474
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
474 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2710 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Even if he did have a right to take secret documents from the White House, he has a clear duty to protect their secrecy. This is an admission of guilt.
The President is not god, he has a duty to serve the people and the nation.
This guy said things well. Ill say them my way.
WE SHOULD PUNCH HIM IN THE COCK
Mission failed, target too small.
Not even Skywalker could hit that.
With a cock that small, a punch to the groin is less targeted and more area of effect.
Hard to find a target that small
Why do they call you Cock Knocker?
Ethical duty, not legal duty in that hypothetical. I don't believe he had that right, though.
i was under the impression he had to sign paperwork stating he was responsible for the documents specifically, and legally. you dont just get to grab secret crap without process.
He thinks he can. He said that stuff wasn't secret because he thinks it's not secret
Not only is there legal process, but he swore an oath to the US. What part of holding secrets insecurely helps the US?! Your brain is iliterally mush.
Yeah, great reading comprehension on your part friend. Now feel free to explain to me the interplay between the oath of office, administrative law, and the lack of codified law on the subject.
Why does Hillary Clinton deserve to be locked up for her handling of emails, and yet what Trump has admitted to doing here doesn't go beyond "ethical dilemma" (and even that seems like a stretch for you)?
As in, the poster making an argument that he had the right to handle documents however he wanted
As in, I don't think he was able to do that.
Are you people fucking this dense? I am not a trump supporter.
Did... you reply to the wrong comment?
I think you may have, since as you can see by the quotes my comment has about zero relevance to Hillary and is in response to a hypothetical and not my feelings on the case as a whole.
Ohhh hey. I recognize that username.
Isn't it interesting how, when a community is much smaller, we can often remember who the nice folks are. The ones who usually add interesting context, those who make actual funny posts and comments. People who bring actual professional knowledge and insight into interesting conversations...
Then you have the other side of the coin. The names you recognize for the bad reasons... Welcome to that list, bud.
Hello pot, I'm the kettle.
Is "kettle" another term for "someone who is constantly confidently incorrect"?
I know it's either that or, "a person who's profession is to muddy the waters on social media to further/denigrate a specific cause, and/or to simply sow chaos and discord online."
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt so I'm leaning toward the former. But stranger things have occurred...
You mostly seem to like to post smug personal attacks in my interactions with you, but hey, you can operate under whatever delusions you want. It doesn't bother me.
I don't attack any interactions with anybody. In fact, I don't even know what that means. I just recognized the username, and thought it was interesting that I didn't need RES to tell me that your opinions can be safely ignored, and that I shouldn't waste my time trying to have a good faith conversation with you.
Uh huh, well feel free to contact me if you ever arrive at a point.
Are you illiterate?
Your brain is mush. You are literally too stupid to understand, "don't betray the US by giving away secrets."
You are truly beyond pathetic.
I see that you still have no idea what the hell I was talking about, but you still consider yourself superior.
the guy literally signed a piece of paper that said what would happen if he did not return those specific documents, whether he declared them secret or not.
its not about th 'secret' part of it.
its that he signed a legal document regarding responsibility, and orangina over there still thinks, like you do it appears, it has anything to do with anything be marked 'secret'
'top secret' is irrelevant with regards to this document case.
When he was within his term of office then as POTUS he could reveal classified information to anybody if he felt it was appropriate. Previous presidents have done precisely this, disclosing classified information during state of the union addresses, etc. The important thing to keep in mind here is that the material actually remains classified. Just because the POTUS mentioned something classified it doesn’t mean everybody in the White House, military, CIA, etc. are now free to talk about it as well.
At the same time he could declassify specific material, typically via an executive order. The key is that this is a formal process with a paper trail that lets all the appropriate governmental agencies, departments, etc know precisely what is being declassified. He can’t just verbally say something like “this box of papers is now declassified”. At the very least there would need to be a printed list of exactly what is in the box.
The minute Trump left office he lost the ability to perform both these things. At that point he’s basically considered a civilian with a security clearance. He can have access to appropriate classified material, but he’s not at liberty to disclose any of it.
Yes and no, there is a clarification the president cannot disclose without approval as well.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/
Care to answer the other gentleman (or gentlewoman/gentleperson)'s question?
I'll even post it here again to remind you in case you forgot:
Why the fuck do you think I give a shit about Hilary's emails? You seem to have confused me, an anti-fascist socialist, for a Trump supporter.
Remind me again how Hilary's emails were a crime but the literal theft of top secret documents is just an ethical dilemma?
Maybe, just maybe this depends on which political party / person is doing the thing?
I was talking about this guy's actual legal arguments about hypothetical administrative powers of the presidency. I do not give a shit about Hillary's emails and I did feel that what trump did was illegal.
You have to, they can't start a criminal investigation if they didn't think it was a crime. Both crimes are just as equally "administrative".
Similarly all of our foundational documents are living documents so a penalty just needs to be issued and precedent would be set. No one legitimately expected such a fucking masturbatory love of a document the writers of specifically said to change ... Often and as the need presents.
No, I'm talking about law. Administrative law is set by the administrative branch of the government as delegated by congress. It's not codified, but is the policy and procedures of those administrative bodies, which has the force of law. Breaching those policies and procedures, which is what Trump did, is in violation of administrative law.
A legal duty is a more nebulous concept that is generally based on legal precedent. Usually has to do with something related to torts. You can't just take someone to court for an novel legal duty and expect that to magically stick criminally. It needs to be codified by congress or created in administrative law first.
If it's a law they have a legal duty, your hedging doesn't particularly make sense.
legal
1 of 2
adjective
le·gal ˈlē-gəl
Synonyms of legal
1
: of or relating to law
She has many legal problems.
2
a
: deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE
a legal government
b
: having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR
a corporation is a legal but not a real person
c
: established by law
especially : STATUTORY
the legal test of mental capacity—K. C. Masteller
3
: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
The referee said it was a legal play.
Fishing in this lake is legal.
4
: recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5
: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
a bottle … that some legal friend had sent him—J. G. Cozzens
6
: created by the constructions of the law
A legal fiction is something assumed in law to be a fact regardless of the truth of that assumption.
legal
2 of 2
noun
: one that conforms to rules or the law
I'm not getting into semantics, I'm talking about the original post I replied to, namely
Which is talking about a duty in derived sense, not a codified duty.
There is no "administrative branch" in the US government.
That I'll concede. Can you guess what I meant though.
you should stop using 'top secret', because its almost irrelevant and bad actors are grabbing onto it like it has substance.
hes being prosecuted for document mishandling, regardless of 'top secret' status. their secret status is irrelevant (technically, not morally).
There are lists higher punishments for the level of security. There are a few excuses for this shit that somewhat make some sense, yours just now is not one of them.
Legal duty, you swear an oath to enter office in these United States hoss.
Penalty for breaching that oath is impeachment. That's not a codified measure, and why a whole lot of the arguments are based on administrative law, norms, and exactly how the president makes new administrative law. If it was codified, it'd be a different story.
You cannot take them oath again if you violate it. He can run but he cannot take office nor enter his name onto official election rolls.
No it's not. What do you imagine the entire Florida case to be about if not the illegal handling of classified documents? This is a matter of public record and can be confirmed on a huge variety of news sources.
I think it's about breaching administrative policies and procedures in the handling of classified materials with penalties based on the codified law delegating those procedures to the executive. What I don't believe it its based on concepts of legal duty derived from things like the oath of office.