Jack Smith Did It Again! Grand Jury Not Told About Clinton Socks Case or Presidential Records Act
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
- N C S W I C -
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
On Wednesday morning The Gateway Pundit spoke with two attorneys who gave us the same explanation. Jack Smith did not tell the Grand Jury about the Presidential Records Act or the Clinton Socks Case because he didn’t have to.
Both of these cases exonerate President Trump. Jack Smith did it again. How does this guy keep a job? It appears Jack Smith may be the only liar here.
Here's the key part
The crime cited in the indictment is "willful retainment of national defense information." It goes a bit beyond the Presidential Records Act.
They are specifically claiming a violation of the part bolded below in section e of this law, 18 U.S. Code § 793, which reads.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
His lawyers would have to show how those cases are exonerating.
but, DJT was/is authorized
so the quoted text is Moot, as is the entire charge sheet, this will be quickly established.
The charges are after he left office though which means he was no longer authorized, right? Like, according to what the Presidential Records Act says it’s only the incumbent president that is authorized. I read it after Trump mentioned it but I’m confused how it’s relevant?
If he had the Authority at any time Before 2022, then he retained that authority throughout all of 2022 and still has it today....
"" having unauthorized possession of""....
my understanding is There is no higher authority than the president per our constitution. The executive branch....ie DJT at the time had the right to any document and store any document he so chose to store. He can transmit anything he wants because once in his possession it is no longer classified per Supreme court ruling in Clinton sock drawer case. However No one else can give that same info out to anyone as it may remain classified for national security reasons in the hands of another. If I have that wrong please explain.
I once read somewhere a few years ago that the president can declassify something merely by speaking about it. Also, you're right, the presidency is a constitutionally unique position compared to anybody else. I've seen the argument that this all pertains to after he was president. I'm not sure about the legalities of that.
Correct.
That’s not true. The president is of equal power to congress and the judicial branch. That’s why we have 3 equal branches of government.
And the sock drawer case actually set the precedent that NARA could decide if documents or tapes could be considered personal or presidential post-presidency.
Lots of documents in the president's possession are classified and stay classified. That happens every day. That's not the issue.
The Clinton sock drawer thing didn't involve classified info. The issue there was personal vs presidential records.
The key part is this part.
That's the issue.
All the charges are from 2022. After Trump left office. The DOJ in the indictment says that after January 20 2021, since Trump was no longer president he "was no longer was authorized to possess or retain those classified documents."
Here let a REAL LAWYER explain how wrong you are
https://greatawakening.win/p/16bPZsIGa9/please-send-this-video-to-trump-/c/
They are wrong. He was POTUS when the docs were created and/or declassified (by him). I don't care if it is 3022 - he declassified them as POTUS so the docs he had he was authorized to have.
Please go educate yourself. Clinton's were all CLASSIFIED and he REFUSED to turn them over.