All of this is good information, however the precedent shows otherwise. Obama and Clinton to name a few ex-presidents that have plenty of government classified documents. In fact, all of them have had the same. The court has ruled that the president when leaving office has the benefit of the doubt of having declassified any records he takes with him. You seem to forget how our courts work though, it isn't the defendant that has the burden of proving his innocence, it's the other way around. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving guilt. Trump has shown an official dated letter of an EO declassifying the documents. Therefore, the documents were declassified in his possession. This is why after they were seized by the FBI, they were reclassified.
There has never been a case like this in the history of the United States. Even if 'some how' Trump had classified documents, which IMHO is automatically declassified when he left office, the evidence shows that he had the security clearance to have them up to after the MAL FBI raid.
Did you catch the chicanery of what the DOJ did? After the MAL FBI raid, the documents they took were re-classified. Trump's security clearance was suppose to be secretly revoked before the MAL raid. It didn't work out that way though. Trump's security clearance was revoked after the raid.
Apparently from what you stated, it doesn't matter if its the complicated version or the simple version, the end result is this is theater for the persecution of Trump.
"If the government gives me prima facie evidence (a legal term meaning a fact presumed to be true unless disproved) that this is classified, and you decide not to advance a claim of declassification ... as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it," Dearie told Trump's lawyers in his first public hearing on the matter.
Trump has shown an official dated letter of an EO declassifying the documents.
This is exactly the type evidence Trump will need to provide.
However, I believe the documents he did declassify related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. None of those documents are the ones in the Indictment.
Even if 'some how' Trump had classified documents, which IMHO is automatically declassified when he left office, the evidence shows that he had the security clearance to have them up to after the MAL FBI raid.
Automatic declassification is not a thing. Your opinion or my opinion about it doesn't matter.
The security clearance is not an issue. The issue is the documents were subpoenaed and he didn't return them. That's what he is charged with
The charges would be the same if he had a clearance. Remember General Petraeus ? He had a clearance when he was convicted.
I disagree with your legacy news sounding talking points. I'm not buying your talking points You keep ignoring the most important points made in my last two posts. How come? Then you repeat your legacy news sounding talking points. General Paetraeus does not have the authority the president has. Apple and oranges. .
I don't believe you did "address the main legal issues". You seemed to have repeated CNN's version of the news. So you want the complicated version or the simple version? You completely ignored the important points I made. This is the simple version. I disagree with you. That's simple enough, no?
All of this is good information, however the precedent shows otherwise. Obama and Clinton to name a few ex-presidents that have plenty of government classified documents. In fact, all of them have had the same. The court has ruled that the president when leaving office has the benefit of the doubt of having declassified any records he takes with him. You seem to forget how our courts work though, it isn't the defendant that has the burden of proving his innocence, it's the other way around. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving guilt. Trump has shown an official dated letter of an EO declassifying the documents. Therefore, the documents were declassified in his possession. This is why after they were seized by the FBI, they were reclassified.
There has never been a case like this in the history of the United States. Even if 'some how' Trump had classified documents, which IMHO is automatically declassified when he left office, the evidence shows that he had the security clearance to have them up to after the MAL FBI raid.
Did you catch the chicanery of what the DOJ did? After the MAL FBI raid, the documents they took were re-classified. Trump's security clearance was suppose to be secretly revoked before the MAL raid. It didn't work out that way though. Trump's security clearance was revoked after the raid.
Apparently from what you stated, it doesn't matter if its the complicated version or the simple version, the end result is this is theater for the persecution of Trump.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I don't think this is true
This is not true. I think you are confusing this with something else.
These documents are marked as classified. This is "prima facie" evidence they are classified. So Trump will need to counter this evidence.
In fact this has already came up in court last year.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/new-york-judge-takes-up-review-documents-fbi-seized-trumps-home-2022-09-20/
This is exactly the type evidence Trump will need to provide.
However, I believe the documents he did declassify related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. None of those documents are the ones in the Indictment.
Automatic declassification is not a thing. Your opinion or my opinion about it doesn't matter.
The security clearance is not an issue. The issue is the documents were subpoenaed and he didn't return them. That's what he is charged with
The charges would be the same if he had a clearance. Remember General Petraeus ? He had a clearance when he was convicted.
I disagree with your legacy news sounding talking points. I'm not buying your talking points You keep ignoring the most important points made in my last two posts. How come? Then you repeat your legacy news sounding talking points. General Paetraeus does not have the authority the president has. Apple and oranges. .
This is not helpful. I linked to a lot of primary sources. If you think I got facts wrong, point them out.
Which points are these?
I think I addressed the main legal issues. And I explained which issues don't apply.
I don't believe you did "address the main legal issues". You seemed to have repeated CNN's version of the news. So you want the complicated version or the simple version? You completely ignored the important points I made. This is the simple version. I disagree with you. That's simple enough, no?