Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Donald Trump

The 'My Boxes' Theory Is All You Need To Explain Trump's Behavior

There's no deep mystery behind why Trump kept boxes of classified documents. He wanted them.

C.J. Ciaramella | 6.13.2023 12:42 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Classified documents stored in Mar-a-Lago bathroom | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/UPI/Newscom
My. Boxes. (U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/UPI/Newscom)

On Sunday, The New York Times floated a very important question on Twitter: Why was Donald Trump hoarding boxes of national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort? And what could possibly explain his intense resistance to giving them back?

For all the detailed evidence in the indictment accusing Donald Trump of holding onto classified documents and obstructing the government's efforts to retrieve them, one mystery remains: Why did he take them and fight so hard to keep them? https://t.co/MlPsooGcdZ

— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 10, 2023

Now, far be it for me to criticize the paper of record's reporting, but last year I made a throwaway joke that solved the mystery. I would like to introduce you all to an advanced political theorem known as "my boxes."

Former American Conservative columnist Rod Dreher had asked last year, around the time of the Mar-a-Lago raid, what reason Trump could possibly have for refusing to return the boxes. It was somewhat of a hobby among the professionally credulous to wonder what machinations could be behind Trump's decision to hold on to these boxes, despite legal peril. Among some resistance liberals, there were unsupported accusations that Trump may have been selling classified documents or using them for nefarious purposes.

Then, in a joking back-and-forth with The Bulwark's Sonny Bunch, I offered a fictional conversation between Trump and an aide that would tidily sum up the former president's motivations and legal theories:

my boxes
My. Boxes. (Twitter)

For the past year since then, whenever a new bit of information dribbles out about the case, someone on Twitter alerts me that another point has been scored for "my boxes." 

All of the substantive reporting, as well as the recently filed indictment, has backed up the "my boxes" hypothesis. In August, The New York Times reported that Trump told several advisers, in response to the National Archives' demands that he return the boxes: "It's not theirs; it's mine." The Washington Post reported in November that "Trump repeatedly said the materials were his, not the government's—often in profane terms."

This April, Fox News' Sean Hannity tried to tee up a softball for Trump, saying he couldn't imagine the former president saying, "Bring me some of the boxes that we brought back from the White House, I'd like to look at them." But Trump insisted that he would.

"I would have the right to do that," Trump replied. "I would do that."

According to the 37-count indictment filed in federal court against Trump this week, he told one of his long-suffering attorneys: "I don't want anybody looking, I don't want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don't, I don't want you looking through my boxes."

"My boxes" has always been the simplest, most durable explanation for Trump's behavior. He took the boxes because he likes boxes of stuff, and he refused to give them back for the same reason. He has a toddler's conception of property and a similar developmental level of excitement for show-and-tell. (Kid Rock allegedly got a glimpse of national security documents when he met with Trump.)  All of which is how you end up with descriptions of America's nuclear capabilities sitting in a box in a South Florida bathroom.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: In CNN Town Hall, Chris Christie Says Neither Joe Biden Nor Donald Trump Should Ever Be President Again

C.J. Ciaramella is a reporter at Reason.

Donald TrumpNational SecurityGovernment secrecySecrecyDepartment of JusticeFBICriminal Justice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (365)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Nardz   2 years ago

    Begone from this earth, Ciaramella.

    1. Shrike   2 years ago

      Watching you writhe in pain as your mancrush is decimated by the same bullshit games he plays is like a fine wine. What comes around goes around. Too bad people like you never learn.

    2. Thoritsu   2 years ago

      Couldn't agree more. There is no information in this article, besides evidence of yet another bias against Trump.

      Trump is a narcissist, and and a bone head for letting this happen. However, if this was anyone else, it would be quietly swept under the rug.

      1. CindyF   2 years ago

        The media continues to show the pictures of multiple boxes wanted people to think all of these were "classified" documents. Even the DOJ states there is only about 100 documents in question. Why show all those boxes as if they are proof of something nefarious. Also, why did whoever took those pictures scatter the documents as if that was the way they were found?

        Anyone who has moved knows it takes time to go through boxes after a move and some boxes are just placed in storage or the attic never to be opened again. Having boxes of items from his move from the White House is not evidence of a crime regardless of what the media wants you to believe.

  2. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

    I have seen other less humorous explanations that involve evidence against the Deep State to protect his cadre against future secret abuses after he left office. Sort of like the FBI secret surveillance files used by J. Edgar Hoover to keep politicians in line extrajudicially. Don't know if it's true or not ... just sayin' it wouldn't surprise me none.

    1. Zeb   2 years ago

      I wouldn't be surprised. And I wouldn't be surprised if he just kept them because he felt like it.

    2. SRG   2 years ago

      Yup. Mother's Lament was pushing the idea that the docs were to do with Crossfire Hurricane - and may still believe it, AFAIK

      1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

        Maybe because most of them actually are? What have you seen that shows otherwise?

        1. JesseAz   2 years ago

          Shrike loves his Anonymous deepstate sources.

          1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

            Hey, if the New York Times can do it……

          2. SRG   2 years ago

            Not shrike - but where am I pushing anonymous sources? I've already linked to the indictment itself in an earlier thread, and there's nothing there about Crotchfire Houligan.

            1. JesseAz   2 years ago

              You've pushed them for 7 years shrike.

              Youre also ignoring all the documented corroboration of evidence such as bank accounts.

              1. SRG   2 years ago

                As I am not shrike, you lying POS, I cannot have been pushing these anonymous sources.

                Meanwhile, where in the indictment are the Crotchfire Hooligan docs? Nowhere.

                Now fuck off, you diabetic cracker.

            2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

              It was pretty funny yesterday when you forgot which handle you were using and called somebody a cracker on your Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 account, shreek. Not as funny as when you got your original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography but still funny.

              1. Mike Laursen   2 years ago

                Hi, Tulpa!

                1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                  Hi Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq.! It's always nice when you can ride in your white charger to defend the resident pedophile and kiddie pornographer.

              2. SRG   2 years ago

                FWIW I have called crackers here "crackers". I am surely not the only one to have done so - but by now it should be abundantly clear that I am not a sock of Shrike or any other poster here - unlike you - you too can fuck right off.

            3. Mike Laursen   2 years ago

              Funny that you are still accused of being “shrike” when there’s a commenter whose handle is Shrike, posting comments on this very same page.

              1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                Gee Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq., it's almost like the name "shrike" - lowercase by the way, you autistic fucking retard - goes back to before there was account registration here and the guy who operates that account is a known sockpuppetting faggot or something.

        2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          He hasn’t seen shit. He’s just following his marching orders, just like every other 50 center.

        3. Sevo   2 years ago

          "Maybe because most of them actually are? What have you seen that shows otherwise?"

          You're engaging a slimy pile of TDS-addled shit, embodied in an obnoxiously arrogant individual.
          "Fuck off and die" is probably indicated.

        4. SRG   2 years ago

          No - you're the one who has claimed that they are. Where's your evidence? And did you find any entries in the indictment that suggest they were? Nope.

          But sure, keep pushing that conspiracy...

          1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

            The indictment has no information on the contents of the shreek, but you knew that.

            1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              And he's lying about it.

            2. SRG   2 years ago

              They can be found on pp28-33 of the indictment, you lying cunt.

              https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

              1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                Alright you deceitful fuck, which one on that list isn't related to Crossfire Hurricane or Burisma?

                Almost every single one of them say foreign country and intelligence which is exactly what those two scandals were about.

                What the hell did you think they were about?

          2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago (edited)

            Then President Trump issued the following memorandum January 19, 2021 on declassification FBI Crossfire Hurricane records.

            https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/

            It was circulated to the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence and CIA.

            Despite being declassified and despite a federal court order ordering their release the alphabet agencies refused to comply.

            Those unclassified Crossfire Hurricane documents were expected to be used as evidence to support Trump’s civil lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and others.
            If you remember, Trump sued them for executing “a plan to spread disinformation about his campaign during the 2016 presidential election and working together to disseminate false information to the American public that his campaign colluded with Russia to help him win the election ‘all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career, and rigging the 2016 presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton.’”

            The judge threw out Trump’s lawsuit on Sept. 8, 2022, exactly a month after the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago and took “eleven sets” of documents.

            Later, Trump was be ordered to pay $1 million for bringing this “frivolous” suit against Hillary. The judge said that Trump engaged in a “pattern of abuse of the courts’ for filing frivolous lawsuits for political purposes, which he said ‘undermines the rule of law’ and ‘amounts to obstruction of justice,”

            Of course, the Durham Report confirmed all of these “frivolous” allegations that, well, supposedly “undermined the rule of law.”

            That’s what this is all about, The idea that former presidents can’t have classified records is obfuscation, because it's utter nonsense.

            What harm would it cause to the United States that he had these documents at Mar-a-Lago? They were guarded by the Secret Service. They never leaked. They never leaked for 18 months. They didn’t leak until Biden ordered this illegal raid on him and stole these documents (Which he first lied about and said he didn't).

            Again, the whole purpose for this raid was to get back Trump’s declassified and damning Crossfire Hurricane documents. They were about to become public in Trump’s civil lawsuit versus Hillary Clinton.

            The raid was run by Jay Bratt at the DOJ's National Security Division. The same National Security Division that helped run Crossfire Hurricane had to get back these documents.

            Barack Obama wasn’t raided for keeping documents. Obama spent years negotiating with NARA which is, for Sarcasmic level intellects, longer than the 18 months that Trump spent negotiating with them. Yet Biden approved sending armed FBI agents to the home of a former president to get papers he had to know Trump had every right to have, but which he didn’t want to get out.

            The Presidential Records Act controls the presidential records by presidents and former presidents. The Espionage Act applies to everyone else. It is not possible for a president or former president to commit espionage in how they handle their own presidential records. It’s also not legally possible to generally commit obstruction of justice if you’re obstructing an investigation into a noncrime.
            If it was not a crime for President Trump to have his presidential records, which it was not, it’s allowed by the Presidential Records Act, how can you obstruct justice into this non-crime?

            That's not legal theory, that is a binding legal opinion from 2019 at the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

            And finally, as I QUOTED from the 2012 JW v. NARA case, the judge said that the mere fact that President Clinton took those records when he left office makes them personal … and it does not matter that they’re classified. That decision is binding on D.C. federal courts.

            1. Nardz   2 years ago

              https://twitter.com/RealMacReport/status/1668687895505571840?t=736xDqmldGIfdue2EVxojg&s=19

              Sen. Hawley: "Why don't you just release it? Is it classified?"

              FBI Deputy Director Abbate: "The document is not classified."

              Sen. Hawley: "Will you commit to releasing this unclassified document that alleges that the President Of the United States has taken $5 million in bribes from a foreign nation?"

              FBI Deputy Director Abbate: "The document contains sensitive information."

              [Link]

            2. SRG   2 years ago

              This is the key point:

              But the Court need not decide this question because whether judicial review is available or not, the relief that plaintiff seeks –that the Archivist assume “custody and control” of the audiotapes –is not available under the PRA.

              1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago (edited)

                It is the key point. You’ve almost got it.

                And what does the ruling say about who gets to make the determination about the status of the material? The archivist or the former president?

                And what does the ruling say about what the president had to do to make those recordings personal, even though they contained official presidential business and state security info? Just think about it? or formally fill out paperwork?

            3. retiredfire   2 years ago

              Thing is, ML, to these people, Trump never was a legitimate president, and they intend to treat him that way by not letting him have the benefits of being one.

              1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                Yes, because the second British Shrike here realizes the stupidity of one phony argument, he immediately drops it and moves to another.
                No pause to say, "Huh, I was wrong on the last ten things, maybe this really is an illegitimate political attack on the other party's likely candidate".

      2. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

        So how's the Andy Kaufman clone advocating someone else do the girl-bullying these days? There is a Mute Lewser button on the top left. It makes these muthas vanish.

    3. Sometimes a Great Notion   2 years ago

      Except if he was holding them for leverage wouldn't he, at the first sign of a raid, hit the deadman switch and release the damaging info to the public.

      1. Square = Circle   2 years ago

        My thoughts exactly.

      2. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

        Hmmmm ... you may have a point there. On the other hand it assumes that he remembered why he kept them and what he was supposed to do with them in that situation. I have seen no evidence that anything Trump has done had any pattern to it. Ah, well ...

        1. CindyF   2 years ago

          We are talking about Trump and the documents he retained, not Biden and his trove of documents retained for decades. Now Biden may have problems remembering why he kept them but Hunter should be able to explain it to him one more time.

    4. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

      I think it is all quite simple, and mostly related to Ciamarella's argument: in Trump's mind, there is little if any difference between Donald J. Trump the man, and Donald J. Trump the president. So, while he was president, when he was presented an official government document for him to consider, he considered it to be "his property".

      1. Nardz   2 years ago

        https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1668664574638272526?t=yfTv9ZDVfILP9XYg11ahZg&s=19

        BREAKING: The FBI had information on the Bidens being bribed by Burisma in 2017 but hid this when Trump was impeached for asking Zelensky about it in 2019

        They redacted it to take down Trump and protect Burisma. Why?

        [Link]

        1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          Let's see if Jeff has an answer.

          1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

            “ It’s because hunter’s penis”!

            1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

              A snap impeachment can settle the issue.

          2. Dillinger   2 years ago

            he'll have a false equivalency ...

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

          Nardz, do you have a link to the purported two recordings between Joe Biden and the informant which prove the bribery allegation?

          1. One-Punch_Man   2 years ago

            Are you freaking kidding? Nardz, congrats on being promote to senate.

            No one had the calls as yet.

            Sen. Chuck Grassley said Monday that the Burisma executive who allegedly paid Joe Biden and Hunter Biden kept 17 audio recordings of his conversations with them as an "insurance policy," citing the FBI FD-1023 form that the bureau briefed congressional lawmakers on.

            But hey if it's Russian and Trump you are all in right without anything? Unlike your weasel from CA, they won't release u til trial.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

              Well then.

              So a Republican Senator claims that an FBI form states that an unnamed executive claims that he has a recording that allegedly has proof of Biden being bribed.

              That's all you had to say!

              1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago (edited)

                No. They also claim that FBI agents heard excerpts.

                But here’s the question that you need to wrap you’re head around. Why would someone who has proof of Biden bribery need to worry about the FBI? Why did the FBI ignore direction from congress and withhold this information when it was ordered to give it? What FBI behavior are you actually defending here?

                1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                  What FBI behavior are you actually defending here?

                  Obstruction of justice and political prosecution, same as he has been since he melted down on election night 2016 and burned his cytotoxic handle.

              2. JesseAz   2 years ago

                Jeff. Explain hunters emails, bank account records, unexplained millions from a c corp, etc.

          2. One-Punch_Man   2 years ago

            Hey Nardz, do you have Hunter's laptop? Ark of the Convent?

            Jeff needs 80 pieces of proof when it's his team

      2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        I knew you would have something stupid to say. Especially some thing that covers the Democrats and vilifies Trump.

      3. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

        ...until a property tax happens along.

    5. mtrueman   2 years ago

      "I have seen other less humorous explanations that involve evidence against the Deep State to protect his cadre against future secret abuses after he left office. "

      Except he doesn't have any cadres. Even when he was in the whitehouse, his hand picked senior staffers were working against him. It's kinda pointless to speculate on the affair when we don't know the full extent of the documents and what was in them. We're told that nuclear secrets and plans for military attacks were among them, but there could be even more secret and sensational stuff, and we may never know about.

      Speaking of cadres, how about his valet, who did all Trump's dirty grunt work and may end up sharing a cell with Trump.

    6. charliehall   2 years ago

      Trump is neither smart enough nor organized enough to pull that off.

      Occam's razor.

      1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

        Kinda like how Bush was a bumbling cowboy who couldn't spell his own name and also a master manipulator who used tricknology to get nearly ever Democrat in the house and senate to authorize his war in Iraq, right shreek?

  3. Zeb   2 years ago

    OK. Doesn't the president have the power to declare those his boxes and keep them? Constitutionally, all executive authority belongs to the president. So seems to me that any papers he takes while president are indeed his. Am I missing something here?

    1. Nardz   2 years ago

      Your missing the thorough corruption and evil that composes the entirety of Ciaramella's being.

    2. steve sturm   2 years ago

      No, he doesn’t.
      McCarthy at NF has it in detail, but the gist of it is Trump could have a claim to documents he prepared, but no claim to papers belonging to the United States, such as intelligence briefings, maps and so on.

      1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

        Even so, such a claim would normally be settled by civil litigation.

        Trump had the right to remove the documents in the first place.

        See here.

        https://reason.com/2023/06/12/trumps-federal-indictment-presents-new-evidence-of-deliberate-deceit-and-obstruction/?comments=true#comment-10105995

        It’s a federal court ruling from a decade ago regarding Bill Clinton’s retention of classified material that says he effectively declassified it just by retention and removal while still president.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

          And here is a deconstruction of that argument:

          https://reason.com/2023/06/13/chris-christie-joe-biden-donald-trump-cnn-townhall/?comments=true#comment-10106780

          1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

            And here's a great destruction of your lie:

            https://reason.com/2023/06/13/chris-christie-joe-biden-donald-trump-cnn-townhall/?comments=true#comment-10106890

            "Chemleft's statement, “Here is how the law defines “personal records”, is actually a lie because he deliberately doesn’t quote the first sentence in his link.

            “As used in this chapter—
            (2)The term “Presidential records” means…”

            Instead Jeff infers that a description that explicitly states that it only applies to a chapter in U.S. Code § 2201 actually applies to all laws and rulings rather than just that specific chapter."

            Chemjeff is a consummate liar.

            1. Koomala   2 years ago

              “Chemleft’s statement, “Here is how the law defines “personal records”, is actually a lie because he deliberately doesn’t quote the first sentence in his link.
              “As used in this chapter—
              (2)The term “Presidential records” means…”
              Instead Jeff infers that a description that explicitly states that it only applies to a chapter in U.S. Code § 2201 actually applies to all laws and rulings rather than just that specific chapter.”
              Chemjeff is a consummate liar.

              That's pretty bad.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                LOL if I wanted to try to deceive you all, I would just pull a Jesse and just make a bald-faced claim and then when challenged demand that you Google your own answer to disprove it.

                If I wanted to deceive you all, why would I even post a link to the law at all? Much easier to just post some link to a partisan news article which makes some deceptive claim. You know, like how the Team Red crowd here habitually does.

                Instead, I post a link to the ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL - the legal code itself and the actual text of the decision in the "Clinton sock drawer" case. Did Jesse do that? Did ML? Did any of the Trump defenders do that? THEY are the ones trying to deceive, by making simplistic arguments and referencing partisan sources.

                ML as usual is gaslighting. Which is why he's on mute.

                Hilarious how some of you think that posting links to *original source material* is deception, but posting a link to some NY Post editorial is "speaking the truth".

                Anyway, I posted the text of the "personal record" definition because that was one of the main issues in the "Clinton sock drawer" case - whether those tapes were "Presidential records" or "personal records". And if you read the "personal records" definition, those tapes pretty well fit in that definition. BUT, documents like, say, top secret intelligence assessments don't. *IF* Team Trump wants to make the argument that all the documents in "my boxes" are actually "personal records" because what constitutes a "personal record" is entirely up to the president to decide because no one has the authority to contradict him, then what he's doing is getting away with violating the letter of the law by exploiting a loophole in the enforcement mechanism of the law. If that is how you want to defend Trump, then go right ahead, but it is not exactly a principled defense.

                1. likaj   2 years ago (edited)

                  I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......

                  SITE. ——>>> dollarsalary.com

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                    This guy has more intelligent responses than either ML or Jesse.

                    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

                      Jeff is flailing lol.

                      Can't stand being proven to be a dishonest shit weasel.

                    2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                      Hey, you're the one who clearly lied.

                    3. Nardz   2 years ago

                      https://twitter.com/docMJP/status/1668678488948191232?t=5IstPXZj4-AfqYkCdvzAgg&s=19

                      This is true. Everyone knows it. We are ruled by a shameless emperor-class of incompetents who don’t care that everyone knows they don’t wear clothes.

                      Because they still hold all the power.

                      And they are gloating over that fact, and wielding it more brazenly by the day.

                      [Link]

                2. JesseAz   2 years ago

                  Everything you wrote on the roundup was intentionally deceiving. Do you find it weird people like me have been citing this ruling since virtually Day 1 of the NARA conflict while you told lie after lie about it? Only when CNN creates a narrative to defend against it do you finally see it and then alter the contents like a DoJ employee did for FISA evidence.

                  As far as your comment regarding me, I provide far more citations here than you do sea lion, including this case over a year ago.

                  Why did you intentionally cut off the first line?

                3. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                  "LOL if I wanted to try to deceive you all, I would just pull a Jesse and just make a blah blah blah"

                  "NO! I WASN'T LYING BECAUSE LOOK AT JESSE... HE MAKES ME GOOGLE STUFF WHEN I SEALION!!"

                  "If I wanted to deceive you all, why would I even post a link to the law at all?"

                  Because you're lazy and just copypasted it from your talking-points without actually reading it first?
                  Or because you saw it, but hoped nobody would click the link and figure out you'd lied?

                  "ML as usual is gaslighting.

                  Your own link demonstrates you're lying about the definition applying everywhere. It clearly says it's only applicable for one chapter of one law.

                  Is the real gaslighter here the one who tries to deceive by lying, or the person who points it out?

                  "Which is why he’s on mute."

                  You've got me on mute because you can't formulate counter-arguments without lying, so you use the excuse that you've muted everyone to evade actual debate.

                  1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                    Because you’re lazy and just copypasted it from your talking-points without actually reading it first?
                    Or because you saw it, but hoped nobody would click the link and figure out you’d lied?

                    See also: every link every posted by shreek. 50 cents is 50 cents.

                4. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                  Poor poor ML just can't stand it that I post original source material which casts doubt on his claim and all he can do is claim that I am some sort of liar because I didn't quote part of the link which I MYSELF PROVIDED? You really are grasping at straws here.

                  He doesn't want you to read the original source material. He doesn't want you to think for yourself. He wants you to read right-wing news outlets and repeat the correct narratives just like he does.

                  1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                    "Poor poor ML just can’t stand it that I post original source material which casts doubt on his claim"

                    So then why did you leave off the first line that clearly and expressly contradicted your entire claim?

                    1. Nazi-Burning Witch   2 years ago

                      Because he's a giant dumpster fire of a human being?

                    2. Nardz   2 years ago

                      Chemjeff isn't a human being.
                      He's literally cancer. A tumor that's been programmed to type.

                  2. JesseAz   2 years ago

                    He is citing from your posting which has been posted her multiple times for everyone to see for months you fat retard.

            2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

              He’s always been a liar. And a pedophile adjacent groomer.

      2. Dan S.   2 years ago

        Right. Letters addressed to him from outside the government (like those famous notes from Kim Jong Un) he could perhaps have a claim to as well, if they were delivered by the Postal Service, since generally applicable law says that the recipient of mail owns it. So the provision of the Presidential Records Act which says ex-presidents don't own correspondence they received could conceivably be seen as an unconstitutional "taking" of property from the departing president. But I don't think Trump or his lawyers have ever made that argument.

        1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          Has President he can take and they classify anything he wants. The only limit is that he can’t take anything after he leaves office.

          Case closed.

        2. JesseAz   2 years ago

          The PRA does not say that and the sock drawer case gives vast deference to the president, not NARA.

      3. Nardz   2 years ago

        McCarthy is lying, evil sack of shit.
        POTUS has rights to all executive papers as POTUS, and the act of him taking them while in office renders them declassified.
        Shop your totalitarian bullshit somewhere else, tumor.

        1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          And they know this. We have had to straighten them out 100 times by now.

        2. charliehall   2 years ago

          Not true. The true TDS sufferers are people who continue to continue to defend his criminal acts.

          Oh and it is a violation of the Espionage Act to mishandle national security information even if it isn't classified.

          1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

            Heard you the first time on your other 2 handles, shreek.

      4. Sevo   2 years ago

        "No, he doesn’t..."

        How advanced is your case of TDS, shitbag?

      5. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

        Right, according to you imbeciles his subordinates have higher classification powers than the man their powers originate from. Shill that crap at DU where it belongs.

    3. JFree   2 years ago

      At minimum, he would have to declare that as you say. His authority is not via telepathy. Nor does it extend post-Presidency.

      1. Zeb   2 years ago

        Yes, assuming he took them while president.

        1. Nardz   2 years ago

          If he takes them, as president, they're de facto and de jure declassified.

        2. JFree   2 years ago

          The declaration of declassification would have to be during his term. This case would look far different if, in response to some claim to get those records from Trump, Trump had say an inventory list of govt-originated docs in his possession that he deemed personal or presidential - dated when he left the White House. The stuff that every Prez has done with an archivist preparing the way for his Prez library. And which was announced by NARA on Jan 20 2021

          Course I guess telepathy works too.

          1. Zeb   2 years ago

            Telepathy isn't required. He could just declassify them and not tell anyone. Which I would agree is a bad way to do it. But I'm not convinced that that is not within the president's proper powers.

            1. charliehall   2 years ago

              Nope. He didn't change Obama's executive order regarding classified information. Had he done so he would have a case.

              1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                He didn't need to, shreek, but you knew that.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                  Then telepathy it is!

                  1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                    If that's how you want to characterize a correct understanding of presidential classification authority, cytotoxic, then sure!

            2. JFree   2 years ago

              So there is no judicial review of and no legislative check on the authority of a President? His authority is both arbitrary and unknowable to anyone but him? There is no rule of law constraint?

              IDK where you R's and Mises crowd are really headed with this sort of thinking - but you're fucking insane and a menace.

              1. Nobartium   2 years ago

                Impeachment is the main way by which congress balances the executive, but you knew that.

            3. JFree   2 years ago

              Let's run with that. Say Trump declassifies a document without telling anyone. And then hands the document back to them.

              Is the document classified as it is stamped or is it declassified as Trump made happen?

      2. JesseAz   2 years ago

        Egan vs Navy says you're full of shit as usual JFree. In that case they used the example of a president discussing classified information in a meeting with a foreign contact. He doesn't have to issue any paperwork but can just decide to reveal it or declassify it there.

        1. JFree   2 years ago

          Nothing about telepathic orders?

          1. JesseAz   2 years ago

            Which words in the example given did you struggle with retard?

      3. Sevo   2 years ago

        "At minimum, he would have to declare that as you say. His authority is not via telepathy. Nor does it extend post-Presidency."

        TDS-addled shitpiles like this assume there is some magic three words a POTUS needs to utter, and they do so absent any evidence whatsoever (this is the shitpile JFree, so that is not surprising).
        Hint, jackoff, if the POTUS treats the material as declass, well, it pretty much is; you as a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit, do not get to set the criteria.
        Oh, and fuck off and die.

  4. Nardz   2 years ago

    https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1668653190277890048?t=b7w7LvinTwZbA89t4m_taw&s=19

    If you thought this was bad, here's the real shocker. Shortly after Poroshenko's aide blew the whistle, Poroshenko asked Biden whether the aide was now cooperating with the FBI. Incredibly, Biden assured Poroshenko that the FBI wasn't pursuing it. How would Biden have known?

    Strangely, the official readout of Biden's call with Poroshenko doesn't mention anything about Biden's assurances that the FBI won't pursue the whistleblower complaint.

    [Links]

    1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

      Why not have a nice snap impeachment to find out if this is true?

  5. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

    So what was Joe’s motivation for keeping papers?

    1. Nazi-Burning Witch   2 years ago

      He was told they'd make an excellent decoration for that storage closet at the university.

      1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

        Trump (and Obama as well) have a compelling argument that they were allowed to take the papers in the first place.

        FJB did not seem to be allowed to even take the documents in question.

        1. Nazi-Burning Witch   2 years ago

          Fortunately, he's got that D behind his name, so he's in the clear.

        2. Pear Satirical   2 years ago

          He had no right to take them as v.p., let alone as a senator.

          1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

            So FJB would be no less of a criminal if he had given them back, just like Brian Mitchell would not have been any less of a criminal if he gave back Elizabeth Smart.

            1. likaj   2 years ago (edited)

              I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......

              SITE. ——>>> dollarsalary.com

    2. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

      Fat stacks of cash from the CCP perhaps?

  6. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

    And because he was President, it was his legal right to take them.

    It is as simple is that.

    1. SRG   2 years ago

      Not according to the Presidential Records Act. It is as simple as that.

      1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

        See here.

        https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

        Of course, whether or not he could keep these documents is a civil matter.

        1. SRG   2 years ago

          Ah, you too repeating the talking point about the Judicial Watch case. Why did Judicial Watch lose?

          And, btw, if you can take docs but not keep them - itself a questionable reading, once the government asks for them back, you really are supposed to return them, not refuse to, nor instruct a lawyer to claim that they were returned.

          Is it your assertion that every charge on the indictment should have been a civil charge?

          1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

            And, btw, if you can take docs but not keep them – itself a questionable reading, once the government asks for them back, you really are supposed to return them, not refuse to, nor instruct a lawyer to claim that they were returned.

            If there is a legal dispute as to whether or not the government really is entitled to those documents, then we have civil litigation available to sort things out.

          2. Pear Satirical   2 years ago

            So he didn't have a right to take his passports. cause they took those too?

          3. JesseAz   2 years ago

            The talking point? It is the current case holding execution of the PRA as interpreted law shrike.

            Your CNN law degree is useless.

            1. SRG   2 years ago (edited)

              Still not shrike.

              The PRA is not the basis for the indictment, so get back on your diabetes trolley and fuck off.

              I never claimed to have a law degree, btw. Nor do I watch CNN.

              1. JesseAz   2 years ago (edited)

                No. The basis is a bullshit charge genned up for political reasons as shown by the FBI notes in the Hillary case dumdum.

                The charges in the case would apply to every president as described shrike. Obama had thousands of docs in a warehouse.

      2. JesseAz   2 years ago

        How many times are you going to blindly repeat CNN narratives and controlling legal rulings shrike?

        First PRA is civil, not criminal. Then the current holding on the PRA defers to the ex president, not NARA.

        1. SRG   2 years ago

          And I continue to not be shrike, while you continue to be a Trumpsucker. But Trump is not being charged under PRA, as you'd know if you'd looked at the indictment.

          BTW why did the judge rule against JW?

          1. JesseAz   2 years ago

            Because.the.president.has.deference.

            What aren't you getting shrike?

          2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

            It's funny how you stopped calling everybody "cracker" after you accidentally fucked up yesterday and posted one of your SRG copypastas from your Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 account, shreek. Not as a funny as the time you got your original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography but still funny.

        2. charliehall   2 years ago

          The Espionage Act is criminal. Now he won't go to prison -- his stooge Judge Cannon will see to that. And the resulting outrage will lead to a Biden landslide. That is a good outcome. Especially since Trump will probably be in a New York State prison.

          1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

            You should stick to the ActBlue talking points on your SRG handle, shreek. This is a pretty stupid look even for you.

      3. One-Punch_Man   2 years ago

        Obama did it. Biden had it in his garage.

        You do realize a president can declassify anything right?

        Sure Trump is an idiot but this is so political it's not even trying to hide.

        Perfect timing huh? Trump being indicted right when pays to Biden come to light.

  7. SRG   2 years ago (edited)

    There have been memes a-plenty, but this one well captures the mood of the article.

    My boxes

    1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      According to JW vs NARA they are.

      1. SRG   2 years ago

        STFU - you don't even understand the case, Why did JW lose?

        1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

          It took you 2 days to get the latest ActBlue PDF before you could even muster your rebuttal to that case, shreek. I don't think you ought to lecture anybody about what they do and don't understand. Or maybe you're just confused about the difference between British and American law. They have classes on that at Oxford, it's too bad you didn't take any while you were getting your degree.

        2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          I understand the case just fine. They lost for several reasons, the main reason because they couldn't prove Clinton's intent for the recordings. However that was not the only reason, and multiple decisions and precedents were set, and I quoted them directly.

          You, on the other hand haven't quoted jackshit to back up your allegations.
          In fact you've gone out of your way not to cite anything from the case and have simply called names and said "You don't understand" without ever specifying why.

          This kind of cheap rhetoric might work for you at Huffpo, but it won't fly here.

    2. Sevo   2 years ago

      "There have been memes a-plenty,.."
      You should search for some brains, fuck-face.

  8. Dillinger   2 years ago

    five million dollar bribes and recordings ...

    1. SRG   2 years ago

      Why did the chicken cross the road?

      Dillinger: why did the duck cross the road?

      1. VinniUSMC   2 years ago

        Why did the Biden chicken cross the road?

        SRG: To get to the other side.

        Why did the Trump chicken cross the road?

        SRG: Off with his head!

        1. SRG   2 years ago

          A for effort, F for humour

          1. Sevo   2 years ago

            F for brains, fuck-face.

          2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

            Funny, we all had that same reaction when you got your Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned and got an entire comment section nuked for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography, guv'nah shreek.

      2. Dillinger   2 years ago

        lol do you even apples & oranges?

    2. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

      Why not have a nice snap impeachment and find out if this is true.

      1. Dillinger   2 years ago

        Brandon? fine by me.

  9. M L   2 years ago

    B-b-but his documents!

  10. Ben of Houston   2 years ago

    While I agree with your idea as a distinct possibility, I cannot share your condemnation.

    Let's make it a little more eloquent:
    These documents are mine by law, and based on the very principle of the matter, I will not give them up to a request that is explicitly intended to deprive me of my lawful property.

    Is that not what all advice on dealing with the law says? If the police ask something of you, volunteer nothing and ensure they have a proper warrant? That property rights should be respected based on principle?

    Since when is fighting in court admission of guilt? What is this, a melodrama where you know someone is guilty because they ask for a lawyer?

    I am intentionally going a little to far in the other direction here. However, you are approaching this in bad faith with a closed mind.

    1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

      You are wrong right from the start when you say, "These documents are mine by law". The law is the Presidential Records Act that says the documents are the property of the American people and that the NARA act for the people in keeping and maintaining the documents.

      Now Trump's lawyers can challenge that law in court, but for now that is the law.

      1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

        NARA could sue Trump to compel the return of the documents.

        1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

          I doubt that an agency like NARA sues anyone. My experience has been that most agencies have lawyers for general matters and that litigation is turned over to the DOJ. That is true at a federal level, as well as at lower government levels. Litigation is handled by the department specifically assigned to address legal issues.

          1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

            Whether NARA hires its own lawyers or refers it to the justice department, the result is the same, shreek: the remedy here would be civil litigation. But you knew that.

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

          The law requires NARA to tell the Attorney General, and the AG then decides what to do.

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106

          1. JesseAz   2 years ago

            Is the PRA a civil or criminal law jeffrey?

            1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

              It is civil. DoJ lawyers would represent NARA in a lawsuits for civil remedies either in law or in equity.

        3. charliehall   2 years ago

          Trump was ordered to return the documents and didn't. He had his lawyers lie about that.

          1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

            Assertions without evidence are just accusations, shreek. Also we heard you the first time, stop samefagging your own posts with socks you've outed thousands of times, it's cringe.

          2. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

            Ordered by which court of competent jurisdiction?

      2. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

        But if he gave them back “ without a hassle “ no law is broken, right?

        1. SRG   2 years ago

          No - but prosecution is unlikely.

          1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

            Agreed.

            1. JesseAz   2 years ago (edited)

              Two statists weigh in on why one sided prosecutions are fine.

              It is clear the CNN narrative got out to all the leftists here.

              1. SRG   2 years ago

                Pence never got prosecuted either.

                Though all you whining Trumpsuckers can't conceive of the possibility of Trump being guilty of anything - or at least, of being legitimately tried for anything, because Trump.

                How Trump could have avoided prosecution: returned all the boxed when asked to. As Ejercito would say, simple as that.

                1. JesseAz   2 years ago

                  Be clear here shrike. How does Joe or Obama having documents differ from trump? Use the law as charged by the DoJ.

                  Or are you dumb enough to think he was charged with not returning documents?

                  Youre a leftist authoritarian shrike. Incapable of independent thought. You think what CNN or Soros tells you to think.

            2. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

              So keeping the papers isn’t crime, it’s the “hassle”.

              1. SRG   2 years ago

                Your ability to present yourself as a fucking idiot is truly awesome.

                The answer is, no. I didn't say that there was no crime, only that had he returned the boxes, there'd have been no indictment.

                1. JesseAz   2 years ago (edited)

                  He had the documents for 1/5th the time Joe had them, 1/2 the time Obama had them. So explain your logic.

                  Be careful here shrike. NARA already admitted Biden created a false predicate asking for the documents trump had. So think slowly. Or just think if you are able to.

                  1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                    You'll have to wait until tomorrow when the new ActBlue PDF goes out.

                2. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

                  It’s gonna be a hoot when they indict joe.

                  1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

                    The House could impeach FJB. Let a nice Senate trial determine whether he could keep or take those documents in the first place.

            3. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

              Hey, shreek's samefagging sock agrees with his other samefagging sock. We have a consensus, ladies and gentlemen.

          2. Super Scary   2 years ago

            You misspelled "persecution."

      3. Ben of Houston   2 years ago

        Except, as mentioned elsewhere, there is legal precedent in the Clinton case that undermines such a simple conclusion.

        At the very least, it is Trump's position that he broke no law and that he was allowed to keep these documents. With that assumption, calling it a toddler's idea of property is derisive and counter-productive.

  11. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

    So, if Trump and his defenders are correct, then: what is the limiting principle on what a president is allowed to take?

    Can a president take *any document at all* after he leaves office and take personal ownership of it?

    Could he, say, download the entire NSA surveillance database, *take ownership of it*, and then use it however he wishes? And that would be perfectly legal because "he's the president"?

    What are the limits here?

    1. AT   2 years ago

      I agree. I think this has been overthought since Day 1. We've heard clip-clops ever since, and we're convinced ourselves (for stupid partisan reasons) that it's got to be a zebra somewhere inside that horse farm. If we could only just find it. If there was something about zebras that could just help distinguish them from horses and we just can't put our finger on it.

      There's no grand conspiracy here. President Petulance simply doesn't like being told he can't do/have something. This is his same 'ol "Grab it by the meow-meow" approach, just towards random crap from the White House instead of women.

    2. Nobartium   2 years ago

      what is the limiting principle on what a president is allowed to take?
      Nothing. But this has been the MO forever, as all living ex-presidents know where the nukes are located. As per usual, you fail to distinguish intent and actions. Nothing that Trump took has been used in the commission of other crimes. He's only in trouble then.

      1. yajib   2 years ago (edited)

        Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail

        SITE. ——>>>  workingbitecoin12.com

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

        as all living ex-presidents know where the nukes are located.

        Okay, sure. But that is different from claiming that an ex-president took a map of where the nukes are, claimed personal ownership of that map, and then declared that he has unlimited authority to do whatever he likes with that map.

        So if the result of Trump's argument is that ex-presidents have the unlimited right to take every US government document, declare it to be his personal property, and use it however he wishes, then that is a ridiculous argument that no sane person should accept.

        1. Nobartium   2 years ago

          As previously stated, they can't use them how they want, but they retain the right to use them broadly.

        2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

          But that is different from claiming that an ex-president took a map of where the nukes are, claimed personal ownership of that map, and then declared that he has unlimited authority to do whatever he likes with that map.

          Yet you weren't concerned about that possibility when Obama, Bush, and Clinton all stashed away thousands of secret documents in their presidential libraries and told NARA to get fucked if they don't like it. But we're supposed to criminally charge Trump under a statute that creates only civil violations because he might-could sell our precious nukular sekrets!!!!111!!!one!!eleventy!!!!! It's almost like you're just an unprincipled partisan shill supporting a witch hunt because you hate the target cytotoxic.

    3. Zeb   2 years ago

      I don't think there are any limits on what a president can declassify or disclose. This is because according to article 2 he holds all executive authority which covers anything military or national security related. Whether he can keep them as his own property is another question, perhaps, but as others have suggested, I think that is a civil matter, not criminal.
      The president has limited powers, but where he does have power, it is pretty broad. And congress, except through impeachment, has no power to constrain the president's exercise of the executive power.
      Of course this could be very dangerous if a truly compromised president was elected. But I think it is necessary as the president is the only elected member of the executive branch.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

        And congress, except through impeachment, has no power to constrain the president’s exercise of the executive power.

        Well, yes and no. For example, while the president is Commander in Chief, the president couldn't decide to, say, start selling tanks on Ebay. That is because they are government property and Congress (along with the Executive Branch) set rules for how government property is to be treated. These documents that Trump took, they are ultimately government property.

        1. Zeb   2 years ago

          So, it's because the actual pieces of paper belong to the government that this is a problem? I'm pretty sure they have copies (or more likely that the papers Trump has are copies).

        2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

          What if the tanks all have bears in the trunk, cytotoxic?

      2. Nazi-Burning Witch   2 years ago

        You mean someone like the current president?

    4. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

      What are the limits?

      You can’t take the silverware.
      Remember that one?

      1. Dillinger   2 years ago

        the Ws on the keyboards are off-limits, O ...

    5. JesseAz   2 years ago

      The limiting principle is civil legal proceedings to determine ownership retard. Not use of the Espionage Act.

  12. sarcasmic   2 years ago

    I doubt the people who don't respect the electoral system have any respect for a court of law.

    1. Pear Satirical   2 years ago

      Yeah, but that's the Democrats for you.

    2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

      It's amazing how much respect you've developed for courts of law in the last 5 or 6 years, sarcasmic. When you were just a convicted felon and homeless junkie you used to rail about the judicial system and what a piece of shit it was, even suggesting murdering judges and cops. What changed, drunky?

  13. DaveM   2 years ago (edited)

    There’s a deeper issue here: Trump considers anything he has declassified as potentially being “my boxes”. But that’s obviously wrong. Those official records belong to us, not to him. Technically, he is stealing those records by keeping them. He’s just an ordinary citizen now, he has no special right to those records.

    I abhor the entire Trump Clown Car procession. For the love of our beloved country, will you Trump apologists please, please let this demagogue sink back into the dark night — after first giving us back our stuff?

    1. Nardz   2 years ago

      Just off yourself and save everybody the trouble, dave

    2. Zeb   2 years ago

      Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think those are original documents, but copies or printouts of digital documents. In which case it is hard to make the case that he is stealing anything. The information is still there in whatever government archives. Do you really imagine that those are the only copies of important national security documents?

      1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

        The information itself, not the individual copies, are government property. The government takes classified information very seriously.

        1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

          Maybe we should snap-impeach FJB and find out.

        2. JesseAz   2 years ago

          Remember when you claimed a friend got denied a clearance because of his HS records? Good times at showing you know nothing about the issue.

    3. sarcasmic   2 years ago

      Dude, "Trump" and "deep" do not belong in the same sentence. The former crybaby-in-chief doesn't want to play by the rules while his followers continue to defend him hell or highwater. That's it. Nothing deep at all. Except maybe the hot water he's put himself into.

      1. Zeb   2 years ago

        I don't know. I think there are some interesting legal and constitutional issues here. And Trump doing things in his Trumpy way has no bearing on whether he had the power to do so as president.

        1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

          And Trump doing things in his Trumpy way has no bearing on whether he had the power to do so as president.

          Yes and no. This could have gone very differently if he'd just followed procedures instead of acting like he can do anything he wants.

          1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

            And who decides the procedures?

            1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

              I'll tell you who doesn't. The president. Believe it or not, even the president has to follow rules.

              1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

                Yes, the President does, because, and I am going to keep saying this-- the Deep State does not define the procedures because that would be unconstitutional. Our elected leaders define the procedures. Otherwise, it's government by deep-state instead of representative government.

                1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

                  This sarcasmic seems to be a bit dim-witted.

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago (edited)

                  Otherwise, it’s government by deep-state instead of representative government.

                  No, that would make it a government of RULES.

                  1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

                    No, it would not, it would make it a government of unelected bureaucrats who literally make their own rules.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      Bureaucrats who write rules to enforce laws written by a prior Congress and signed by a prior President.

                      Can the President start selling the White House furniture and pocket the cash? Why not? Who's going to tell him no, some Deep State bureaucrat?

                  2. Nobartium   2 years ago

                    By definition, the Chief executive is not bound by rules his subordinates set for themselves.

                    So yes, it would be rule by unelected bureaucrats.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      By definition, the Chief executive is not bound by rules his subordinates set for themselves.

                      He's not bound by the rules his subordinates set for themselves.

                      He is bound by the rules that the law imposes upon him, and which are enforced by subordinates in the executive branch that he appoints.

                    2. Nobartium   2 years ago

                      And those laws, concerning who has authority over classification, have a massive exception for the Presidency specifically.

                3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                  Congress and President, 1978: We, as the elected representatives of the government, are passing this law called the Presidential Records Act.
                  "Deep State" Bureaucracy: Okay, here are the rules consistent with the PRA for how the law will be enforced.
                  Trump: I don't give a shit about your PRA. I'm going to take "my boxes" home with me.
                  "Deep State" Bureaucracy: Nuh-uh, we are taking those boxes back because we are enforcing the law.
                  Diane/Paul: OMG IT'S RULE BY DEEP STATE

                  1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

                    The "Deep State" Bureaucracy's rules do not apply to the President.

                    1. Nardz   2 years ago

                      The chief executive (POTUS) cannot be bound by rules executive branch subordinates set, or by bills seeking to limit executive prerogative from the legislative branch.
                      The constitution really isn't very complicated.
                      Which is all moot since this is clearly an unjust, illegal political prosecution committed by an illegitimate administration which has declared allegiance to globalist totalitarianism via displacing the American flag and flying the rainbow banner of conquest in its place.
                      They've declared war on the American people.

                  2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                    cytotoxic: I have literally no idea what the law says, nor how it is enforced
                    everybody with an IQ in the triple digits: cytotoxic, shut up, you don't know what you're talking about, and executive departments do not supersede the authority of the chief executive
                    cytotoxic: BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!

                4. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                  I don't know what the fuck that means.

                  Look, there are very specific rules in place for the treatment of classified materials that the government takes very seriously. Trump said "The rules don't apply to me I do what I want!" The people who take those rules very seriously disagree. That disagreement is now going to court.

                  That's it. It ain't rocket surgery.

                  1. Zeb   2 years ago

                    Here's how I understand it. I may be wrong on some points, but it makes sense on a plain reading of the constitution.
                    The president is the executive branch. All executive power belongs to the president. Any rules made by the executive are ultimately derived from the presidential executive power under the constitution. So the president can change the rules when it comes to anything military or national security related because those are things that are under the control of the executive.
                    I agree that it is better to follow the rules in general. Then everyone knows what is going on and what is classified or not. But that doesn't mean that the president has to.
                    This is something I've just started thinking much about, so I'm open to other ideas.

                    1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      The executive enforces laws made by Congress. Ultimately all government authority comes from Congress because they write legislation. In practice they have delegated much of that power to the executive in the form of alphabet agencies, but even those agencies are supposed to stay within the law that grants them power. That give the executive much discretion, but even it must act within the bounds of the law.

                    2. JesseAz   2 years ago

                      Classificatipn authority resides solely in the Executive. Egan vs Navy. This has been explained to you multiple times sarc, with citation. This is why you remain ignorant.

                    3. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                      Drunky knows that, he's just posting his ActBlue talking points until the handle of plastic jug Walmart brand vodka deflates his ragingly turgid 2 inch microchode that sprung up when he read another "WALLS ARE CLOSING IN" headline. So just like every other day for the past 7 years.

                    4. DaveM   2 years ago

                      Something that has to be de-classified -- that is, having already been classified -- is literally by definition an official government record, and therefore not a personal document that any ex-President can "own" in any sense at all.

                      An official document belongs to the people, full stop.

                  2. Zeb   2 years ago

                    And the concern about "rule by deep state" is that if the president doesn't have the power to declassify anything, by any process he sees fit, then he is constrained in the exercise of his executive duties either by unelected bureaucrats or by congress, both of which would violate separation of powers and article 2 definition of executive powers. And while there are risks to that arrangement, I think it is important that the power to disclose things kept secret by the government be in the hands of someone in theory accountable to voters and not the permanent civil service and military bureaucracy.

                    1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      Other than being commander-in-chief, the job of the executive is to enforce laws written by Congress. So yeah the president is constrained by Congress. If it's not authorized by Congress or Article II, then the president can't do it.

                    2. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      I don't know the specifics of the law here. That's why it's going to court.

                    3. Zeb   2 years ago

                      Yeah, that's what courts are for. I'd rather see it happen in a less politicized atmosphere, and outside of a criminal trial, but here we are.
                      The president does have powers independent of congress, that are not subject to congress and that is specifically what I'm talking about with "executive duties". That's the whole checks and balances/separation of powers thing. Classified documents relating to military and national security fall within that executive power/duty as I understand it.

                    4. JesseAz   2 years ago

                      Sarc. Do everyone a favor and read article II.

                    5. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                      I don’t know the specifics of the law here.

                      It's been explained to you hundreds of times, drunky. But it's nice of you to admit you're ignorant after 3 dozen posts in a thread arguing with the people who actually do understand the specifics of the law. Nice appeal to authority, too. I'm sure you'll feel just as much respect for the courts and our cherished legal processes the next time Reason riles you up with a fable about The Man oppressing some poor darkie who was about to go to college and turn his life around too.

                    6. sarcasmic   2 years ago (edited)

                      Classified documents relating to military and national security fall within that executive power/duty as I understand it.

                      I can see that, but why do the specifics of the documents matter? Would it have been different if he kept documents related to something else?

                      And as I keep saying, classified information is a big deal. I know someone who works from home and has a clearance. He has to follow all kinds of rules like having his office be a dedicated room that’s locked up except when he enters or exits. They call it a secured space. Even within secured spaces there are controls on how the information is labeled and stored. Perhaps if Trump hadn’t left the boxes laying around it wouldn’t have been such a huge deal.

                      I too wish it wasn’t so politicized. As far as I can tell, he fucked up. But it only became a big deal because he refused to give in on anything. Had he not been so stubborn we wouldn’t be here right now.

                      I see the argument being made that he could declassify information if he wanted. Does that mean that the stuff he took home is declassified because he took it? Does that mean that we can see the contents because it's declassified, or is it in some limbo where it's not declassified for him but still classified for us?

                  3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

                    If we believe that alphabet agencies under the executive branch can keep things secret, unilaterally, then that means if we elect a reform-president who wants to alert the American public about malfeasance within the security state, the President, who runs the executive branch would literally not be allowed to do so. So if a President wanted to alert the American people (on a mandate from the electorate) that they're being spied on, it would suggest that it would be illegal for him to do so, if said spying regime and associated documents were "classified" by said alphabet agency.

                    THAT'S what that means.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

                      If we believe that alphabet agencies under the executive branch can keep things secret, unilaterally,

                      Who is suggesting that alphabet agencies should have this type of power?

                      I would hope that all agencies, to the extent that they have any power to keep things secret, do so only in a manner established by law, a law written by Congress.

                  4. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

                    It's also why "what about Clinton, what about Obama, What about Biden" is actually a non-starter, and specifically why they were never convicted.

              2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                Trump has behaved in exactly the same way as the 4 previous occupants of the office as well as the current occupant of the office as it regards the retention of government records, drunky. Why weren't you sucking DOJ cock and agitating for prosecutions then, but you are now? It's a mystery, all right.

    4. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

      There’s a deeper issue here: Trump considers anything he has declassified as potentially being “my boxes”. But that’s obviously wrong. Those official records belong to us, not to him. Technically, he is stealing those records by keeping them. He’s just an ordinary citizen now, he has no special right to those records.

      So it was the right who was originally saying "but what about Clinton and Obama" and now it's you. Ok... so, using your own metrics, "what about Clinton and Obama", if I stick to your train of logic?

      1. DaveM   2 years ago

        I don't see the contradiction here at all. To the degree to which those 30,000 wiped emails were official records, what Clinton did was just as wrong-headed as what Trump is doing.

        I don't see any problem with an ex-official being allowed to house official records, provided they have the blessing of the appropriate authorities, and provided they don't claim ownership over them. For example, I take no issue with Presidential Libraries.

        I object to those claiming they own these records. They absolutely do not. We own them.

    5. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

      No do Joe and the corvette documents

    6. Sevo   2 years ago

      "...But that’s obviously wrong..."

      No, Dave. What's obviously wrong is your assumption your IQ reaches 2 digits.
      Fuck off and die.

  14. JFree   2 years ago

    I think the combo of toddler and narcissist explains all.

    1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

      I agree, but it also seems like we are seeing a rather rapid deterioration in the former President's mental health. I have speculated that the pictures suggest he is suffering from a hoarder's disorder. While I initially thought the crap on a stolen election was part of his scheme, I now wonder if he himself believes it. His behavior is also becoming erratic, especially his increasingly belligerent verbal attacks.

      He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of Lenny Bruce, where at the end Bruce's standup routine has evolved into little more than an incoherent rant.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

        I agree, but it also seems like we are seeing a rather rapid deterioration in the former President’s mental health.

        ?!! Well, you're onto something here. We can't elect a man who's in any kind of cognitive decline! Who might we reluctantly vote for in 2024 who's not in that state?

        1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          Maybe we should just bar anyone over 80 running in the next election.

          1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

            That would require a Constitutional amendment, so very unlikely to happen.

            1. JFree   2 years ago

              Maybe morons should stop voting for people that old just because they have name recognition.

              1. Sevo   2 years ago

                Fine. Gather another moron and have a convention.

            2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              Yeah, I was obviously being sarcastic along with Paul on the lack of awareness in your post... but as expected of you to not get it, M4e.

          2. JFree   2 years ago

            Try 65. There should be no more Presidents who were adults in the Vietnam era. They have been poison as Presidents and in Congress (nearly half the Senate is over 65 and not much lower % in the House). The US is turning into a gerontocracy.

            1. JesseAz   2 years ago

              Try only vaccinated persons being able to run, right JFree?

              1. Nardz   2 years ago

                Really wish someone would just euthanize the imbecile

        2. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

          Plenty of people question is will they be on the ballot?

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago (edited)

            yeah, not going to abide those Putin puppets and Russian assets. And don’t get me started on those populists.

            What we need is to re-enter the warm comfortable womb of 90s era center left politics. Maybe Jared Polis will run!

        3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

          We can’t elect a man who’s in any kind of cognitive decline!

          Finally we can agree.

      2. mtrueman   2 years ago

        "where at the end Bruce’s standup routine has evolved into little more than an incoherent rant."

        If I remember correctly in the end he was reduced to reading transcripts from his legal proceedings to his audiences. Without getting much in the way of laughs.

      3. charliehall   2 years ago

        Not a deterioration. Those of us in NYC have always known that he is this bad.

        1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

          When did you move from Dog Dick Georgia, shreek?

    2. Sevo   2 years ago

      "I think the combo of toddler and narcissist explains all."

      The combo of chicken little and ignoramus explains this.
      Fuck off and die, asshole.

  15. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago (edited)

    Imagine being dumb enough to think that the issue is all about the accuracy of the charges, the legality of Trump’s actions or words, the “truth” behind if the docs are classified or not? Good grief, you people are not gonna make it

  16. Super Scary   2 years ago

    Well, this is certainly better than journalists trying to say that Trump claimed to use psychic/telepathic powers to declassify the documents.

    1. SRG   2 years ago

      He said that he could declassify documents by thinking about it. I don't know that he ever said that he'd actually done it.

      1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

        "He said that he could declassify documents by thinking about it."

        And essentially so did the courts in 2012:

        Again from J.W. v. NARA

        "Plaintiff has alleged no facts that would suggest that the tapes were circulated to anyone beyond the former President and the historian, or that they were used (as opposed to generated) in the course of transacting official business. More important, as plaintiff acknowledged at the hearing, we lack any information about what President Clinton had in mind:

        THE COURT: How can I make that decision without the information that would really only be in the [P]resident’s head, what they were created and utilized for?
        [PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: Well, that’s the problem.

        this responsibility is left solely to the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)–(b). While the plaintiff casts this lawsuit as a challenge to a decision made by the National Archives, the PRA makes it clear that this is not a decision the Archivist can make, and in this particular case, it is not a decision the Archivist did make because President Clinton’s term ended in 2000, and the tapes were not provided to the Archives at that time. To the extent that there was a subsequent classification decision the Archivist purported to make, see supra note 2, or to be more accurate, a decision to decline to revisit the President’s classification decision, any injury plaintiff claims it suffered as a result would not be redressable because there is nothing under the statute that the Court can compel the Archivist to do.

        1. SRG   2 years ago

          Again with the misunderstanding of the case. You clearly can't distinguish between motive/intent and activity. And in any event the case was about personal v Presidential. Trump is not being charged with breaches of the PRA.

          I am curious, though - who in the right-wing bubble first posted that Judicial Watch v. NARA was so important in US v Trump?

          1. Sevo   2 years ago

            Don't know, but there it is, fuck-face.

          2. JesseAz   2 years ago (edited)

            Motive and intent don’t matter in cases of gross negligence as written into the law. Your McDonald’s law license is hereby revoked.

            Please say you dont understand this standard or mens rea is a requirement. I want to laugh at you more.

            In past cases the act of taking a document from a SCIF was the intentional act. Something Joe had to do as a senator.

            1. SRG   2 years ago

              Ah yes., throw in a few terms that sound learned and ignore their applicability. It would be as though I threw around the term "Reynolds number" in a context that made it clear I thought it had something to do with aluminium foil.

          3. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

            "Again with the misunderstanding of the case."

            You keep claiming that while avoiding explaining why, or providing quotes from the decision to back your accusation.
            How curious. Almost like you were completely full of shit or something.

            "who in the right-wing bubble first posted that Judicial Watch v. NARA"

            I literally gave this fifty-centing clown erstwhile "Oxfordian law student", a link to Politico (of all places) from 2012, that gave the exact same interpretation I did. That's the outfit that this piece of garbage is trying to insinuate is a right-wing smear shop... fucking Politico.

          4. Diarrheality   2 years ago

            Oh for fuck's sake--who do you think you're kidding? Your understanding of jurisprudence is the very definition of a mile wide and and inch deep.

      2. Sevo   2 years ago

        "He said that he could declassify documents by thinking about it. I don’t know that he ever said that he’d actually done it."

        And you, as a slimy pile of TDS-addled shit, seem to think he must do something YOU imagine to be required.
        Here's what's really required:
        Fuck off and die, asshole.

      3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

        You know who else claimed the documents in their sock drawer were declassified by the act of putting them in the sock drawer?

  17. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

    thought experiment for you 90 IQ types:

    Imagine that somehow Trump prevails and wins the election and is sworn in as president in 2025 (in spite of all the violent antifa riots and insurrections that will obviously take place in the leadup). If that happens, and if you were to rank all the reasons why you'd be unhappy with the result, is THIS classified docs bullshit going to even make your top 20 reasons? top 50?

    Lol no. stop pretending you give a shit about if he should or should not have had the boxes.

    1. Nazi-Burning Witch   2 years ago

      It'd be nice to give a bunch of the Pantifa crowd the J6 treatment.

    2. Super Scary   2 years ago

      "Imagine that somehow Trump prevails and wins the election"

      The elections will remain fortified, so even as a thought experiment we won't get anywhere.

      1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

        How would you feel if you didnt have breakfast this morning?

        1. Nardz   2 years ago

          "But I did have breakfast!"

  18. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

    See here.

    https://reason.com/2023/06/12/trumps-federal-indictment-presents-new-evidence-of-deliberate-deceit-and-obstruction/?comments=true#comment-10105988

    In the unanimous decision in Navy v Egan 484 U.S. 518 (1988), Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court and stated Trump had the authority to do exactly what he did and all Trump has to do is say he declassified them on his last day and he’s good to go!!!
    “The President, after all, is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.” – Justice Blackmun

  19. AT   2 years ago

    Welp, he's under arrest.

    And once again, Donald is playing his part for the left - serving as a magnificent distraction from all the stuff we say we care about coming out of Camp Democrat.

    I can't tell if he's a useful idiot, or if he's in on it. I really can't.

  20. sarcasmic   2 years ago

    The coverup is always worse than the crime, right?
    In this case the 'crime' would be the treatment of classified materials, while the 'coverup' would be holding onto the stuff.
    If he'd just given the boxes back when originally asked, instead of keeping them like an idiot, none of this would be happening.
    What a maroon.

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

      If he’d just given the boxes back when originally asked,

      But he was never going to do that, because he genuinely believes those documents are his personal property.

      1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

        Maybe they were.

        1. charliehall   2 years ago

          They aren't.

          1. Diarrheality   2 years ago

            Cite? Perhaps you were too distracted by the smell of your own asshole to provide proof beyond your mindless bigotry.

      2. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

        you do understand right that no matter what they were going to find something to charge him with?

        The boxes are borderline irrelevant here.

        1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

          Like what?

          1. JesseAz   2 years ago

            Like 7 straight years of bullshit they've threatened him with and you've cheered on.

            1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

              But this time the walls really are closing in Jesse! It's not like the other 439 times drunky got really hyped and regurgitated ActBlue talking points for weeks!

    2. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

      By your logic, a bank robber could just return the proceeds, and as such would avoid prosecution for bank robbery.

      By your logic, Brian Mitchell could have simply returned Elizabeth Smart to her family, and as such would avoid prosecution for kidnapping.

      1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

        No, you are offering false equivalencies.

        More accurate example would be if the IRS informs you of an error on your taxes and tells you to send the money and interest. You may or may have made the mistake on purpose. The IRS's primary interest is getting the money owed and not in prosecuting you.

        Another example could be when a person is fired from a company and takes their work assigned laptop because they feel information developed by them is on the computer. The company could prosecute for theft, but would likely be happier to just get the computer back.

        1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

          ^ what he said

          1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

            My equivalency was true.

            1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

              You'll need to do better than just declaring it so. Make an actual argument.

              1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

                I did.

                if Trump actually stole the documents in question (and he did not, because he had the legal right to take them) , then subsequent return is in no way a defense of the original stealing.

                It is as simple as that.

                1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                  He may have had the right to take them home while he was president. The question is whether or not he could keep them afterwards.

                  1. IceTrey   2 years ago

                    They all do.

                  2. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

                    And that sort of question could be settled by civil litigation.

                    It would be the same if Obama refused to turn over the formerly classified documents in his warehouse in Chicago.

                    1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                      And that sort of question could be settled by civil litigation.

                      It's classified information which makes it different than just any other property.

                    2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                      No, there's no "classified information" exception in the relevant law, drunky. Still a civil matter. The criminal charges are political and nothing else. Same as every other dupe you've fallen for in the last 7 years from the pee pee tape all the way to J6 "insurrection"

        2. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

          More accurate example would be if the IRS informs you of an error on your taxes and tells you to send the money and interest. You may or may have made the mistake on purpose. The IRS’s primary interest is getting the money owed and not in prosecuting you.

          And what if they were wrong about the mistake?

          What if they tell some working poor person that he owes them a trillion dollars. Is he supposed to pay that then and there?

          https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1667175211496620036

          1. Nazi-Burning Witch   2 years ago

            Just cut a check. How many zeros behind the one in a trillion? Twelve?

            "... and zero cents."

  21. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

    "My boxes" has always been the simplest, most durable explanation for Trump's behavior. He took the boxes because he likes boxes of stuff, and he refused to give them back for the same reason.

    So... for better or worse, he had no specific interest in what was in those boxes, especially after his own deep state apparatus has now been confirmed to have engaged in illegal wiretapping and trumped up charges and FBI investigations, and will likely continue to attack him using *checks Sam Harris style guide* any means necessary to keep him away from the levers of power?

    1. Nazi-Burning Witch   2 years ago

      I mean, Sam Harris would have been OK with his own children being raped and their corpses stored in Biden's basement as long as nothing happened to interfere with turfing out Trump.

  22. Spiritus Mundi   2 years ago

    The 'But Trump' Theory Is All You Need To Explain Reason's Behavior

  23. Brandybuck   2 years ago

    And all the commentariat: "HIS BOXES!", as if that were sufficient explanation.

    1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

      Let’s talk more about “ joe’s boxes “ then.

    2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

      That you can't understand the arguments being made doesn't mean that your strawman characterization of them is correct, bootlicker.

  24. creech   2 years ago

    The President is not a King. He (or she or "they") is our employee. The president's private papers should consist ot things like a birthday card from Melania or a note from Dr. Jill reminding Joe to stop at the bank on the way back from Rehoboth. Anything related to the exercise of the president's powers are our property and should not be taken when the prez leaves office. Keep the papers in storage, allow prez' ghostwriter access to write the memoirs, and give copies to any presidential library the prez convinced his supporters to fund and build.

    1. Nardz   2 years ago

      Keep sucking that deep state, bureaucrat cock

      1. creech   2 years ago

        Not quite sure what your comment means in relation to ownership of America's official papers.

        1. Nardz   2 years ago

          "should not be taken when the prez leaves office. Keep the papers in storage"

          And who the fuck is going to do that?
          We know the answer: career bureaucrats as directed by the deep state.
          You're asking for unelected, unaccountable mandarins to be given sole discretion and proprietorship over all executive documents.

    2. IceTrey   2 years ago

      They're copies the original documents are digital.

    3. Mike Laursen   2 years ago

      Just found out tomorrow is Trump’s birthday. (He’ll be 77.) Man, that’s cold to arraign a guy the day before his birthday.

  25. sarcasmic   2 years ago

    I wonder how far the "Whatabout Hillary" defense will go in court. It certainly convinced his followers.

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      Keep cheering on unequal use of the law sarc. The one true libertarian sees no issue with this.

      1. Michael Ejercito   2 years ago

        The Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary rodham Clinton) used BleachBit to wipe hard drives, and smashed phones~!

        Was the Cunt®™ prosecuted?

        https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/

        …one of the biggest takeaways is what a destructive, vicious, damaging person Hillary Clinton is to our political process. This Russia collusion thing didn’t only damage Trump. He won the 2016 election anyway, despite this, think how big a victory he might have had without it. But it really froze and paralyzed the country politically for over four years. The damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign did was so tremendous to this nation. I think that to some extent, while it’s being highlighted by a lot of the news coverage, they’re not really doing it personal to Hillary and it to be, she really is possibly the most destructive politician we’ve certainly had in this century, in recent memory. The manipulation that she perpetrated here is so horrible, not for what it did to Donald Trump, that’s bad enough, but what it did to our nation. We’re at each other’s throats because of what Hillary Clinton did. And she needs to be roundly condemned, and she’s not getting a fraction of the criticism that she deserves ….So I think the damage that’s been done is long lasting it tears at the fabric of our society. And it was caused by Hillary Clinton, the federal government and the mainstream corporate media all acting in unison….

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

      Hillary was never President.

      1. Rex L'Amoureaux   2 years ago

        The sole reason Trump has been attacked for the past 7 years.

        1. Nardz   2 years ago

          No, that's incidental to why Trump has been relentlessly attacked since late 2015.
          The real reason is that he is outside the political class, and they think it's possible he actually feels he represents the American people. Particularly, the middle/working class, small business owners, tradesmen, blue collars. Independent Americans. They're terrified of Trump's base. And they have dedicated all their efforts to taking out their representative, destroying their way of life, and demoralizing their spirit.
          Most don't really give a shit about Hillary. Many even dislike her. But she is a member of their tribe, while they hate and are at war with the American people.

    3. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

      Probably about as far as the "I don't understand the law" argument you offered earlier, after spending 3 dozen posts explaining why everyone else was wrong about the law and your ActBlue PDF is right, drunky.

  26. Jerryskids   2 years ago

    I've seen pictures of the stacks of boxes in the bathroom and the ballroom and the storage room, I'm assuming Trump filched tens of thousands of classified documents. My question is why the FBI didn't seize those dozens of boxes full of sensitive information when they raided Mar-A-Lago? And why does the indictment limit itself to a few dozen cases when there are obviously thousands more?

    Oh, shit! I just realized I have boxes stacked down in my basement. I hope nobody rats me out for having boxes of nuclear secrets in my basement.

  27. MatthewSlyfield   2 years ago

    Trump is a miner. Mine, Mine, Mine, Mine.

    1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

      ^ small minds talk about people.

      1. sarcasmic   2 years ago (edited)

        I assume you’re referring to the aphorism “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”

        Talk about misunderstanding that aphorism. It doesn’t say that great minds don’t talk about people. It takes an exceptionally stupid person to come to that conclusion, and I see it paraded here every day.

        Here's what it means. Small minds discuss people, and that’s it. Average minds discuss events and people, but not ideas. Great minds discuss all of the above.

        1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

          how would you feel if you didnt have breakfast this morning?

          1. Nardz   2 years ago

            He's not going to get it

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            Do all of you read 4chan?

            https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-breakfast-question

            1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

              I figured it was some lame attempt to appear clever.

              1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

                Wherein sarcasmic the professional comedian seethes like a raging faggot because he was too stupid to understand that he was the butt of the joke.

        2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

          The hilarious thing is that you've used "small minds discuss people" as a bumper sticker quite literally every day for the last 6 or 7 years whenever anyone to the right of Mao reminds you what an unintelligent, clueless, ignorant simpleton you are. Usually you double up on the retardation by mistaking name calling for ad hominem while you're at it. And then you proceed to never discuss ideas and do nothing but issue personal attacks. Because you're a hypocrite as well as a drunken moron who lost custody of his child for sexual abuse.

    2. Sevo   2 years ago

      MS is a TDS-addled shit: Trump! Trump! Trump!
      Fuck off and die, asshole.

  28. TrickyVic (old school)   2 years ago

    "There's no deep mystery behind why Trump kept boxes of classified documents."

    The documents listed in the indictment would fill a box maybe two at best.

  29. Nardz   2 years ago

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1668667382284398592?t=V5ZiUvso2xtpM0g8sVa6EQ&s=19

    When he tweeted this, the FBI had a file on the Bidens being investigated for bribery by Ukraine

    They hid it and let Trump get impeached

    He was 100% right

    [Link]

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

      Do you have a link to the recording?

      1. Nardz   2 years ago

        I'll send it to you.

      2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

        Like it matters, you've spent 7 years lying about the contents of the Mueller report and fully convinced every allegation in the pee pee tape dossier was real, cytotoxic.

  30. Tripoli   2 years ago (edited)

    EVERY president has kept top secret documents. Because just about everything associated with him is considered top secret, meal menus, schedules, basic paperwork that president reference for memoirs are always kept. Obama has a huge unsecured warehouse in Chicago with hundreds of thousands of such documents. That ware house has been broken into several times and documented taken as kids, spies and even rats eating documents. Biden has his issues in his garage, the Clintons server had a huge amount, Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence on the servers and Clinton aids caught stealing documents from the National archives in their pants. The reason why this is such a story is that the deep state can try to harm Trump.

  31. skunkman   2 years ago

    This is just more proof that Hillary is smarter than Trump. Stupid Donnie has paper files that are hard to hide. Hillary just needed to have someone go to the closet server and hit delete.

    I can't stand Trump. But this is Merriam Websters worthy as a definition for double standard.

  32. John C. Randolph   2 years ago

    If Trump can be convicted on the facts presented in this indictment, then so can every other former president. They all take documents with them when they leave office, and they also have an absolute constitutional right to do so. Robert Barnes explains it pretty well here.

    I remember when Jimmy Carter disclosed the existence of the top-secret Stealth bomber because he couldn't take the heat he was getting over cancelling the B1 program, and the Republicans at the time were calling it treason, but it turns out that Carter had the right to do so for any reason or no reason at all.

    -jcr

    1. RickAbrams   2 years ago

      If you form your own country, maybe this will be the law, but it is not the law in the USA

      1. IceTrey   2 years ago

        Yes it is.

      2. John C. Randolph   2 years ago

        Wishing doesn't make it so. Watch the video and learn something.

        -jcr

        1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

          shreek could watch that video 26,000 times and not learn anything. You're trying to teach calculus to a gold fish. Except that the gold fish isn't a pedophile who got banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography.

  33. Honest Economics   2 years ago

    For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/

  34. IceTrey   2 years ago

    I imagine the same reason Obama has boxes at a defunct furniture store and Biden has boxes at the Penn center, the University of Deleware and his garage. Presidents have boxes of stuff they take with them.

    1. IceTrey   2 years ago

      Is this guy related to Eric Ciaramella?

    2. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

      You do realize Joe wasn't President when he stole those documents, right?

  35. RickAbrams   2 years ago

    Yes, My Boxes, is a perfect explanation.

    As I first explained back in December 2016 in CityWatchLA, Trump has a serious mental problem. As I elaborated many times thereafter, Trump has two personality disorders, Histrionic and Narcissistic. Naturally, no one wanted to hear that I was saying. Certainly, GOP did not want to admit he was mentally ill, and the DEMS wanted to paint him as evil.

    Pelosi was fearful that he would be removed from office by impeached or by the 25th amendment if there were general acceptance that he was mentally ill and his impulsivity endangered the nation. Thus, she was against anyone's saying he had mental problems and she sabotaged both impeachmenta in her belief, that a madman running amuck in the GOP would benefit her.

    Of course, a narcissistic Histrionic will cling to the boxes as "My Boxes." Yes, it is irrational. What part of mental illness do people not understand? From watching how people behave, the answer is: they have absolutely no idea how mental illness operates.

    1. IceTrey   2 years ago

      Biden has 1850 boxes at the U of Delaware. Is he crazy too?

      1. John C. Randolph   2 years ago

        Biden is demented. Not quite the same as crazy.

        -jcr

        1. Big Guy   2 years ago

          I would rather be crazy than stupid!

      2. Nazi-Burning Witch   2 years ago

        Well, yes.

    2. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

      What part of mental illness do people not understand?

      We understand it perfectly, shreek. For example, you have a paraphilia called "pedophilia" which makes you sexually attracted to prepubescent children, and you acted on that paraphilia when you posted dark web links to hardcore child pornography and got your Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned. See? It's not super complicated.

  36. justme   2 years ago

    the indictment claims there were 121 pages of classified documents. those photos are misleading and shown as hyperbole to enflame the tards & leftists.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

      BOXES AND BOXES AND BOXES AND BOXES... AND BOXES

  37. apm247   2 years ago

    Boxes full of arepas they will find.

    1. Joe Brandon   2 years ago

      you are my favorite bot ; )

  38. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

    It's laughable when the writer who makes his bones doing "criminal justice reform" can only come up with "OBEY!!" as a reason despite all evidence the State is in the wrong. Kinda makes it impossible to believe a word this marxist twat writes.

    1. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

      If you understand that "criminal justice reform" is just shorthand for "give the darkies a get out of jail free card or you're a racist cracker" then it makes more sense.

  39. CE   2 years ago

    Well, this time they've got him. I guess. Probably did something technically illegal. Even though the security of the USA was never compromised in the slightest, and the investigation and prosecution was 100% politically motivated. Nothing to see here, just a bad guy breaking the law. Not an assault on democracy, but a defense of it, saving the voters from themselves.

  40. Big Guy   2 years ago

    C.J. CIARAMELLA You have TDS for sure. It amazes me how stupid you people on the left are.

    1. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

      Make Amerika Grate Again cultist detected. Deploy Moot Looter shields, ready Firston torpedoes. (http://bit.ly/3IGVUs3)

      1. Joe Brandon   2 years ago

        Hi Hank! Have you tried the arepas?

  41. Liberty Lover   2 years ago (edited)

    So what? A president can declassify by his actions. All previous Presidents have taken classified documents because they wanted them for their Presidential libraries. So what makes Trump different?
    Trump’s action of taking them declassified them. Much different from Biden who as VP and Senator had no right to take any documents. He took them to share information with China and Ukraine in is influence peddling and bribery schemes.

    Proof It Was a Setup? Trump Was 1st POTUS in 40 Years Who Feds Didn’t Help Archive Classified Docs, Attorneys Say>

    That is a possible defense that floated into a letter to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in April by Trump’s attorneys, in which they allege the National Archives and Records Administration “has become overtly political and declined to provide archival assistance to President Trump’s transition team” — the first such incidence of this to happen in 40 years.
    And there’s a reason why NARA usually aids presidents in the transition. As The Associated Press noted in a January piece about the Presidential Records Act, the Classified Information Procedures Act and other statutes in question here, Trump is “hardly the first president to mishandle classified information.”
    For instance, while the Presidential Records Act was signed by President Jimmy Carter, it didn’t apply to his administration. The AP reported Carter “found classified materials at his home in Plains, Georgia, on at least one occasion and returned them to the National Archives, according to the same person who spoke of regular occurrences of mishandled documents. The person did not provide details on the timing of the discovery.

    Also like the New York charges it is not 37 counts, but one count 37 times.

  42. DaveM   2 years ago

    When I left my employer, I gave up:

    - Every online credential to every service I ever used, such as email
    - Every document I had ever authored or edited
    - Every piece of software I had ever written, tested, or edited
    - Every physical device the company had purchased that I used
    - Every key I was ever allowed to use

    Literally the only thing I took were personal items that I had purchased myself but used at the office -- and memories.

    Why? Because all those things belonged to my employer, not to me.

    It would not have mattered one whit if I had been the CEO of the company, the relationship between "their stuff" and "my stuff" would have been exactly the same.

    When will you Trump apologists stand up to your guy and insist that he follow the same laws as the rest of us? Don't you understand that when he goes outside the lines like that he presents the best argument against himself? How can he be trusted to run the place if he treats it like his bathroom?

    1. Public Entelectual   2 years ago

      What have America's state secrets done to merit exposure to Trump's taste in loo decor?

    2. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

      Um... The whole POINT of BOTH halves of the looter Kleptocracy is to take stuff that belongs to someone else! What part of this is hard to understand for subscribers to the Libertarian magazine?

  43. Dave_A   2 years ago

    Trump having the personality and mental abilities of a spoiled 5yo explains pretty much everything from 2015 forward...

    -The childish nicknames for opponents...
    - The sharpie-ing the hurricane map...
    - The still-ongoing attempts to flog made-up 'Biden corruption' (gee, I wonder who the source is for all the stuff they are putting out right now?? Rudy. Guliani. Go figure...)

    And of course the box hoarding....

  44. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

    The Gee Oh Poo platform says government should confiscate girl parts, so the Don got MutterKreus Mom and Blackface Klan Fratboy to help Palito and Long Dong bring back Comstockism. That same platform insinuates the Dems are commie spies, so NOT surprising that Orange Outrageoutan decided to privatize (not burn) the secrets to keep them out of Black Satan's disloyal claws. G Waffen Bush helped local pigs confiscate homes over plant leaf production, and stood shocked in disbelief when "tha Markit stopped wurking."

  45. Hank Ferrous   2 years ago

    Days after this silly bullshit was posted up but Ciaramella, let me give you a steer. Your opinions should be indicated as such, and they generally are, so kudos. This said, basing assertions on what you might do, or the the lowest opinion w/o any evidence is immature at best. It is a hallmark of shitty people on the left and right, and a trait of reasonmag staff. None of this is to say that perhaps 'my stuff' isn't the reason orangemanbad hasn't been more forthcoming during this stage of Get Trump. It seems as likely, and unrelated to his possible guilt, that like any other human, the guy simply objected to apparently random search and seizure. This is a concept with which one would think a nominally libertarian reporter at a self-described libertarian magazine would be familiar. And, as always, one would be wrong.

  46. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

    If your “secret intelligence assessment” was created by the DoD, CIA, NSA, DHS, etc. then it isn’t a Presidential record.

    You're right, it wouldn't be. But I didn't say it was. I didn't make any assumption about who created the record. That was you.

    You assumed something about me that wasn't true, then you condemned me for an incorrect conclusion that follows from an assumption that I didn't make.

    You hate me so much, you are just so desperate to grasp at any straw to make me out to be the villain that you contort everything that I write to frame it in the worst possible light. Because you have CDS - Chemjeff Derangement Syndrome.

    I exposed you as little more than the social conservative that you are, not the libertarian that you pretend to be. You want the state to enforce morality just like the theocrats and the Jerry Falwells out there. And that makes you mad, and so here you are, joining the ankle-biter crowd who is now compelled to respond to everything that I write sneering and barking at me. Because you're a pathetic little man.

  47. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

    Maybe if you weren't a fatass lying piece of shit pedophile groomer you wouldn't generate so many "enemies" who can so readily and convincingly rhetorically and intellectually decimate you, cytotoxic.

  48. Kelley Stojanovic   2 years ago

    I believe this account is older than Joe Friday, although shreek has so many socks I may be mistaking it for another one. Joe Friday itself was either shreek or sarcasmic. More likely sarcasmic since it had all of the same tics as his Kill All Rednecks sock.

  49. Melinda Roman   2 years ago (edited)

    I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
    🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

    Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM

  50. Ersatz   2 years ago

    Its also going to be the technique used by Trump prosecutors.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Supreme Court May Rule for Trump on Nationwide Injunctions but Probably Not on Birthright Citizenship

Damon Root | 5.15.2025 5:28 PM

David Hogg, Victim of Wokeness

Robby Soave | 5.15.2025 4:23 PM

Trade War Means Higher Prices, Fewer Customers for This Vermont Distillery: 'It's Just Chaos'

Eric Boehm | 5.15.2025 12:50 PM

Hasan Piker's CBP Detention Marks Another Trump-Era Attack on Free Speech

Autumn Billings | 5.15.2025 11:24 AM

The South Stole Your Job

Liz Wolfe | 5.15.2025 9:30 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!