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Nasty post from you but here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to be having problems with first sentences today...

*Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) of 1974*
*Presidential Libraries Act*

Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) of 1974
Presidential Historical Materials are covered by PRMPA.

 Learn more about Laws & Regulations
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA),* which applies only to the Nixon Presidential Materials*

_(bold added for emphasis)_


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> You seem to be having problems with first sentences today...
> 
> *Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) of 1974*
> *Presidential Libraries Act*
> ...


Go ahead keep reading and then get back to me.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

homesteadforty said:


> But who has ultimate authority over that agency???


No need to answer your question since painterswife provided the answer in her links.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Go ahead keep reading and then get back to me.


I see tons of references to Nixon and his administration... but still nothing about it applying to subsequent administrations. I'll admit that I've only skimmed the information in the last hour or so but since you so obviously have read it you could be a doll and post the section you think applies.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

robin416 said:


> No need to answer your question since painterswife provided the answer in her links.


If you're believing @painterswifes prattle there's not much I can say to help.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

I'm not bailing out but advance notice... I've got to run at 6:00!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

All the info is right there.



painterswife said:


> Nasty post from you but here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> If you're believing @painterswifes prattle there's not much I can say to help.


Why do you get nasty when you are proven wrong? Trying to get the thread tossed or closed?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Again for those who missed it the first time.






Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978


The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...




www.archives.gov





Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Can executive orders of a prior president override a new presidents constitution authorities and duties??? _(legitimate question... not being snarky)_


No, the new president can revoke them any time. But Trump didn't. The federal government is supposed to follow the orders until they're revoked.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Big_Al said:


> The second he left office, ALL those documents and records belonged to the National Archives.
> Not him, not his advisors, not his lawyers.


Not if they were copies of documents he declassified.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Why do you get nasty when you are proven wrong? Trying to get the thread tossed or closed?


Good God woman... I AM NOT GOING THRU THIS AGAIN WITH YOU... and you wonder why I used the terms prattle and obtuse?????????????


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Good God woman... I AM NOT GOING THRU THIS AGAIN WITH YOU... and you wonder why I used the terms prattle and obtuse?????????????


Then stop be nasty when you are proven wrong.


----------



## Pobept75 (6 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Amusing that he may have sold contents? Given them away? They might have been stolen? Did he misplace them? Did he stuff them in his mattress?
> 
> What is so funny? Funny all the time and money that is being expended to recover these and find out what really happened to them?


The sad part is all the attacks on Trump over documents that as president had the authority to declassify.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> No, the new president can revoke them any time. But Trump didn't. The federal government is supposed to follow the orders until they're revoked.


I agree that the federal government should follow them if legal, but I can't see how a prior President can put any type of constraint on a future president. For example, if the president signs an EO stating the government will not deport illegal aliens unless convicted of a felony crime, the future president's administration would honor it until it was rescinded.

But President A can not sign an EO that says President B cannot rescind the prior EO on the deportation of illegal aliens. Obama "wrote" a presidential policy for classifying/declassifying documents, but I seriously doubt if it is binding on Trump. A President gets his authority from the Constitution, not a prior President's EO or some act passed by Congress.

I don't think the FBI and DOJ really want this going to the Supreme Court.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Big_Al said:


> I keep an open mind.
> But, as you noticed, there are the True Believers.


No, you don't and you prove it here all the time.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't think the FBI and DOJ really want this going to the Supreme Court.


Won't need to after Trump reveals he made a verbal executive order revoking Obama's. Problem solved!


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Then stop be nasty when you are proven wrong.


I've yet to be proven wrong. I've downloaded pdfs to read more thoroughly but it's still an open question. Maybe if you had an _inkling of credibility_ I would concede... but since you don't... I won't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> I've yet to be proven wrong. I've downloaded pdfs to read more thoroughly but it's still an open question. Maybe if you had an _inkling of credibility_ I would concede... but since you don't... I won't.


Nasty again because I provided proof that you were wrong.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

homesteadforty said:


> Good God woman... I AM NOT GOING THRU THIS AGAIN WITH YOU... and you wonder why I used the terms prattle and obtuse?????????????


Honestly, I would expect no less. You gotta admit, at least she's consistent.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Won't need to after Trump reveals he made a verbal executive order revoking Obama's. Problem solved!


I don't think he had to. Obama didn't have the authority to control in any way a future president. I don't think an EO should survive a President's term, but that's an argument for another day. I'm saying that an EO sets the policy for the Executive branch, not the President. Since the President gets his authority from the Constitution, neither a prior president nor Congress can place any limits on it.

That's why I think with this Supreme Court, the FBI and DOJ really don't want Trump fighting this out in court. They think they can destroy his chance to be president again by tying him in legal knots for the next year.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Since there is so much rampant speculation going on, I’m going to take liberties and issue mine. This prediction is an open invitation to a bet, and I will entertain all proposed terms:

1- the majority (or at least plurality) topic of the documents Trump had were relating to Russiagate and the weaponization of the DOJ under a Democrat administration.

2- Trump declassified them before leaving office.

3- The documents from the recorded-empty folders were handed over to a lawyer for safe-keeping under attorney-client privilege.

4- they were originals, not copies, because Trump knew the Democrat-partisan DOJ was so dirty that they couldn’t be trusted not to preempt his bombshell reveal with a modified/falsified set that cast doubt on the copies Trump released.


Any takers?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Since there is so much rampant speculation going on, I’m going to take liberties and issue mine. This prediction is an open invitation to a bet, and I will entertain all proposed terms:
> 
> 1- the majority (or at least plurality) topic of the documents Trump had were relating to Russiagate and the weaponization of the DOJ under a Democrat administration.
> 
> ...


Do any of those points (true or false) change that he has no right to retain government documents after he leaves office?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Do any of those points (true or false) change that he has no right to retain government documents after he leaves office?


#4 would, if I’m wrong. If he declassified them, and then took only copies, then they wouldn’t be government property.

But that one is beside the point. My predicting why Trump may have broken the law doesn’t imply my dismissal of that possibility. If he broke the law, he should be prosecuted appropriately to the severity of the crime. If I’m right about #2, then the crime he was guilty of would be a very minor one.

If I’m right about #1, but not #2, then what he did still pales in comparison to what Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are guilty of and dodged prosecution because of the biased corruption of the DOJ.

If I’m right about #1, but not #2, I will pick you up every morning, hot cup of Timmy’s and whatever slop you Canadians eat with it in the morning, in hand, and drive you to the Trump trials every day of the proceedings… so long as that trial takes place after Clinton’s classified materials breech trial, and Biden’s international bribery trial.

Deal?
Which items do you want to take me up on and what are your proposed terms of the bet?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> #4 would, if I’m wrong. If he declassified them, and then took only copies, then they wouldn’t be government property.
> 
> But that one is beside the point. My predicting why Trump may have broken the law doesn’t imply my dismissal of that possibility. If he broke the law, he should be prosecuted appropriately to the severity of the crime. If I’m right about #2, then the crime he was guilty of would be a very minor one.
> 
> ...


They are all possible. I however don't think any of them change the fact that it was illegal to take them after he left office, illegal to keep them, illegal to lie about returning everything. 

Obstruction and lying is what will get him charged. I did not believe he would be charged at all until his public statements about the situation this week, and the sheer volume of documents that were seized after they said everything was returned was revealed this week. Now I think he just might be charged.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

The FIB just wanted to see what he had. I am not certain how much experience any of you have in legal affairs these days, but paper copies are avoided at all costs. If Trump's lawyers had access to evidence of government wrongdoing, the last thing they would have is pieces of paper of it even if that was what they were given to begin with.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

painterswife said:


> They are all possible. I however don't think any of them change the fact that it was illegal to take them after he left office, illegal to keep them, illegal to lie about returning everything.
> 
> Obstruction and lying is what will get him charged. I did not believe he would be charged at all until his public statements about the situation this week, and the sheer volume of documents that were seized after they said everything was returned was revealed this week. Now I think he just might be charged.


Clinton Lied, Comey Lied etc and yet nothing happened…


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I remember about 20 years ago, and I wish I could remember who said it, hearing some responsible ex-intelligence agency person say publicly that Satan worshipping pedophiles ran the world. I shook my head and thought what a loon.

Nope...and some of them are brazen enough now to just admit it openly.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> They are all possible. I however don't think any of them change the fact that it was illegal to take them after he left office, illegal to keep them, illegal to lie about returning everything.
> 
> Obstruction and lying is what will get him charged. I did not believe he would be charged at all until his public statements about the situation this week, and the sheer volume of documents that were seized after they said everything was returned was revealed this week. Now I think he just might be charged.













I went looking for your other posts about the seriousness of “lying and obstruction”, and I came up empty handed? Must be a server error, right? Surely, you’re not a shameless hypocrite, right?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> View attachment 114000
> 
> 
> 
> I went looking for your other posts about the seriousness of “lying and obstruction”, and I came up empty handed? Must be a server error, right? Surely, you’re not a shameless hypocrite, right?


Just last week, I said Hillary was wrong. I also said it when it happened. I also said Kushner was wrong to use not government email for Government business.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Just last week, I said Hillary was wrong. I also said it when it happened. I also said Kushner was wrong to use not government email for Government business.


Oh, well, you “said it was wrong”. Then that settles it. Where are the threads you started about her doing something orders of magnitude worse than what Trump is accused of doing? 

Or are you a shameless hypocrite?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Oh, well, you “said it was wrong”. Then that settles it. Where are the threads you started about her doing something orders of magnitude worse than what Trump is accused of doing?
> 
> Or are you a shameless hypocrite?


Why did I need to start the threads when plenty of others did?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Or are you a shameless hypocrite?


You seem to be answering your own question with a question.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Since there is so much rampant speculation going on, I’m going to take liberties and issue mine. This prediction is an open invitation to a bet, and I will entertain all proposed terms:
> 
> 1- the majority (or at least plurality) topic of the documents Trump had were relating to Russiagate and the weaponization of the DOJ under a Democrat administration.
> 
> ...


I'd guess number one is spot on. Trump would have no reason to keep documents unless they pertained to him and he wanted to have a permanent record in case he needed them in the future. To even think Trump went through tens of thousands of pages of classified material for any other reason is ridiculous. Why would he or any other president want classified material unless it pertained to them? They certainly know they can't sell them to our enemies or sell them on Ebay. I'd bet all presidents have people with proper security clearance go through the papers and tell them what they can and can't keep when they leave office.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm saying that an EO sets the policy for the Executive branch, not the President.


President is part of the executive branch.

He got a subpoena for classified documents in his possession and turned some over. Seems like an admission that they were still classified, otherwise he could have said, "I don't have any."

Regardless, the classified/declassified arguments aren't that important. He's walking into an obstruction trap. It's clear as day and he's still taking the bait.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> President is part of the executive branch.
> 
> He got a subpoena for classified documents in his possession and turned some over. Seems like an admission that they were still classified, otherwise he could have said, "I don't have any."
> 
> Regardless, the classified/declassified arguments aren't that important. He's walking into an obstruction trap. It's clear as day and he's still taking the bait.


Not to beat a dead horse, but what Trump supposedly did pales against what Hillary did. She deleted emails, used bleachbit to destroy any trace of them, her people destroyed cell phones with a hammer, Hillary met with the FBI and was not required to be under oath and there was no transcript or recording of the meeting, and Bill met with the AG (on the tarmac in Phoenix) just before the case was closed by the DOJ. 

I don't think the FBI and DOJ really want to go down this road.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I'd guess number one is spot on. Trump would have no reason to keep documents unless they pertained to him and he wanted to have a permanent record in case he needed them in the future.


It doesn't matter if the documents pertained to Trump, they are government property. It also doesn't matter whether or not they are classified, or even subject to executive privilege, they still belong to the government.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but what Trump supposedly did pales against what Hillary did.


It isn't a dead horse. It is an elephant and a gorilla, both in the same room.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't matter if the documents pertained to Trump, they are government property. It also doesn't matter whether or not they are classified, or even subject to executive privilege, they still belong to the government.


Not if they are copies. I would bet there are numerous copies floating around the government of every document Trump had.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Not if they are copies. I would bet there are numerous copies floating around the government of every document Trump had.


Is "copies" the new go-to excuse? I assume everything given to him in the first place is a copy of a report or such. Still not his to take Even the copies belong to the government.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Is "copies" the new go-to excuse? I assume everything given to him in the first place is a copy of a report or such. Still not his to take Even the copies belong to the government.


It can't be both ways. First, it was he couldn't have an unclassified document because it was government property and now it is he can't have a copy of an unclassified document because it is government property.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Kiamichi Kid said:


> I’m guessing that there was no legitimate reason for Clinton to have 30,000 classified emails on a server in her bathroom then eh?


Isn't it amazing? Classified national security documents secured by an IT amateur hack who had to got get advice on how to bleach the server from a bunch of kids on reddit. And yet what's so upsetting about Trump's documents is that he stored them at a country club.... Maybe they both deserve to be permanently censured.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

An inventory of what Trump had



https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.39.1_1.pdf


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> It can't be both ways. First, it was he couldn't have an unclassified document because it was government property and now it is he can't have a copy of an unclassified document because it is government property.


It has always been, he has no right to have those documents, classified or not. Trump is the one with the changing excuses. They are not his to have.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but what Trump supposedly did pales against what Hillary did.


I don't really care for whataboutism, but I also wouldn't mind if Hillary was locked up for the rest of her life. Trump's DOJ apparently declined to prosecute her just like Obama's DOJ.

FTR, I'm not gleeful about Trump being prosecuted either. He almost certainly did some illegal things, but not anything I'm worked up about. I'm an interested observer, not an advocate.

He is his own worst enemy, though, making it more and more likely he'll be charged with obstruction. His posts on Truth Social could very well be used against him, too. He needs to take the advice of a good lawyer and shut up, but he's incapable of doing that and most of the good lawyers don't want to deal with a loose cannon who makes their jobs harder on a daily basis.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> I don't really care for whataboutism, but I also wouldn't mind if Hillary was locked up for the rest of her life. Trump's DOJ apparently declined to prosecute her just like Obama's DOJ.
> 
> FTR, I'm not gleeful about Trump being prosecuted either. He almost certainly did some illegal things, but not anything I'm worked up about. I'm an interested observer, not an advocate.
> 
> He is his own worst enemy, though, making it more and more likely he'll be charged with obstruction. His posts on Truth Social could very well be used against him, too. He needs to take the advice of a good lawyer and shut up, but he's incapable of doing that and most of the good lawyers don't want to deal with a loose cannon who makes their jobs harder on a daily basis.


These are the people that actually run the government. Obama was able to get many of his people into these positions. Trump never had a chance.
​The Senior Executive Service (SES)[1] is a position classification in the civil service of the United States federal government equivalent to general officer or flag officer rank in the U.S. Armed Forces. It was created in 1979 when the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 went into effect under President Jimmy Carter.​​According to the Office of Personnel Management, the SES was designed to be a corps of executives selected for their leadership qualifications, serving in key positions just below the top presidential appointees as a link between them and the rest of the federal (civil service) workforce. SES positions are considered to be above the GS-15 level of the General Schedule, and below Level III of the Executive Schedule. Career members of the SES ranks are eligible for the Presidential Rank Awards program.​​Up to 10% of SES positions can be filled as political appointments rather than by career employees.[2] About half of the SES is designated "Career Reserved", which can only be filled by career employees. The other half is designated "General", which can be filled by either career employees or political appointments as desired by the administration.​wikipedia.org​​​​​


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

ryanthomas said:


> Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but if I'm not mistaken, Obama's executive order 13526 covers that topic and is still in effect.


That's a great grab on your part, but I don't think it technically applies here. It covers declassification, but it describes what the various agencies of the Executive Branch have to do. It doesn't actually make a statement regarding the president's power to classify or declassify. And frankly not even the president can change what the power of the president actually is, that requires an amendment to the Constitution. Additionally, Executive Orders are not in the Constitution, they are merely a representation of presidential will. If President Trump gives a verbal order, it's still an "executive order". A lot of this is left intentionally ambiguous, by the way. It's called the "Imperial Presidency" for a reason.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Not if they are copies. I would bet there are numerous copies floating around the government of every document Trump had.


Making copies of classified documents is, in itself, a crime.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Making copies of classified documents is, in itself, a crime.


Hmmm... I wonder how they get the information to multiple people that need it then???


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Why did I need to start the threads when plenty of others did?


And plenty of others have had plenty to say negative about Trump.


HDRider said:


> An inventory of what Trump had
> 
> 
> 
> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.39.1_1.pdf


I have high, high hopes for those empty folders.

I’m a Rule-of-Law kind of guy, but I’m desperately hoping that some sort of definitive record of how Clinton, Obama and Biden have corruptly weaponized the USDOJ survives in the control of someone other than the USDOJ.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Making copies of classified documents is, in itself, a crime.


Try to keep up. The argument is he declassified them. Trump has already abandoned that argument in court, but he said it so the cult loyalists can't let it go.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Hmmm... I wonder how they get the information to multiple people that need it then???


Correction: the *unauthorized* copying of classified documents.

But some highly sensitive documents are never copied. People with the proper clearance have to go to where the document is kept to see it, and even taking notes is forbidden.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> It has always been, he has no right to have those documents, classified or not. Trump is the one with the changing excuses. They are not his to have.


Yea but honestly you're basing that on an Act that was directly related to Watergate documents. I don't think that can just be reapplied to any circumstance they'd like to apply it to, because the Act explicitly referred to specific Watergate documents. It's a one off... Everyone's assuming there's a procedure that he didn't follow, but I'll wait for that to be proven in court.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Correction: the *unauthorized* copying of classified documents.


But the president in has command and control over those documents... so he can authorize it at will.



> But some highly sensitive documents are never copied. People with the proper clearance have to go to where the document is kept to see it, and even taking notes is forbidden.


It's called a SCIF... just an fyi (no snark intended).


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Making copies of classified documents is, in itself, a crime.


I doubt it. Are you saying there is only the original document and no copies? Of course not. There may be an official process for making a copy, but there is no way the government could function without copies.

What started this was if Trump declassified a document, why couldn't he make a copy of the now unclassified document?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Making copies of classified documents is, in itself, a crime.
> 
> 
> MoonRiver said:
> ...


32 CFR § 2400.30 - Reproduction of classified information.









32 CFR § 2400.30 - Reproduction of classified information.







www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Not that it really matters, but if he made copies of declassified documents, why would they be in folders with classified markings? Did he make personal copies on his own non-government copy machine and paper, put them into classified folders he bought himself, and _then_ declassify them?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Nevada said:


> 32 CFR § 2400.30 - Reproduction of classified information.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First sentence...

§ 2400.30 Reproduction of classified information.
Documents or portions of documents and materials that contain Top Secret information shall not be reproduced without the consent of the originator *or higher authority*.

_(bold added for emphasis)_

To my understanding the president is_ the _highest authority over executive agencies... is your understanding different??? Please expound if so.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> 32 CFR § 2400.30 - Reproduction of classified information.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/2400.30


So it's not a crime. The unauthorized copying is. 

As I said in my post "There may be an official process for making a copy, but there is no way the government could function without copies." That is a true statement.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> What started this was if Trump declassified a document, why couldn't he make a copy of the now unclassified document?


I'll direct my earlier question to you, since I've been pondering it for a plausible explanation: why would copies of declassified documents be found at his home in classified folders? Did he copy the folders too?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Who cares if they are photo copies. Trump still was not all to have them after leaving office and he lied about having them even after getting a subpoena.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Who cares if they are photo copies. Trump still was not all to have them after leaving office and he lied about having them even after getting a subpoena.


I'm not sure that's correct. The originals and any official copies belong to the government of course, but couldn't he make personal copies? I haven't read the law, but seems like that wouldn't be against the law as long as he didn't use government resources to copy them.

Probably a moot point because I doubt he made copies and put them into his own classified folders. Nothing about that makes sense unless I'm just not being imaginative enough.

I bet part of the reason they knew he had the stuff was they keep track of how many official copies there are and they saw that some were missing and he was the last person to have them. If they were personal copies, there wouldn't necessarily be any record that they existed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I'm not sure that's correct. The originals and any official copies belong to the government of course, but couldn't he make personal copies? I haven't read the law, but seems like that wouldn't be against the law as long as he didn't use government resources to copy them.
> 
> Probably a moot point because I doubt he made copies and put them into his own classified folders. Nothing about that makes sense unless I'm just not being imaginative enough.


So then all the email copies Hilary had on her private server belong to her? Sorry that logic does not fly.

No President has the right to retain any presidential documents when he leaves office. That is the law.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> So then all the email copies Hilary had on her private server belong to her? Sorry that logic does not fly.


Her emails on her server were originals, not copies. But let's leave private server out of it and pretend she had done it correctly. I think she probably could have retained copies of non-classified emails. Maybe she would have to get permission since she wasn't the president, but I imagine there's some provision for that. Cabinet secretaries often write books about their time in office and the emails would be valuable source material.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> No President has the right to retain any presidential documents when he leaves office. That is the law.


The law I saw was a lot longer than that, which is why I didn't read it, but I would bet it's not that simple.

What constitutes a presidential document? I really doubt the law extends as far as you're saying it does, but I really don't think it matters enough to go read it, because they're probably not personal copies.

Can the president have copies of pictures of him taken with the winners of the Super Bowl? WH photographer took the pics, but I bet Obama has copies of those photos somewhere.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> The law I saw was a lot longer than that, which is why I didn't read it, but I would bet it's not that simple.
> 
> What constitutes a presidential document? I really doubt the law extends as far as you're saying it does, but I really don't think it matters enough to go read it, because they're probably not personal copies.
> 
> Can the president have copies of pictures of him taken with the winners of the Super Bowl? WH photographer took the pics, but I bet Obama has copies of those photos somewhere.


I believe they can request permission from the Archivist for photos and other documents. Bush 2 did.

" in this chapter--

(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which 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--"


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Well, I guess it was interesting enough to go read it. Not enough to determine if this is definitive, but it's something.



> (2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President's immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which 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—
> 
> (A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President's staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but
> 
> (B) *does not include any documentary materials that are* (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) 1 of title 5, United States Code); (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) *extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.*


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

You stopped reading a little too soon. Go to 2B, right under what you posted.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> You stopped reading a little too soon. Go to 2B, right under what you posted.


No, I kept reading. It is about Personal records. They are very clear about what is personal and what is not.

Maybe this link will help.





__





Identification of Records, Nonrecord Materials, and Personal Papers


Records What are Federal records? As defined in 44 U.S.C.




www.archives.gov





In other words those copies are not presidential records but federal documents that he has no legal rights to when he leaves office.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

No, personal records is after what I'm talking about. Here it is again edited so the quote box doesn't hide the relevant part:


> (2) The term "Presidential records" [...]
> (B) *does not include any documentary materials that are* (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) 1 of title 5, United States Code); (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) *extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.*


And from your link:


> (B) does not include:
> (i) library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes; or
> (ii) duplicate copies of records preserved only for convenience.


PRA appears to be all about making sure the gov has the records, not about making sure the former president doesn't have them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Us code title18 2071 applies to non Presidential records and is also cited in the search warrant. Federal documents that he may have copied and taken falls directly under that law.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Us code title18 2071 applies to non Presidential records and is also cited in the search warrant. Federal documents that he may have copied and taken falls directly under that law.


I don't think so. I think it's cited because they're not his personal copies. We've been arguing about a hypothetical that probably isn't true.

More from your link:


> Government employees also tend to accumulate extra copies of documents, particularly those they have drafted, reviewed, or otherwise acted on. *They may retain and remove these copies, with agency approval*, if such actions do not impose an administrative or financial burden or violate the confidentiality required by national security, privacy, and other interests protected by law.


I would think the president would have automatic agency approval since all the agency heads work for him.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I don't think so. I think it's cited because they're not his personal copies. We've been arguing about a hypothetical that probably isn't true.
> 
> More from your link:
> 
> I would think the president would have automatic agency approval since all the agency heads work for him.


I don't believe that for a second. 

The grand jury and the judge both signed off on the search warrant. Then Trump previously returned documents and lied when the subpoena was served. He has several excuses in rotation about why he can have the documents and admitted in interviews and tweets that he still had those documents seized in cartons not on the floor.

They have witnesses that testified and security footage. Trump lied to officials, had documents he was not allowed to and is just waiting to be charged now.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Sorry, you lost me. What do you not believe?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

More fun reading you pointed me to: 18 USC 2071:


> (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, *filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States*, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


Again, talking about the hypothetical case wherein Trump made his own personal copies of records, this wouldn't apply because his own copies wouldn't be filed or deposited with any clerk, officer, etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> Sorry, you lost me. What do you not believe?


That Trump can approve himself taking home official government documents after he is out of office. Two laws say the moment someone leaves office they can't take documents. President or not.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> That Trump can approve himself taking home official government documents after he is out of office. Two laws say the moment someone leaves office they can't take documents. President or not.


But that's not what I said. I said I would think the president could take copies of documents home. Your link seemed to support that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> But that's not what I said. I said I would think the president could take copies of documents home. Your link seemed to support that.


While he is President and then they must be returned when not.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> While he is President and then they must be returned when not.


I haven't seen anything that says that. Your link said gov employees can retain and remove extra copies with agency approval. And there would be nothing to return anyway, since the president's personal copies never belonged to the gov.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> So then all the email copies Hilary had on her private server belong to her? Sorry that logic does not fly.
> 
> No President has the right to retain any presidential documents when he leaves office. That is the law.


Nope. The emails found on Hillary’s server were both still classified, AND, for bonus points, illegally copied when they were transmitted in that manner… and, of course, Hillary didn’t have the authority to declassify that info without the cross-functional buy-in of all agencies involved, so, no.

Nice try.

….not really.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> While he is President and then they must be returned when not.


Please provide a link to that information... unless of course you're making stuff up as you go.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Nope. The emails found on Hillary’s server were both still classified, AND, for bonus points, illegally copied when they were transmitted in that manner… and, of course, Hillary didn’t have the authority to declassify that info without the cross-functional buy-in of all agencies involved, so, no.
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> ….not really.


Don't leave out the copies on Weiner's laptop.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Please provide a link to that information... unless of course you're making stuff up as you go.


She has your own little pretend world somewhere. Sadly, so does a large portion of the DOJ and FBI and CNN, etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> I haven't seen anything that says that. Your link said gov employees can retain and remove extra copies with agency approval. And there would be nothing to return anyway, since the president's personal copies never belonged to the gov.


While working. All material must be returned when no longer employed.


ryanthomas said:


> I haven't seen anything that says that. Your link said gov employees can retain and remove extra copies with agency approval. And there would be nothing to return anyway, since the president's personal copies never belonged to the gov.


Well, we will have to wait and see if Trump tries your defense. I expect that once the documents were subpoenaed that would be mute if true. Concealment is part of that as well.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Well, we will have to wait and see if Trump tries your defense.


It's not my defense, it's MoonRiver's. Trump won't try it because it's ludicrous on its face...well, he might post it on Truth Social but his lawyers won't use it in court.

Remember, it was a hypothetical and I said from the beginning that I don't believe it. They're not Trump's personal copies so that hypothetical scenario is moot. They're most likely property of the government.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> Don't leave out the copies on Weiner's laptop.


And never, ever, leave your Wiener on Hillary’s copier.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> While working. All material must be returned when no longer employed.


And I still haven't seen that anywhere other than your posts.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> And I still haven't seen that anywhere other than your posts.








Documenting Your Public Service


Introduction This guide provides all Government employees, including senior agency officials and political appointees, with information regarding their responsibilities for managing Federal records. Knowledge of this guidance and careful advance planning will aid employees throughout their...




www.archives.gov




.

What Do Government Employees Need to Do When Leaving Federal Service?

When leaving Federal service, government employees need to take steps to ensure all Federal records are properly managed and preserved until their authorized disposition. You should contact your agency's records management staff to determine if there is an exit clearance process already in place at your agency. Possible responsibilities you may be asked to perform include ensuring records are appropriately identified and captured from:

email, social media, or electronic messaging accounts;all internal and external advisory boards, committees, or councils in which you participated; andreports to Congress and/or the President, speeches, testimonies, or major correspondence.

Federal records must be maintained under the control of the Government. Employees generally may take extra copies of federal records that are already publicly available, subject to each agency's review and approval. Any removal of information is subject to review by officials from your agency. Approval should be granted only if all of the following conditions are met:


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

> Employees generally may take extra copies of federal records that are already publicly available, subject to each agency's review and approval. Any removal of information is subject to review by officials from your agency. Approval should be granted only if all of the following conditions are met:
> 
> removal would not adversely impact the official records of the agency;
> removal would be at no cost to the agency;
> ...


Sounds like it's allowed if it meets those conditions, with agency permission, which president shouldn't have any trouble getting. Only caveat is that they must be already publicly available. Is it considered publicly available if it hasn't been published but could be obtained through a FOIA request? I think so, but maybe they don't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> Sounds like it's allowed if it meets those conditions, with agency permission, which president shouldn't have any trouble getting. Only caveat is that they must be already publicly available. Is it considered publicly available if it hasn't been published but could be obtained through a FOIA request? I think so, but maybe they don't.


If they asked for the documents back, it sounds like he no longer had permission. When they doubled down with a subpoena there was no doubt he no longer had permission.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> If they asked for the documents back, it sounds like he no longer had permission. When they doubled down with a subpoena there was no doubt he no longer had permission.


I would think once granted, permission for such a thing would not be revocable.

But again, this is a hypothetical scenario wherein he took copies he was allowed to take. I don't believe that premise to be correct, so nothing that has happened in reality has much to do with whether he _could have_ done it legally.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Neighbor: I think you stole my lawn mower.
Me: Nope.
Neighbor: I got the Judge to give me a search warrant.
Me: Whatever, I didn't steal your lawn mower.
Neighbor: We searched your garage, back yard, basement and cannot find any lawnmower. "Police, arrest this man. He has sold the stolen lawnmower."

Fisherman: Yesterday, I caught a 5 gallon pail full of perch.
Me: I don't believe you.
Fisherman: I'll bring proof, tomorrow.

The next day, the fisherman brings a photo of an empty 5 gallon pail, "Here's your proof, that's the bucket that I had full of perch."

So far, all we know is that Trump is in trouble if they find classified documents, but now it's looking bad for Trump because the classified documents isn't there. HIYD, HIYD.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Neighbor: I think you stole my lawn mower.
> Me: Nope.
> Neighbor: I got the Judge to give me a search warrant.
> Me: Whatever, I didn't steal your lawn mower.
> ...


But the FBI found more than 20 boxes of presidential materials that didn't belong to Trump, including many classified documents. Classified or not, the materials were still stolen from the government.

The fact that they found some of the classified folders empty is troubling because we don't know what happened to the documents. Did Trump stash them at another location? Did Trump sell or trade them? Did Trump steal empty classified folders? We simply don't know.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Nevada said:


> The fact that they found some of the classified folders empty is troubling because we don't know what happened to the documents. Did Trump stash them at another location? Did Trump sell or trade them? Did Trump steal empty classified folders? We simply don't know.


Or even he doesn't know what happened to them, since they were stored in a place lots of people probably could have gotten into, possibly including some of the foreign seasonal guest workers Mar-a-Lago hires.

Seems like any of those scenarios, the folders would have gone with the docs, though. The contents are probably just misplaced somewhere, a much less concerning possibility, and yet still a huge deal. That's why you're supposed to be careful with classified docs.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> Or even he doesn't know what happened to them, since they were stored in a place lots of people probably could have gotten into, possibly including some of the foreign seasonal guest workers Mar-a-Lago hires.
> 
> Seems like any of those scenarios, the folders would have gone with the docs, though. The contents are probably just misplaced somewhere, a much less concerning possibility, and yet still a huge deal. That's why you're supposed to be careful with classified docs.


Much easier to stuff papers in your clothing than a folder screaming you have something that doesn't belong to you.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't matter if the documents pertained to Trump, they are government property. It also doesn't matter whether or not they are classified, or even subject to executive privilege, they still belong to the government.


Weren't Hillarys emails government property too?
Why yes, yes they were. Why don't you have the same outrage about that? Man, I keep forgetting...TDS.
If you were unbiased, you would have been screaming about Hillary, yet here you are....lol


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> First sentence...
> 
> § 2400.30 Reproduction of classified information.
> Documents or portions of documents and materials that contain Top Secret information shall not be reproduced without the consent of the originator *or higher authority*.
> ...


He read it but hoped others wouldn't. He doesn't care about false narratives. What ever fits his agenda, lies and all, are what he runs with...as long as cnn tells him its ok!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> Please provide a link to that information... unless of course you're making stuff up as you go.


She is. As usual.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Much easier to stuff papers in your clothing than a folder screaming you have something that doesn't belong to you.


Like Hillarys attorney Sandy Berger did? Remember when he got caught stuffing classified documents down his pants?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> I would think once granted, permission for such a thing would not be revocable.
> 
> But again, this is a hypothetical scenario wherein he took copies he was allowed to take. I don't believe that premise to be correct, so nothing that has happened in reality has much to do with whether he _could have_ done it legally.


I believe what happened is Trump declassified the documents subject to any redactions from the appropriate agencies. The agencies refused to act on his order and I suspect once he left office, decided they didn't have to. 

If that is the case, are the documents declassified or not? I think Trump's lawyers will argue Yes, as they gave the agencies the right to redact information and they chose not to do so. The government will argue that the documents were not declassified because Trump left office before the declassification process was completed and has never been completed.

Of course, I may be completely wrong about this.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe what happened is Trump declassified the documents subject to any redactions from the appropriate agencies. The agencies refused to act on his order and I suspect once he left office, decided they didn't have to.
> 
> If that is the case, are the documents declassified or not? I think Trump's lawyers will argue Yes, as they gave the agencies the right to redact information and they chose not to do so. The government will argue that the documents were not declassified because Trump left office before the declassification process was completed and has never been completed.
> 
> Of course, I may be completely wrong about this.


If any of that is true there should be a paper trail. Really makes no difference. He had no authority to take and retain those documents after he was 9ut of 9ffice.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> If any of that is true there should be a paper trail. Really makes no difference. He had no authority to take and retain those documents after he was 9ut of 9ffice.


Simple yes or no question:
Did Hillary have authority to have classified documents on her private server at her house?
Did she destroy that server?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Simple yes or no question:
> Did Hillary have authority to have classified documents on her private server at her house?
> Did she destroy that server?


I already said what Hillary did was not allowed and wrong. 

Will you admit that Trump was wrong as well?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Why don't you have the same outrage about that?


Personally, I don't have much outrage about things I can't control, including Trump, but the Trump saga is an ongoing current event so it makes sense to talk about it now. Hillary hasn't been in government employ in almost 10 years and she almost certainly will never be president. Trump could very well be president again, so he's a lot more relevant to today.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I already said what Hillary did was not allowed and wrong.
> 
> Will you admit that Trump was wrong as well?


Nope....


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Of course, I may be completely wrong about this.


I suspect you are. Would be pretty simple to prove if true, unless it was a secret order that he didn't tell anyone about....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

ryanthomas said:


> Personally, I don't have much outrage about things I can't control, including Trump, but the Trump saga is an ongoing current event so it makes sense to talk about it now. Hillary hasn't been in government employ in almost 10 years and she almost certainly will never be president. Trump could very well be president again, so he's a lot more relevant to today.


Great. So Hillary gets a pass from you? She wants to run again so she is relevant. We should always pay attention to history. There is no statute of limitations in prosecuting former elected representatives. Apparently, Hillary and Bill and Barack are above the law to some. They are not to me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Trump could very well be president again


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> So Hillary gets a pass from you?


I'm in no position to make charging decisions. If I were, no she wouldn't get a pass from me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But the FBI found more than 20 boxes of presidential materials that didn't belong to Trump, including many classified documents. Classified or not, the materials were still stolen from the government.
> 
> The fact that they found some of the classified folders empty is troubling because we don't know what happened to the documents. Did Trump stash them at another location? Did Trump sell or trade them? Did Trump steal empty classified folders? We simply don't know.


"Classified or not, the materials were still stolen from the government" If they weren't classified, you are concerned about the theft? I seem to recall Bill and Hillary cleaning out a bunch of stuff, furniture, silverware, when they left the White house. Then Michele took a bunch of stuff. I don't recall the details, because it doesn't matter and the news wouldn't shine a negative light on them.
"Did Trump steal empty classified folders? We simply don't know." Yup, we don't know. But from what info I've heard, there was a lot of boring stuff with a bit of important stuff mixed in. I'll guess a lot of stuff just got scooped up when he moved. 

If taking a hammer to devices and hiring a firm to "bleach" your remaining devices, following a subpoena to turn over the devices, wasn't a crime, but getting caught with an empty folder has you concerned, would it be fair to say you are hypocritical?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Well, he got his special master. Kind of pointless now, since the DOJ review team rushed through its review and handed the material over to the investigatory team after the judge said she was inclined to grant the special master. That was shady. Judge should have ordered them to stop but she didn't, and they should have asked for permission to continue but they didn't because they knew she would probably say no.

The investigators can't un-see what they've seen, so if there's any material the special master would have withheld from them, it's too late. If there's something really extraordinary, the DOJ could be ordered to reassign the case to different agents and attorneys who haven't seen the material. Unlikely, but possible.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It will be interesting to see if the special master takes away more documents than the taint team. Maybe the taint team did a good job and the DOJ prosecutors did not get any privileges documents in the first place.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

The ruling actually mentions that two items made it through to the investigators that the investigators thought maybe shouldn't have made it through. So they sent them back to the taint team for further review. But they can't un-see what they saw so they're potentially tainted depending on what it is they saw and how much they read before they realized it might be privileged, but they're still involved in the investigation. Kind of sloppy.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> It will be interesting to see if the special master takes away more documents than the taint team. Maybe the taint team did a good job and the DOJ prosecutors did not get any privileges documents in the first place.


Maybe they did. That would be wholly uncharacteristic for the DOJ, though, being that they’re really nothing more than a weaponized police force of the DNC.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

What I referenced in my last post: Judge's Special Master Order

As reflected in the Privilege Review Team’s Report, *the Investigative Team already has been exposed to potentially privileged material.* Without delving into specifics, the Privilege Review Team’s Report references at least two instances in which members of the Investigative Team were exposed to material that was then delivered to the Privilege Review Team and, following another review, designated as potentially privileged material [ECF No. 40 p. 6]. *Those instances alone, even if entirely inadvertent, yield questions about the adequacy of the filter review process.*13

13 In explaining these incidents at the hearing, counsel from the Privilege Review Team characterized them as examples of the filter process working. The Court is not so sure. These instances certainly are demonstrative of integrity on the part of the Investigative Team members who returned the potentially privileged material. But they also indicate that, *on more than one occasion, the Privilege Review Team’s initial screening failed to identify potentially privileged material.* The Government’s other explanation—that these instances were the result of adopting an overinclusive view of potentially privileged material out of an abundance of caution—does not satisfy the Court either. Even accepting the Government’s untested premise, the use of a broad standard for potentially privileged material does not explain how qualifying material ended up in the hands of the Investigative Team. Perhaps most concerning, the Filter Review Team’s Report does not indicate that any steps were taken after these instances of exposure to wall off the two tainted members of the Investigation Team [see ECF No. 40]. In sum, without drawing inferences, there is a basis on this record to question how materials passed through the screening process, further underscoring the importance of procedural safeguards and an additional layer of review.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> The ruling actually mentions that two items made it through to the investigators that the investigators thought maybe shouldn't have made it through. So they sent them back to the taint team for further review. But they can't un-see what they saw so they're potentially tainted depending on what it is they saw and how much they read before they realized it might be privileged, but they're still involved in the investigation. Kind of sloppy.


Thanks, I was typing when you posted that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Then again, it could be privileged material that doesn't have anything to do with the investigation, so it may be no harm done and they continue in a few weeks as if nothing happened. But it looks bad when they're sloppy.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> Then again, it could be privileged material that doesn't have anything to do with the investigation, so it may be no harm done and they continue in a few weeks as if nothing happened. But it looks bad when they're sloppy.


I have always believed that Trump had the right to a special Master and should have filed for that the same day of the raid. I think it is a good thing that one was granted. I still find it bizarre that they did not do that in a timely manner.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Yep, I think that's what happens when you hire your attorney from seeing her on TV.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Big_Al said:


> Ahhh, the whataboutit defense.


Happens in case law all the time.

James Comey argued in part that there was no precedent to look to in dealing with the numerous security breaches committed by Hillary's reckless handling of classified information. Now we have a precedent set as something to look to as a guide moving forward. As such, Trump's lawyers should be allowed to decide what the DOJ views in the seized materials. If any electronics or storage devices were seized, they should be returned for immediate destruction. And since they really can't prove intent...this should all be dismissed.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I believe that if the FBI wants to destroy you, they'll find a way. My opinion is based on observations. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma. After the FBI nabbed him,they went after his accomplice. Nichols is a gun loving, government hating,m white guy from Michigan's Thumb. But that describes most of the people in the Thumb. He lives on a farm and he farms. The FBI made a big deal out of the fact that he had, on his farm, bomb making ingredients. Yup, he had hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel and tons and tons of ammonium nitrate. Not only that, hew had thousands of dollars worth of soybeans in storage, that he hadn't disclosed to IRS. Oh, plus he had empty plastic barrels and many rifles. I doubt he was polite to these Agents. Based on that, they had him jailed. 

If the part of the case, the part that I know about, is normal farming stuff, I have a hard time believing the parts that I don't know about. He's doing all day in a Maximum Security Federal prison. 

So, if they want to get some dirt on Trump, it sure looks like they'll have their way. Somehow, there will be evidence.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Not important to the point, I agree the FBI can railroad anyone if they choose to, but Terry has admitted he helped build the bomb and stash the getaway car. He denies he knew of the intended target. But he wasn't a farmer living on a farm. His brother James was, and he was arrested in connection with the case but was eventually released and the charges dropped. Terry didn't like farming so he did whatever he could to get away. At the time of the bombing he lived in a house on a 1/7th-acre lot in a Kansas town and stashed his ammonium nitrate in storage units.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

It makes perfect sense to talk about the double standard. ESPECIALLY since:

(1) The raid was orchestrated by the same agency involved in illegal spying on a presidential candidate, THEN a sitting president.

(2) Agencies have precedence they must look to too. That is, they cannot, under the same circumstances, rule one way for their favored party members, and another way for the opposing party. 

Agency ruling are part of the public record and make up assenting and dissenting opinions looked to for future rulings, just like courts do. [After all, they are, often, called the fourth branch of government, which is described as a combine of the other three (so, tyranny).]



ryanthomas said:


> Personally, I don't have much outrage about things I can't control, including Trump, but the Trump saga is an ongoing current event so it makes sense to talk about it now. Hillary hasn't been in government employ in almost 10 years and she almost certainly will never be president. Trump could very well be president again, so he's a lot more relevant to today.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Of course, it will be bastardized evidence. Like the confidential folders tossed on a floor, photographed, then leaked with a claim that's how they were found.



haypoint said:


> _f they want to get some dirt on Trump, it sure looks like they'll have their way. Somehow, there will be evidence.__
> _


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Kelly Craig said:


> Like the confidential folders tossed on a floor, photographed, then leaked with a claim that's how they were found.


Where did you see that leaked? I never saw the picture until it was filed in a court pleading, and it contained no claim that they were found that way.

Funny incident, though...Trump posted his outrage about that pic, making it clear that he didn't leave them on the floor and they were in cartons. So he admitted that he was aware they were in his possession, despite having been subpoenaed to surrender them months earlier. So much for the "FBI planted them" defense.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

It was a week ago. I don't save those pages. As it is, I have a set of files from my work so vast the index prints out to around four hundred pages.

That aside, you can trust there there are thousands of pages of case files related to public agent corruption and guilty findings. Regarding the aforementioned index, from the files listed in it, I, first hand, we have fifty-one constitutions because our agents cannot be trusted.

Your post seems ideal for one of those Paul Harvey moments (now for the rest of the story). For example, the fact they were IN negotiations on which documents they wanted and so on. 

One would have to be well into being stupid to believe the FBI had, suddenly, became impartial, and it was all coincidence they did what has never been done before, even when Hildo and the Obo [and others] did the same, just before an election they feared would cost them their power hold.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Kelly Craig said:


> It was a week ago.


Then it wasn't leaked. It was already filed in public court pleadings before that.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

The story was about a week ago, not the event.



ryanthomas said:


> Then it wasn't leaked. It was already filed in public court pleadings before that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Kelly Craig said:


> The story was about a week ago, not the event.


Huh? What story? What event? Sorry, but this isn't making sense.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

It's disingenuous to demand someone produce an article backing their statements when you have done no such thing to back your own.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Kelly Craig said:


> It's disingenuous to demand someone produce an article backing their statements when you have done no such thing to back your own.


Nobody asked me to back anything up. What I stated was pretty common knowledge, widely reported. Your claim about a leak of a picture is not common knowledge. I tend to think that's because it didn't happen and you just fell for some lie or joke.

I made no demands. I asked a simple question, which you answered with a vague statement about a story and an event, so I asked further questions for clarity. You didn't give clarity. That's fine. I've moved on, convinced that your claim is nonsense.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

I did, you didn't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> I did, you didn't.


We know the picture of the files was not leaked. It was in a court filing that everyone can access. It was evidence Rahat Trump had documents he lied about having.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> We know the picture of the files was not leaked. It was in a court filing that everyone can access. It was evidence Rahat Trump had documents he lied about having.


The Stasi can set up quite the picture show.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

It wasn't a particularly good picture.


----------



## Roy Gilbert (Apr 11, 2020)

haypoint said:


> I believe that if the FBI wants to destroy you, they'll find a way. My opinion is based on observations. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma. After the FBI nabbed him,they went after his accomplice. Nichols is a gun loving, government hating,m white guy from Michigan's Thumb. But that describes most of the people in the Thumb. He lives on a farm and he farms. The FBI made a big deal out of the fact that he had, on his farm, bomb making ingredients. Yup, he had hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel and tons and tons of ammonium nitrate. Not only that, hew had thousands of dollars worth of soybeans in storage, that he hadn't disclosed to IRS. Oh, plus he had empty plastic barrels and many rifles. I doubt he was polite to these Agents. Based on that, they had him jailed.
> 
> If the part of the case, the part that I know about, is normal farming stuff, I have a hard time believing the parts that I don't know about. He's doing all day in a Maximum Security Federal prison.
> 
> So, if they want to get some dirt on Trump, it sure looks like they'll have their way. Somehow, there will be evidence.


Nichols was an accomplice in an act that killed innocent women and children ... deserves life


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> We know the picture of the files was not leaked. It was in a court filing that everyone can access. It was evidence *Rahat* Trump had documents he lied about having.


Really... which CNN contributor did you get that term from and you used it improperly. Rahat (capitalized) is a town in Isreal... I believe you meant rahat (noncapitalized) which means


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Really... which CNN contributor did you get that term from and you used it improperly. Rahat (capitalized) is a town in Isreal... I believe you meant rahat (noncapitalized) which means


It was a simple typing mistake. The word was "that" . Why do you get nasty and personal so often?


----------



## Roy Gilbert (Apr 11, 2020)

homesteadforty said:


> Really... which CNN contributor did you get that term from and you used it improperly. Rahat (capitalized) is a town in Isreal... I believe you meant rahat (noncapitalized) which means


SMH regarding the CNN comment ... I can't tell you how many times a presumptuous right winger "told" me that I watch CNN. The fact is, that cable TV is not available where I live. I'm on an antenna. I never watch CNN. But many on the right have been trained to use the "you watch CNN" challenge ... while any person making the challenge seems like a trained chimp to me


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Roy Gilbert said:


> SMH regarding the CNN comment ... I can't tell you how many times a presumptuous right winger "told" me that I watch CNN. The fact is, that cable TV is not available where I live. I'm on an antenna. I never watch CNN. But many on the right have been trained to use the "you watch CNN" challenge ... while any person making the challenge seems like a trained chimp to me


It is a put down that they use here so they won't get dinged for insulting other posters.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It was a simple typing mistake. The word was "that" . Why do you get nasty and personal so often?





homesteadforty said:


> Really... which CNN contributor did you get that term from and you used it improperly. Rahat (capitalized) is a town in Isreal... I believe you meant rahat (noncapitalized) which means



Serious question here... what do you consider "nasty and personal" about my post above?

Going from "Rahat" to "that" is quite a typo and even more of a coincidence. You are saying you were trying to say "that Trump"... you are saying that you would have capitalized "That" as you did in Rahat... and you are saying an R appeared... an extra a appeared and a t was left out... really? That's not even accounting for the meaning of the word rahat.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Roy Gilbert said:


> SMH regarding the CNN comment ... I can't tell you how many times a presumptuous right winger "told" me that I watch CNN.


I can't tell you how many times a presumptuous left winger "told" me that I am a right winger... which I'm not. Funny how those presumptions most often go both ways... isn't it? I'm also called a Trump lover... whom I don't especially care for. I'm also called a Republican... which I'm not.



> But many on the right have been trained to use the "you watch CNN"...


But many on the left have been trained to watch CNN and follow their lead religiously. In many cases here, it seems to be true because if one researches their posts they often come verbatim from CNN and other liberal to very liberal sources.



> while any person making the challenge seems like a trained chimp to me


Some might say I resemble this guy but I assure you I'm not well trained...


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Going from "Rahat" to "that" is quite a typo and even more of a coincidence. You are saying you were trying to say "that Trump"... you are saying that you would have capitalized "That" as you did in Rahat... and you are saying an R appeared... an extra a appeared and a t was left out... really? That's not even accounting for the meaning of the word rahat.


Autocorrect. It doesn't always take context clues. With "r" being right next to "t" it's easy to type "rhat" instead of "that" and autocorrect decides that rather than the likely scenario that you meant to use an extremely common word that makes sense in the sentence, you're writing about the city. So it helps you out with the spelling and capitalizes it too. Stupid, but nearly ubiquitous the last several years. Must not have gotten to your off grid homestead yet.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Roy Gilbert said:


> But many on the right have been trained to use the "you watch CNN" challenge ... while any person making the challenge seems like a trained chimp to me


I don't think it's meant as a challenge. It's more of an assumption some make when an individual says something extremely stupid and unfounded in regards to current events.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Autocorrect...
> 
> ...Must not have gotten to your off grid homestead yet.


No, it hasn't gotten back to the cabin yet. But it does show up out here in the world where I get on wi-fi. Mine works by highlighting possible mistakes, then I have to click on it and chose which correction I need... if any.

BTW... your explanation would be plausible... except... the r was capitalized as if in a name... the shift button is way over there on the side... wonder how that came to be. Wanna try to explain that little typo?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> No, it hasn't gotten back to the cabin yet. But it does show up out here in the world where I get on wi-fi. Mine works by highlighting possible mistakes, then I have to click on it and chose which correction I need... if any.
> 
> BTW... your explanation would be plausible... except... the r was capitalized as if in a name... the shift button is way over there on the side... wonder how that came to be. Wanna try to explain that little typo?


It was a typo and no one needs to explain anymore to you. You used it as an excuse to be nasty and all can see that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> BTW... your explanation would be plausible... except... the r was capitalized as if in a name... the shift button is way over there on the side... wonder how that came to be. Wanna try to explain that little typo?


That was explained in my original explanation. Maybe you're just in one of your uppity "moods" today. Hope it gets better for you, sir.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It was a typo and no one needs to explain anymore to you. You used it as an excuse to be nasty and all can see that.


I asked no one to explain anything regard your "typo"... @ryanthomas choses to try to explain it all on his/her own. If you feel it needn't be explained, please take that up with @ryanthomas.

The only thing I asked you was just what you thought was "nasty and personal" about my post. I've asked that a number of times in other threads but you have yet to respond. It's o.k., I know you have a problem backing up what you say... ie. in another thread I asked where do find the rule that links must be explained and you couldn't follow through on that either.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> That was explained in my original explanation. Maybe you're just in one of your uppity "moods" today. Hope it gets better for you, sir.


Oh, I'm having a great day... thank you. Only problem today is I was hoping to get my tobacco in... but it's raining yet again, and I find myself sitting here in town on this blasted contraption.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> It's actually a courtesy to offer a brief synopsis so perhaps you could consider be helpful to those with lower speed internet rather than being abrasive about a simple request.





wr said:


> The mod team is requesting you provide a brief synopsis based on the fact that not all members have the ability to watch videos. This is a long standing courtesy and you are not being singled out in any way.


I don't read every post. Do you. Forgive me for missing this one. There is also an unwritten rule about going after posters for spelling, typos and punctuation. Just search it and you will see the mods don't like that either.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

In other news (the thread topic) the parties have submitted their nominees for special master.

DOJ chose a GWB appointee who ruled in favor of Trump in one case while he was president but is apparently no fan of him, and a Clinton appointee who was the special master when Rudy's office was raided.

Trump chose a lawyer who worked with his current lawyer in the past, and the judge who approved the FISA warrant on Carter Page. Interesting choice. Maybe they have some indication that he's unhappy about being manipulated by the FBI in that case.

Anyway, the DOJ has appealed the special master thing. Bill Barr agrees with them, for whatever that's worth.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> > wr said:
> > It's actually a courtesy to offer a brief synopsis so perhaps you could consider be helpful to those with lower speed internet rather than being abrasive about a simple request.
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmm... I see two requests to a specific poster, from a moderator, regarding specific activities. The name of the link I posted told what it was about. In the two cases above the links were internet gibberish and gave no clue as to what they were.

Nice try but another miss.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Hmmm... I see two requests to a specific poster, from a moderator, regarding specific activities. The name of the link I posted told what it was about. In the two cases above the links were internet gibberish and gave no clue as to what they were.
> 
> Nice try but another miss.


Ask the mods or search for more examples. It has been the norm for years.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Ask the mods or search for more examples. It has been the norm for years.


As I've said to you many times... I figure the mods will let me know when I've done something wrong... no need to bother them with such drivel.

I think this is the real issue


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Here you go.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Roy Gilbert said:


> SMH regarding the CNN comment ... I can't tell you how many times a presumptuous right winger "told" me that I watch CNN. The fact is, that cable TV is not available where I live. I'm on an antenna. I never watch CNN. But many on the right have been trained to use the "you watch CNN" challenge ... while any person making the challenge seems like a trained chimp to me





painterswife said:


> It is a put down that they use here so they won't get dinged for insulting other posters.


“CNN” is obviously shorthand for the Party propaganda division that folks like yourself so obviously allow to do your thinking for you. It doesn’t matter if it’s CNN, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, BBC, or Time. When the DNC spokesholes decide what they’re all going to say, they all say it, you hear it and then say it too.

There are plenty of people on the right who toe the Party line, but they’re fewer and further between because the right very rarely has a monolithic position on all issues. Nearly every non-TDS suffer has criticized Trump from time to time, but the TDS zombies echo every position stated by CNN/NPR/NBC/CBS/ABC/NYT/BBC/Time (ie, the DNC media) every single time.

So, the next time someone tells you that you’re just parroting CNN, just count it as a favor. You may not have watched any CNN lately, but you now know exactly what CNN is saying that day. In fact, even if someone doesn’t say it, rest assured that the things you’re “thinking” are exactly the same things CNN is saying, because they got it from the same place as the people on your chosen TV station got it from to tell you to think.

Think of it as ideological quantum entanglement.


----------

