Trump's Preposterous Defense in the Purloined Documents Case
The former president suggests he was not obliged to obey a subpoena seeking classified records.

In May 2022, Donald Trump received a federal subpoena demanding all the documents with classification markings that remained in his possession at Mar-a-Lago. At that point, SiriusXM talk show host Megyn Kelly suggested in an interview with the former president last week, he was legally obligated to surrender those records.
"I know this," Trump replied, then immediately corrected himself: "I don't even know that, because I have the right to have those documents." That startling response epitomized the lazy arrogance that Trump displayed in January 2021, when he removed thousands of presidential records from the White House, and during the ensuing year and a half, when he stubbornly resisted efforts to recover them.
In addition to 32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, that pattern of defiance resulted in eight obstruction-related charges, which may pose the most serious threat to Trump's continued freedom. While the other three indictments against Trump face formidable obstacles, including controversial legal interpretations, complicated narratives, and difficult questions of knowledge and intent, the story behind the documents case is relatively straightforward: Trump took a bunch of stuff that did not belong to him and refused to return it.
Trump disputes both parts of that story. Under the Presidential Records Act, he told Kelly, "I'm allowed to do what I wanna do" with government documents, classified or not.
That is a counterintuitive reading of the statute, which says "the United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records." Those records include all documents a president produces or sees in the course of his work, except for material "of a purely private or nonpublic character."
As Trump noted in his interview with Kelly, that law was a response to "Richard Nixon, because he kept everything." Yet Trump claims the law is no bar to his similar assertion of complete discretion over the fate of presidential records.
Even if Trump had a credible argument to that effect, Kelly noted, that did not give him the right to defy a federal subpoena. If Justice Department officials had asked him for the classified material at Mar-a-Lago, Trump insisted, "I would have given it to them."
But that is not what happened. Through his lawyers, Trump said he had complied with the subpoena by surrendering every responsive document. That was not true: During its search of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, the FBI found 102 additional records marked as classified.
When Kelly pointed that out, Trump preposterously claimed "I just don't know the timing" of those events. "All I know is I'm allowed to have those documents," he said.
Trump could claim he accidentally overlooked some documents with classification markings. But that defense would be complicated by conversations in which Trump reportedly suggested hiding the documents, his clandestine removal of file boxes from the storage room his lawyers searched, and his alleged attempt to cover up that cover-up by instructing his underlings to delete security camera footage.
Instead, Trump is suggesting he did not have to comply with a subpoena he claimed to be obeying. This does not seem like a winning legal strategy.
Kelly also asked Trump about the top-secret Defense Department document he allegedly waved around during a July 2021 meeting with two people working on his former chief of staff's memoir. A recording shows that Trump said the "highly confidential" document contained "secret information," adding that "as president, I could have declassified it," but "now I can't," so "this is still a secret."
Trump later told Fox News anchor Bret Baier "there was no document"—only press clippings. When Kelly asked him to reconcile that claim with what he said at the time, Trump replied, "I'm not going to talk about that, because that's already been, I think, very substantiated, and there's no problem with it."
Trump told Kelly he plans to testify in his own defense. For his own sake, his lawyers should try to talk him out of that.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
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.
Please
to post comments
Sullum is so thoroughly discredited, especially where Trump is concerned, that I skipped right to the comments to denounce his dumb ass.
Seriously Jacob, fuck you. Go learn to code. Writing is just not working out for you.
We all need to listen to, and OBEY, Punk Boogers, 'cause Punk Boogers refutes stuff by not reading it!!! And Punk Boogers PROTECTS us all (IF we obey Punk Boogers) from The Wrath of Punk Boogers, who has the RIGHT to punish us with its BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN INSULTS if we disobey! All Hail Punk Boogers!!!
Daft Punk Booger, meet Bad Orange Man.
Fuck off and die, TDS-addled shit pile.
Did he go straight to this ‘Tim the Enchanter’ copypasta? Or was it an original rant.
Poor, poor Punk Boogers can't even READ!!!!
They've got you on mute, freakshow.
Those who can’t or won’t read, are SOOOO defective… Whether it be self-righteous stubbornness or sheer stupidity… That they do NOT read… And then they ask others to tell them what was written!!! WHAT does this tell YOU (Oh Perfect One) about the character of the thick-headed and-or stupid ones? Twat excuse are YOU making up, for them? If it is that I am “icky pooo” and that makes them sick… Then WHY are they asking what I wrote?
PS, Marxist Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer, I am gonna REFUTE what You Perfectly say, by putting You on MUTE... And then I am gonna cry, bitch, whine, and moan, about how Section 230 allows people to use CENSORSHIT!!!! If YOU are not allowed to control MY web site, that is CENSORSHIT, yet muting people (of the wrong perceived political beliefs), then bitching about YOU not knowing what was written, is NOT CENSORSHIT at ALL!!! Twat ARE the rules here, precisely, according to Marxist Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer, anyway?
He made such brilliant counterarguments to the author's assertions! We should all be like him!
Sullum says it, himeslf; "thousands of presidential records.
HIS PROPERTY!
I've decided to slightly undercook Jacob's portion of the brisket at our next Reason BBQ.
That's pretty tough.
Wait till he finds out it only comes with Carolina style sauce.
Nobody deserves that.
Will no one come to the defense of Carolina-style sauce? I'm sure it has its defenders.
East or west Carolina?
Vinegar all the way.
Texas Pete to the rescue.
Note the tone differences between Sullums trump articles and his stick to ignoring 90% of the facts Biden articles.
Remember when Reason thought the classification system was meant to hide wrong doing and was against it?? Now it is supported to be used to justify political indictments.
See my comment above……..
Just say, "Yeah, I took them. Just like Biden and Obama and Bush and Clinton. The records are safe and weren't sold to anyone. And anyone trying to indict one of the leading opposition candidates over a technicality is clearly making a frontal assault on democracy."
But… Did Biden and Obama and Bush and Clinton disobey or ignore subpoenas, thereby demonstrating that they are above the law? I don’t know one way or the other, but having a Dear Leader or ex-Dear Leader who thinks that He or She is above the law, is pretty scary to me!
What subpoenas? Even after YEARS... That is what should scare you. Who's the Witch?
Read the articles, learn the facts! Other Presidents have violated these rules and laws, but only Trump has openly defied multiple requests to turn the papers back in, and has deliberately HIDDEN them, and instructed his flunkies to help Him do so!
Other Presidents have violated these rules and laws, but only Trump has been persecuted for it.
FTFY.
Past President belonging to “Team SQRLSY One” got away with ONE murder, so later President belonging to “Team DickTatorBot 2000” should be able to get away with TWENTY murders!!! What could POSSIBLY go wrong here?
PS, as others here point out, “prosecutorial discretion” is a “thing”. There is NO better way to burn through your due allotment of “prosecutorial discretion”… A manifestation or result of “guilty mind” or “mens rea” theories of justice… Than to say to one and all, “Fuck you; I do as I want!”, ass Trump has done!
Give credit where credit is due... I not patch in a comment here from below... Says what I just said, pretty much...
ObviouslyNotSpam 1 hour ago
Part of “the law” is prosecutorial discretion. In cases like this, compliance is more important than punishment.
But wilfully obstructing justice is a good way to “use up” some of that discretion.
Willfully witch-hunting is a better way to "use up" some of that discretion.
How could they be safe if they weren’t locked in a garage next to an old corvette?
Were they locked?
Or sitting in offices funded by communist China at some university.
"Just say, “Yeah, I took them. Just like Biden and Obama and Bush and Clinton."
And I returned them when they were found, just like ... shit. OK, I returned them when I got the subpoena ... shit. OK, I didn't hide them when ... shit. OK, I don't have to follow any laws because I used to be the President. So there!
Returning stolen stuff when requested doesn’t mean it wasn’t stolen.
There's no proof that Trump stole anything.
But it’s obvious Joe did.
That works out well, then, because he is not accused of theft.
So did Hillary when she used Bleach Bit on her server to hide the evidence.
Or Joe finding them over multiple months despite most of then from when he was in the Senate.
Did you ever stop and ask yourself why the DoJ only asked Trump right after he left? How pence and Biden had them for over a decade? How Obama continues to have them in a random warehouse in Chicago? The government only went after one person to try to recover despite the PRA giving wide deference to the president.
BINGO - "The government only went after one person"
The PRA does not give the President wide deference when the documents are created by another executive branch agency for official govt business. He can designate his own documents/records personal. What he cannot do is receive documents from (created by) the CIA or DoD or Dept of Homeland Security or whatever agency and claim they are personal records not subject to the PRA. That would make a complete mockery of the PRA which clearly defines distinctions among documents primarily based on the source/creator of the documents.
If he wants to argue the PRA is unconstitutional as applied to this situation and can't limit the President's authority to designate documents however the President in their sole discretion deems fit then he should make *that* argument. The argument that the PRA allows him to do what he is known to have did is a dead bang loser.
Are you sure you’re an attorney? Do I need to cite the current controlling ruling yet again?
Also records keeping for NDI only requires government to retain a copy. Which they had. Asking for Trump's copy does not fall in line with current holdings. Biden even used a false predicate to request Trumps docs despite him just having copies.
Obama still has fucking classified docs in a warehouse dumdum.
Really starting to think you're not a lawyer.
I can't help you if you don't want to address objectively the PRA and its clear distinction of types of documents which are personal and those which are presidential. While it does give the President in the first instance the right to segregate documents that are personal vs presidential it also CLEARLY and UM-AMBIGOUSLY dictates the procedures to follow for presidential documents. Under the relevant definitions of personal vs presidential records/documents; the documents requested by the grand jury subpoena are clearly presidential records which are not the personal property of the President - they belong to the US Government and to the American people. The fact that Trump intermingles personal documents and news clippings with presidential records and classified documents is Trump's own dumbass fault for not following the PRA which describes segregating the purely personal documents from the presidential documents.
It doesn't appear he followed the rules, defied his attorneys recommendations, ignored the fact that he made criminal offenses for doing exactly what he did more serious, attempted to use his attorneys to obstruct justice and pretty much has fucked himself 3ways from Sunday by continuing to defy his current attorneys and giving interviews where he repeatedly admits conduct that will be used against him in court. He is, in short, a fucking idiot and knows about as much about the law as you do. Maybe you should be his attorney. He won't listen to actual attorneys may as well - his real attorneys won't be able to dig him out of this hole he dug for himself anyway.
He’s not an attorney.
But he plays one on the internet.
Just in general, it would behoove him to settle on one argument. And maybe shut up and let his lawyers talk for him.
Thus far he has settled on one argument, that the PRA allows him to do whatever he wants. Because he is convinced that argument works, his admissions that he kept the documents “because they are mine and I can do whatever I want with them” are not admissions to him. Unfortunately for Trump, his argument that the documents with classified markings are ‘personal’ records is not going to fly under the PRA and thus all these statements in interviews are in fact admissions. It doesn’t matter if he testifies in the trial or not; these statements are going to be admitted into evidence against him. It will just be easier to confront him with with the statements if he takes the stand, which despite his bloviations to the contrary, there is no way he does.
Mistake is not a defense. He won’t be able to rely on advice of counsel because there will be proof that he was briefed on the procedures for handling of sensitive govt documents after he became president and it will be clear that he simply chose to ignore them. “I am king and therefore I can do no wrong” is also not a defense. But that seems to be what he is going to be left with. A half-assed attempt at jury nullifcation.
Eat shit and die, TDS-addled shit pile.
Do you really want to go down memory lane with the other presidents on this subject? I know you enjoy beclowning yourself, but I I just want to be sure.
The libertarian case for unelected bureaucrats running the executive branch!
How fucking far away are those walls, if they've been closing in for this long and still haven't gotten here?
Shorter or clearer NAZI: "Trump is INNOCENT, 'cause His Fellow "Team R" stooges NEVER vote to impeach Him!"
Nazi? 100% [Na]tional So[zi]alist fan PROJECTION.
Trump told Kelly he plans to testify in his own defense. For his own sake, his lawyers should try to talk him out of that.
Except that Trump knows far more than his lawyers do about the law, the Constitution, and legal strategy so why would he listen to his lawyers? And if you think that's saying something about Trump, think again.
What part of Roy Cohen don’t you understand? With his help, Trump invented walking out of court in white felony shoes.
Why is taking these papers while still president a felony, Shrike?
There are rules and laws about handling these docs that the peons will get STRUNG UP for violating... WHY, Mammary-Fuhrer, WHY should The Emperor NOT obey the same laws ass everyone else, in a "free democratic society of supposed equals", under the rule of laws, and not of men? Ass Commander in Chief of the military, shall He take nuclear weapons home to randomly scatter around His Mansions, and we should all turn a blind eye?
WHY, Mammary-Fuhrer, WHY should The Emperor NOT obey the same laws ass everyone else, in a “free democratic society of supposed equals”, under the rule of laws, and not of men?
What about Biden, huh? What about Hunter, huh? What about Democrats, huh? What about what about whatabout whatabout whatabouthwhatabout...
Ideas!
Man. Even rushes to the defense of dems in a trump thread.
King of both sides doesn’t want you pointing out the inconsistent politically charged indictments. Even when the disparate use of law is your primary argument.
The one true libertarian doesn't believe in blind and equal justice apparently.
Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout.....
Ideas.
You trying to take away Dlam's retard trophy? While I admire the ambition, I'm afraid you'd have to give yourself a lobotomy to get that stupid.
Poor sarc.
You of all people shouldn't be calling DLAM retarded, you drunken little troll.
Moose fucker.
Awe, pour sarc. Why is everyone so mean to him?
What's wrong with whataboutism, Sarckles?
Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair.
Accusing someone of whataboutism, as you do, can also in itself be manipulative and serve your motive of discrediting, which in itself is fallacious argumentation.
You're like a bird whose mating call is "tu quoque? tu quoque?"
Totally not a Democrat, sarcasmic, doesn’t see a problem with different rules for Democrats vs republicans.
What the fuck was tu quoque, you little retard? I swear, one day you'll use one of these words correctly and I'll pass out from shock.
Whatabout OJ Simpson? He got away with murder, so I should be able to freely murder folks that I don't like ass well!
I know of only ONE way to go to Hell faster than that (ass a whole society), and that would be to hand vast political powers to the likes of R Mac, JesseBahnFuhrer, and Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer!
My new copypasta:
Accusing someone of whataboutism, as you do Shillsy, is manipulative and serves a motive of discrediting valid comparisons, which in itself is fallacious argumentation.
You're really good at accusing people of what you are doing.
Whataboutism is just a variation of the tu quoque fallacy that you so heartfully embrace as logic.
Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with his argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
You're accusing someone of fallacious argumentation because they pointed out your fallacious argumentation.
You’ve never advanced an opinion that wasn’t a fallacy.
No it wasn't you fucking fool.
Nothing I wrote qualified as tu quoque. At least read the fucking description before copying and pasting it.
How many brain cells does it take to run a socio-political simulation on the following:
Judge and Jury: "Murderer, we find you guilty of murder! 20 years in the hoosegow for YOU! Now OFF with ye!"
Murderer: "But OJ Simpson got off for murder, why not me? We're all equal, and need to be treated likewise!"
Judge and Jury: "Oh, yes, sure, we forgot about that! You're free to go! Have a good life, and try not to murder too many people, please! Goodbye!"
Now WHERE does this line of thinking and acting lead to? Think REALLY-REALLY HARD now, please! What ABOUT OJ Simpson, now?
Because it is allegedly a violation of 18 USC 793(e), each instance of which is a felony:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/politics/annotated-trump-indictment-dg/
(You know you're not in Kansas anymore when you have to tell Google which indictment of a former US president you're searching for...)
Make your family proud: Fuck off and die, TDS-addled shit pile.
So returning them would make that law moot?
Do you think so?
How many felonies under this code will we be charging Sec. Clinton with? Not to mention her willful obstruction of justice? And Pres. Biden's violations?
It seems that maybe "reasonable prosecutors" could disagree with Comey?
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
“Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,”
“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
Still not a word out of this leftist propagandist to explain the stolen documents by every other President or then VP Biden stealing documents, but it's different because of his hatred of Trump for reasons.
The difference is everyone else returned them when informed that they had them, except Trump.
But you know this. You just choose not to accept it as a vital difference between Trump and everyone else.
You really believe that the others had no idea they had classified documents and it was all totally a surprise when they were "informed" that they had them?
The government takes classified information very seriously.
The difference is that the others must have returned the stuff when asked. At least that's my assumption based upon them not being charged with a crime.
All he had to do was return the stuff when asked. This was so easily avoidable.
They still lacked the authority to take the documents in the first place.
Let me get this straight. Unnamed so-and-sos took classified documents and returned them. Because of that Trump’s refusal to return classified documents was not a crime.
Is that your argument?
Returning them is no defense against unlawfully taking them in the first place.
I'll take that as a yes. Note to self: Michael Ejercito is retarded.
Poor sarc. Can’t admit Joe stole papers.
Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout…..
Hey look, sarc’s defending a Democrat!
Why do you keep commenting on topics you've displayed no knowledge of? Constantly making incorrect assertions?
"The government takes classified information very seriously."
Very funny, Sarc.
Wait.. you think they were informed they had them?
Also the law doesn't have an out for returning them when asked. That isn't the law.
Part of "the law" is prosecutorial discretion. In cases like this, compliance is more important than punishment.
But wilfully obstructing justice is a good way to "use up" some of that discretion.
… compliance is more important ..
A major theme on orwell’s 1984
Wow, cue the ominous-sounding music...
That's their defense now. Someone else retained classified information and promptly returned it upon request, therefore Trump didn't do anything wrong when he said "Fuck you I do what I want" and refused.
Multiple people are making that exact argument right now.
And they believe what they are saying.
Wow.
Ultra-tribalism (hyper-partisanshit) does that to people's brains! Then they really do NOT have ANY data-driven, logical brains left!
Biden had documents for 4 decades retard. The law is violated the moment the documents are in an area not designated for that information. I strongly doubt Biden's garage was a designated storage area.
Again you display a complete ignorance of the subject.
Did Biden willfully, stubbornly refuse to hand the documents over, try to hide them better, and get his flunkies to help hide them, repeatedly, when asked to hand them over? ... Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!
That excuse is dead.
"Because I said so!" Twat a cumpelling argument... For those who already are on YOUR "Team"! Tribalism and self-righteous, self-justifying hyper-partisanshit ALL of the way down to clown-town!
Biden had some of those documents for ten years at the least.
That doesn’t seem like it answers SQRLSY’s questions.
Well, he hid them for decades.
“Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,”
Right...
Unless the person in question does not have a (D) after their name.
"The difference is everyone else returned them when informed that they had them, except Trump..."
You have an active fantasy life. Fuck off and die, TDS-addled shit pile.
That doesn't excuse the crime. If it is a crime.
I break into your house and steal a bunch of stuff, I should only be charged if I don't return them?
Shitty analogy. Try a more honest one.
If you take a bunch of company secrets home for work, and refuse to return them after terminating employment, should you be charged with a crime?
I think the answer is obvious.
But I'm being charged with taking them. Not holding them.
So if I just give them back I shouldn't be charged?
That's how it works a lot of the time.
Well, for my shitty analogy perhaps. But for your analogy of secrets, probably not.
In this case, had Trump just returned the stuff, nothing else would have happened. Yes or no.
My guess is that something else would have happened.
The sun would also have risen the next morning, perhaps? Would it have risen in a pro-Trump or an anti-Trump manner? That is ALL that matters!
If other people were taking them. I'm assuming they would be charged too. If they were not and only I was, the optics would be selective prosecution.
Selective prosecution is EXACTLY what we need if we are to have "mens rea" or "guilty mind" being part of the law! Are ye for prosecuting people for assault when they ACCIDENTALLY step on your toes? Or only when the toe-stepper is (in your mind) NOT on your "Team R"? And how about the "optics" of NOT prosecuting ex-Dear-Leader Trump for His OPEN and DELIBERATE flaunting and defiance of the rules and laws?
The Meeting of the Right Rightist Minds will now come to Odor!
Years ago by now, Our Dear Leader announced to us, that He may commit murder in broad daylight, and we shall still support Him! So He Has Commanded, and So Must it be Done!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters
And now, oh ye Faithful of the Republican Church, It Has Become Known Unto us, that it is also in His Power and Privilege Ass Well, to murder the USA Constitution in broad daylight. Thus He Has Spoken, and Thus Must It Be Done! Thou shalt Render Unto Trump, and simply REND the USA Constitution, and wipe thine wise asses with it! Do NOT render unto some moldering old scrap of bathroom tissue! Lest we be called fools, or worse!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html
Proud Boys, STAND with TRUMP, and stand by! And if ye don’t agree 110%, then we don’t need you polluting our world, because all who disagree with us in ANY way are LEFTISTS!!!
There, I think that’s a wrap! I’ve covered it ALL! You can take the rest of the day off.
(You’re welcome!)
The answer is obvious if you're not a retard. If you took the secrets home without authorization you are in violation. It doesn't require being asked to return when the violation is the removal.
Then again, you're retarded.
When did Clinton return the classified e-mails? As I recollect the case, that was never. She tried to delete them - but unless foreign intelligence services were quite incompetent, they would have hacked in and copied everything before that. One of the reasons returning classified documents is no defense against charges of improperly handling them is that it does no good to return documents that have been copied.
As for the obstruction of justice charges against Trump, Clinton not only lied about the classified material in her possession, she ignored subpoenas and tried to delete the files that were subpoenaed. To match that level of obstruction, Trump would have had to not only lie and move boxes of papers around, but to have burned the boxes. Yet the director of the FBI claimed that no reasonable prosecutor would indict her. WHY IS TRUMP HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD?
Did all of the others then defy subpoenas? Hold documents back? Try to prevent their return?
You lot are so situationally stupid about this – and gutless.
Retuning stolen stuff doesn’t mean it wasn’t stolen.
Refusing to return stolen stuff compounds the offence. Or didn't you know that?
It does not.
Do you stick your thumbs in your ears and make faces when you say that?
No. Why do you ask dumb questions?
Returning it does not obviate the original crime.
Hillary 100% did.
Biden just kept them for 40 years.
Obama just kept them and let NARA know despite NARA not being the determining agent.
Did any of them try to retain the documents and resist subpoenas and ask other people to conceal that they still had these documents?
As far as Obama is concerned: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-obama-million-documents-929954890662
But sure keep lying about it.
See? This is what comes of a raging case. Fuck off and die, TDS-addled pile of shit.
Yes, we do see, Scato.
""Did any of them try to retain the documents "'
Yes, this is now well documented.
""resist subpoenas and ask other people to conceal that they still had these documents?""
No other President was subpoenaed about the documents they were in possession of.
The soros paid activists domt understand the crime is retention in non sanctioned areas. The mention of a subpeona (and uniquely used) is an attempt at gaslighting.
The only reason Biden had to return documents that were in his garage was because of them going after Trump. Biden would still be holding documents if Trump wasn't charged. Presidents holding documents post presidency wouldn't even be a thing people would talk about.
And Biden did it as a congressman who doesn't have the leverage over classification a president does.
Hillary server and phones were under subpeona retard. She erased her server and destroyed phones.
They literally found classified emails she erased that were under subpoena on Anthony Weiner laptop since Huma backed it up there.
Obama own team admitted to classified documents in 2018. The letter has been posted here multiple times. Yet you choose a partisan fact check over primary documents. Because you dont care about facts but narratives.
I know Hillary wiped the servers and smashed the phones with hammers.
Biden and Clinton have no defense except "oopsy! tee-hee!"
Prosecutors may be able to argue Trump violated PRA by keeping some of the original records that should have been returned, but they will have the unenviable position of trying to prove that Trump did *not* declassify document he retained when he had the authority to do so. Keeping personal copies of documents documents when the originals are held by the government is allowed, unless the copies were classified, but ya gotta prove he didn't declassify them--which is hard when all he has to do is say "I'm declassifying all these documents" when he had the authority to do so.
Why were trump's subpoena'd but not the others?
Because he tried to hang onto the documents? Because he wasn't co-operating? Because he was lying about it?
""Because he tried to hang onto the documents? "'
That's a hard argument when Biden held documents much longer than Trump.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/politics/annotated-trump-indictment-dg/
It's all in there. Enjoy!
If this addresses why trump's documents were subpoena'd but biden's were not, then I missed it.
No (D) after his name.
Why was there a subpoena for the documents so soon after he left office? It seems no other president was treated with such haste regarding the movement of documents.
I'm still looking for confirmation from a "libertarian" source that:
If a reporter files an FOIA and the NARA says, "No." that's just how things should work. Even if the President says, "Give the reporter the document(s)." the reporter and the rest of the world should rightfully say, "Not so fast Mr. President. That's nice, but we really need to make sure NARA and Congress is OK with it first."
Otherwise, the issue isn't about truth or honesty or procedure or principle. Quite the opposite.
""I have the right to have those documents."
Judicial Watch vs NARA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump does have exactly that right. And I know you know this Jacob.
"That startling response epitomized the lazy arrogance that Trump displayed in January 2021, when he removed thousands of presidential records from the White House, and during the ensuing year and a half, when he stubbornly resisted efforts to recover them."
This is a tantrum thinly disguised as a description.
Everything in this article is lying and gaslighting around a dishonest premise. How you're not completely embarrassed for writing propaganda in a purportedly libertarian magazine is beyond me.
Judicial Watch vs NARA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump does have exactly that right.
What does a lawsuit over the Freedom of Information Act have to do with Trump refusing to return classified documents?
Wait, you want a relevant justification? It's Mother's Lament. You will be waiting forever.
It doesn’t. It was a challenge to Clinton classification of some tapes as personal and thus not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It has nothing to do with retaining classified documents in the face of a subpoena. It’s simply a red herring. Mother's Lament is desperate for any defense.
And you want to throw a guy in jail for papers.
The entire search of mar a Lago was predicated on the PRA dumbfuck. The holding is absolutely relevant.
Facts not yet in evidence - that he retained any classified documents whatsoever. Notice that the govt called for documents marked as classified, and not for classified documents, per se, because if they had, he would have had the perfect excuse to ignore the subpoena. At the time the documents were boxed up (spread out throughout his entire term of office), he had plenary declassification authority. That means that all he needed to do his last day in office was just waive his hand, and they would be declassified. Or, arguably, just order the already long boxed documents to be shipped to MAL (and, no, they weren’t boxed up that day, or even after he lost the election, but over the 4 years he was in office).
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/politics/annotated-trump-indictment-dg/
Counts 1-32 therein relate to illegal retention of "documents relating to national defence", which are not necessarily "classified documents". There's no need to discuss Trump's "I could have declassified just by thinking about it excuse", because 18 USC 793(e) does not require the documents to have been "classified" documents.
And it goes on from there (there are 42 counts in total).
Relating to national defense is an overly broad term. And we know why prosecutors like to use overly broad terms.
You can even find articles on Reason criticizing the laws used on trump prior to trump.
Stuff your TDS up your ass; your head is asking for company.
Nelson, Syd, or Buttplug, pick a fucking sock and stick with it, Shrike... and stop samefagging.
Sarckles you idiot drunken fuck, I know that you know that Judicial Watch vs NARA established the fact that a presidents actions determine whether or not something is declassified and not paperwork saying so.
I know you have the memory span of a goldfish, but even you should remember how badly you were schooled on that already.
Are you this fucking retarded? The sock drawer case with citations amhas been cited here dozens of fucking times. The democrat judge wrote in her holding the president decides which records are personal.
Holy fuck the ignorance you display.
You didn't answer the question. What does a FOIA request have to do with retaining classified documents?
It is like you dont ever try to understand an argument during your “honest argumentation.”
NARA request predicated the subpeona. This is all documented. The NARA request falls under the holding of the sock drawer case. It has come out the predicate itself was false as Trump did not retain any unique classified documents. So the predicate to request documents would have been invalid since government already has a copy of the documents requested.
That's a great example of obfuscating. Now why don't you give an answer in normal conversational English.
Damn you’re dumb.
One thing I've come to know is that people who understand something can explain it, while people who do not cannot.
The former can use plain English to make a point, while the other blames the listener.
Let's see which one you are.
There is an honesty factor. For example you have never agreed with me about anything, have never acknowledged that I'm right on anything, and you never will as a matter of principle. For you it's all a power play. It's why you have reams of bookmarked statements of mine you can reference in your constant quest for an "Ah ha!" moment. You will lie before losing face to your clique.
I'm not burdened with such stupidity. So if you can persuade me of something, I'll tell you.
What is the difference under the PRA between recordings of a personal interview with a non governmental historian and documents created by the Dept of Defense?
Once you figure that out, what is the difference between Judicial Watch and NARA?
The answers to these questions should demonstrate to any sane person why this is not controlling precedent.
I answered you above. NDI doesn't require every copy to be taken in. The PRA has allowed presidents to keep classified copies. Almost every president has classified documents and their funded offices generally include storage and SCIF areas.
Joe opted for convenience with a garage instead of a SCIF, I presume.
You are confusing the procedural history of judicial watch vs NARA. Judicial watch wanted NARA to seize control of the tapes and add them to Clinton's presidential library so that they would be accessible via FOIA. NARA responded to their request by saying they didn't have the records and had no authority to demand of the (now former) president that he give NARA the tapes. That pres Clinton designated them at the time they were made as personal records and NARA had no reason to believe this designation was incorrect since the purpose of the tapes was for Clinton and this historian to write a book about his time as president. I.e, it wasn't official business of the government and the recordings were not made pursuant to an official act of government or relating to presidential duties.
Trump was negotiating with NARA from the date he left office. Unlike Clinton's tapes made for a future book, the documents NARA requested fell squarely within the types of presidential records that are specifically (per the PRA) the property of the US Govt. There is no evidence Trump ever declared them personal property or segregated them. Regardless, documents containing classification markings are not even close to the recordings at issue in that case. It is simply NOT controlling precedent. The facts are too disparate to be considered controlling.
"I don't even know that, because I have the right to have those documents."
"All I know is I'm allowed to have those documents,"
President Cartman.
trump is hated so much, largely because he says openly what other politicians hide behind euphemism.
Of course he does. He had the authority to determine what is personal and what was a Presidential Record, as well as plenty declassification authority.
This is a typical DOJ LawFare Obstruction trap. The DOJ subpoenaed records they had no right to demand, then refused additional time to go through the hundreds of boxes of documents that had been accumulated during his 4 years in office, as well as for rolling discovery. Then they raid his home to seize the documents that they had no legal right to, and that he didn’t have enough time to review.
Oh, and Archives didn’t provide him with the services that they customarily provide exiting Presidents of taking his papers and securing them, until their status can be determined. So, he did the only thing he could - he told GSA to ship them to his home, where they were secured and protected by the Secret Service.
Except that he didn't use any declassification authority. He just said "Fuck you, I do what I want. The rules don't apply to me."
All he had to do was return the stuff when asked. That's it. I'm not sure which is more stupid, his arrogance or his defenders.
Why was he asked to "return the stuff" when others weren't?
Because the others returned the stuff and didn't lie about it.
The others were not allowed tot ake the stuff in the first place.
Unlike Trump, they stole it, but gave it back.
Trump had the legal right to take the material; so fuck those who demand he return it.
But "OXFORD!!!!", right, you steaming pile of shit?
By their logic, if Brian Mitchell had given back Elizabeth Smart on March 11, 2003, there would have been no harm, no foul.
What an idiotic argument. Documents are not people.
So not worth arguing about then.
40 years later Joe returned them. Great catch shrike.
Who else got away with taking classified documents and refusing to return them?
Seriously. Because that would be a real issue.
Do you have any facts to back that up?
Returning classified documents illegal taken is no defense against illegally taking them in the first place.
Riiight. So if someone retains classified documents and returns them upon request, they're just as guilty as someone who says "Fuck you, I do what I want" in response to that request. Dude, that's cripplingly stupid.
No, that is exactly what the law is.
Brian Mitchell would still have been guilty of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart even if he returned her on March 11, 2003.
So that's your defense.
Trump's refusal to return classified documents is ok because someone else took classified documents home and returned them upon request.
Just want to spell it out and be clear.
The someone else who returned them had no right to take them in the first place.
Trump isn't in trouble for taking the documents. He's in trouble for keeping them. Had he returned them none of this would have happened.
If only Donald Trump was charged with theft or kidnapping! Looking at his indictment... not seeing those charges. So this analogy is dumb as fuck.
They are "just as guilty", but they are unlikely to be prosecuted, because once the documents are in their rightful place, there's no more "harm" to rectify--only punishment. Shockingly, federal prosecutors generally do not seek to punish people who (belatedly) comply with this kind of law.
If Trump truly believed he had the right to keep the documents, he could have challenged the government's demands in court. But he chose, instead, to obstruct, conceal, cover up and lie about the documents. As a first-time offender, I'm sure the judge will go easy on him?
My precious!
There was an ongoing court case about that.
There certainly is one now...
Exactly.
Yes. There are multiple convictions of people who took documents home as they were able to properly store them prior to leaving the allowed area. They had planned to return them the next day. They were convicted for removal.
Again sarc shows his utter ignorance.
So you're cool with Trump facing the same penalties as the people in your example?
Who are you talking about that returned classified documents before they were found with them? Not Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Sandy Berger - but none of these were prosecuted, creating a clear precedent that only little people have to obey the law.
and refusing to return them.
This is not part of the law you fucking retard.
Hillary got away with a digital version of what you described.
And mooooore ignorance from sarc.
Navy vs Egan literally discussed presidents have full authority and can declassify with a thought or action. The example in the case was the president talking with a foreign leader and discussing classified information. No process is required.
Trump wouldn't be in trouble if he'd returned the documents when asked. Yes or no.
I'm going with he would still be in trouble. The get him at any cost crowd is willing to stretch boundaries to get this guy. Even if he did comply, they would probably demand he plead guilty to lesser charges before it went away.
I don't know why you would think Trump would get treated like a normal person if he complied.
I agree that people are out to get him for anything, however I respectfully disagree and say they'd be getting him for something else had he just returned the stuff when asked.
LOL
Trump would probably do himself a favor to not pretend he had full authority over those documents after leaving the white house. I don't believe he had any intention on misusing them nor any intention on keeping them for misuse. I think his rebuttal is just a contempt reaction to the D.C. swamp witch-hunting the DoJ is doing specifically to Trump.
Biden had been packing around records for decades as well pointed out and not a peep from the DoJ until the hypocrisy was unavoidable. Does that exempt Biden from re-election and mandate he be hung by a rope politically? There's a double standard there so whatever one thinks the Justice should be for Trump that same Justice should apply to Biden as well plus the EXTRA length of time he had those plus the documents being kept insecurely.
At the end of the day; It's just a witch-hunt on Trump. The documents were secured. There was no misuse of them. $100 misdemeanor fine and move on.
Trump's "contempt reaction" is a "him problem", not an "us problem"... Just because someone has "authority issues" doesn't mean they get special rules and special treatment.
Unfortunately for him, apart from the other 10 counts, each of Trump's 32 alleged violations of 18 USC 793(e) is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Biden keeping probably-illegal gained documents kept YEARS after leaving is a "him problem" not an "us problem".... Just because someone has "law breaking issues" doesn't mean they get special treatment....
If you don't want to look like a complete gangster-affiliated blood drooling hypocritical attack-dog you should be just as excited to prosecute Biden as Trump for the exact same crime.
“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
When was Trump found in contempt of court?
If Trump were speeding and had then caused an accident, and was charged as a result of the accident, you lot would be saying, "But Hillary, Biden and Obama were all speeding and they were never charged."
In your example, Hillary was driving recklessly.
But didn't crash.
Try using that in traffic court.
Shrike defends Drunk Driving as legal as long as nobody is killed. Weird take.
TDS-addled pile of shit drags strawman all the way from home!
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Not too late to go back and charge them. Would prove this is not a political kabuki.
But then again, they have (D) behind their names, so no "reasonable prosecutor" would charge them (if he knows what's good for him...otherwise he might commit suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head, twice.
“Trump's Preposterous Defense in the Purloined Documents Case”
“The former president suggests he was not obliged to obey a subpoena seeking classified records.”
Sullum starkly, and vividly, gives away his highly partisan leanings here.
There is no evidence that any of the documents were purloined. They were boxed up throughout Trump’s 4 years in office, mostly when his desk was cleared by staff, in order to prepare for the next meeting or call with a clean desk. He ordered GSA to ship the boxes to MAL on his last full day in office, which they did. The boxes were then secured and protected by the Secret Service. And the boxes mostly remained sealed until Deputy Special Counsel Bratt issued a subpoena for and documents marked as classified in them. Trump’s attorneys then started the slow process of going through the boxes, one by one, document by document. That was necessary, because the documents marked classified found in the boxes were found mixed in with closely related documents from a meeting or phone call, often years earlier. When they requested an extension of time, or rolling discovery, as is common in these cases, Bratt refused.
“Purloined” requires both specific intent and wrongful taking. They don’t have either. At best they may be able to show that Trump knew that there were probably some documents marked as classified in the hundreds of boxes he ordered shipped to MAL. It is unlikely that he knew that most of the formerly classified documents were in which boxes, or that they were even included - except, of course for the binder of documents that implicated Bratt’s Counterintelligence and Export Branch in the RussiaGate scandal, that he formally ordered declassified (that have mysteriously completely disappeared). But the documents were his, and he had plenary declassification authority at the time he ordered GSA to ship the boxes of documents there.
The DOJ was careful here, as Sullum wasn’t. They knew better than to demand classified documents, instead requesting documents marked as classified, implicitly acknowledging that Trump had a colorable argument that they weren’t classified any more.
I note what is missing.
No one is asserting that Trump exhausted all venues of appellate review of the subpoena, and as such the only alternative to complying with the subpoena would be a contempt citation.
And this is the type of case that would have gone to the Supreme Court, simply by the important, yet-to-be-resolved legal questions.
Trump's team requested an extension of time, and it was granted:
May 11: The Justice Department obtains a grand jury subpoena seeking "any and all" documents bearing classification markings that are in Trump's possession at Mar-a-Lago. The subpoena sets a May 24 deadline for the requested records to be turned over and for Trump's custodian of records to appear in federal district court in Washington.
May 24: Trump's lawyer asks for an extension for complying with the subpoena, and the government ultimately pushes back the date to June 7.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indicted-mar-a-lago-documents-investigation-timeline/
(I doubt Sullum wrote the headline of this article, but feel free to take him to task for it. It's all personal!)
Great and informative comment.
Serial liar is lying. Full story at 11:00.
Seriously, one could argue that the law itself is nonsense, that in a fully AltRight regime the laws restricting what an ex-president can do are nonsense, but we don't live in such a regime.
And besides, Trump is not arguing that the law is bad law, that there should be no law regarding classified documents. But there are such laws, and Trump is lying about them. Serial liar is lying. He's just spouting off whatever excuse pops up in his head at the moment. And those excuses literally change from minute to minute.
That he still has die-hard fans boggles my mind.
Now do joe biden.
It's only a crime and a death sentence to go with it if a Republican does it in leftard-land. Democrats are exempt for being part of the [Na]tional So[zi]alist party. Do we live under a Nazi-Empire or a USA? Everyone knows the Nazi's conquered the USA in 1913. /s
Biden is starting to compete with George Santos.
It's textbook cognitive dissonance. They've decided they're going to back Trump no matter what, and they're faced with irrefutable evidence that he willfully committed a crime. How do they resolve this dissonance? Not by withdrawing support for the man, that's for sure. No. What they do is belittle the law, search far and wide for someone of the opposing party doing something remotely similar, and use that to declare their man innocent of any wrongdoing. They've got no choice. If they didn't then their heads would explode.
Well I'm certainly voting for Nazi's if Trump took documents home! /s
You sure can be an idiot sometimes. TDS run amuck.
Yes, his followers truly are deranged.
Trump derangement is not a syndrome. It's a fact.
The more U2 carry on this way the more apparent your [WE] mob-affiliated RULES! gangster mentality shows. You know that right?
But I'm sure at least sarcasmic will be along shortly to PROJECT his gangster mentality on everyone else.
Because that's what leftards do. They are the only one's who care about which [WE] gang the person affiliates with so much more than actual political principles of the US Constitution. After all the very platform is based on the [WE] mob RULES 'democracy' so of course it'll be an endless battle for unrestricted Power of their [WE] gang.
But this here is wildly pathetic. Documents being in the wrong spot and they're dog-piling like nobodies business.
The humor is; that this is some of the best dirt they can come up with because Trump was a fairly (not perfect) decent President. The best I've seen in at least a half-a century.
Why don't you two try a little principle in your diet instead of just endlessly playing king-of-the-mountain games with 'gov-guns'?
That's common in this hyper-partisan era, on both sides.
What belittles the law is making exceptions for everyone else but the one you hate or is unfavored.
both sides? I was informed Trump had no desire to prosecute Hillary for claiming facebook ads stole the election from her. She did get a good 2-year ?investigation? (more like persecution) out of it.
I think if anyone wants to claim both sides they need to support a 2-year investigations into the 2020 election. The fact that they are actually trying to persecute the claims just makes it look like full-on guilt.
Both sides with respect to hyper-partisan sticking with their side.
You've decided to openly support political lawfare being the good little statist you are. Please defend Trump being charged with 650 years in prison.
One of these days you'll ask me to defend something that I actually said.
Until then...
Seriously, one could argue that the law itself is nonsense, that in a fully AltRight regime the laws restricting what an ex-president can do are nonsense, but we don’t live in such a regime.
Ah, good, the old "no standing/moot point" two-step. It's been about a week since anybody tried that one. When, according to your supreme authority, would've been the right point to stop such nonsense and/or say enough is enough? The Obama/Biden Administration? The Bush Administration? The Clinton Administration?
Exactly when, by your own precepts, did the government gain the right to keep secrets from it's own people even up to the point of silencing the (former) Executive?
you'd probably get bounced in voir dire.
I'll just leave this here.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-06-09-jdj-to-garland-re-mal.pdf
Irregularities! Well, that certainly absolves Trump of any wrongdoing!
Wrong or not it's hardly of any importance. Trump might of J-Walked sometime in his career too.
Defying subpoenas is a very serious crime, that is a fact.
Here are some people who have defied subpoenas:
(1) Harry Truman
(2) Richard Nixon
(3) Eric Holder
(4) Steve Bannon
(5) Mark Meadows
(6) William Barr
(7) Andy Biggs
(8) Kevin McCarthy
(9) Lois Lerner
(10) Henry Kissinger
(11) Joseph Califano
(12) Janet Reno
(13) Anne Gorsuch
(14) Charles Duncan
(15) James Edwards
(16) Joshua Bolten
(17) Harriet Miers
Which one of them were held in contempt?
I think quite a few on the list were “held in contempt” by a Congressional vote. But I think only Bannon faces actual consequences as inflicted by the DoJ.
Rita Lavelle defied and got prison time, but for the lying rather than the defying.
And some people can't understand why some other people think it's selective prosecution.
They understand, they just don’t care. They’re unprincipled lefties.
[Na]tional So[zi]alist Soldiers building [WE] gangs to WIN the Power of the monopoly of gov-guns to use against those 'icky' people.
Their unprincipled king-of-the-mountain game wouldn't exist had the US Constitution been enforced. The "WIN the Power" wouldn't be enough for the effort.
High ranking intel officials keeping a security clearance after they leave is a greater threat to our liberty than Trump holding some documents and giving the government the finger. But we are not supposed to talk about that. Ask Chuck Schumer why.
I honestly don't know whom I hold in greater disdain at this point: Trump, for his arrogance and never-ending ability to step on rakes of his own making or Sullum, who regularly throws both even-handedness and libertarian principles out the window when it involves republican politicians.
How has Sullum thrown even-handedness and libertarian principles out the window?
At we knew what Trump was all along. Solum is worse for jettisoning his principles when they stood in the way of his Orange Man Bad syndrome.
I voted for Trump twice, not because of MAGA or populism or his cult-of-personality ego, but because in a race between Shit Sandwich and Giant Douche, we can take solace in knowing that the Giant Douche may serve some useful purpose, even if it just hosing out a swampy crack (and Trump did put some good mind on SCOTUS, which Hillary would never have done and Biden's "I'm not a biologist" affirmative action appointment proved that she was nothing more than an affirmative action appointment). There is never anything useful to be found in a Shit Sandwich.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trump return several documents and was contesting the subpoena on certain others?
Not quite. He did return several boxes of materials. But then responded to the subpoena with more documents (a small number) while certifying that was ALL the documents responsive to the subpoena (recovered after an exhaustive search). Of course, once the warrant was executed that certification was shown to be completely false. And because he enlisted his attorneys into making that certification, it allowed DoJ to pierce the attorney client privilege and gain more evidence of obstruction. In the interim, he is enlisting other aides to help him hide the documents from his own attorneys and asking them to delete footage that shows them doing so. So he even fucked up the cover up because those tapes were not deleted and are in the hands of the prosecutors.
I think the flaw with the arguments being made in this article is that they don't foot with the narrative being spread in the media, which is no one is above the law. Except that Hillary Clinton (who was not the POTUS) kept tons of records by way of emails. She refused to turn them over for months as she deleted her "personal records"....of course we will never know if they were all personal or maybe not so much but emails using pseudonyms to cover her tracks...then deleted. Then there are the Corvette files that were kept by a certain individual who was also not even POTUS level...yet again nothing happened to him. No charges, not even any bad media coverage really. So will they convict Trump? Maybe...who knows...but even if they do they will just further prove that their contention that "no one is above the law" is a farcical stance on the concept.
Wrong thread nevermind