[Lord Dave]

Tom.
Its ok to disagree with Trump's actions.
Its also ok to not argue against an article.

I promise not to hold it against you.

[Tom Bishop]

This article you are pushing is laughable.

Here is my summary:

"We know Trump possesses classified documents. Questionable! It's possible for ex-presidents to hold on to classified documents though. They need to keep them in a secured environment or a safe.

The classified documents are in a SCIF while the JD is considering what to do. We never actually state that the JD took classified documents from Trump, or that the SCIF was the one at Mar-a-Lago, or whether the classified documents were always stored there, or at a safe elsewhere. We just know that Trump has classified documents. Questionable!"

A laughable, speculative piece from a well known anti-trump rag.

Ironically, after speculating on the bad or improper things Trump may have done, last sentence of the Wapo article ends with this quote:

“There are just a ton of unknowns here,” Van Grack said. “So part of this is, people just need to not jump to conclusions.”

In other words, they don't actually know the full details, know themselves how it works, or if Trump actually did something wrong.

Ironically again, you are here posting this article and inviting us to jump to conclusions, despite the article instructing otherwise.

[honk]

Again, the Department of Justice weren't the ones who took the documents from Trump, the National Archives were. They have confirmed this. There is no ambiguity about that fact, and Trump isn't disputing it, so I don't see why you are. And I'm not jumping to conclusions. Like I said, it's entirely possible that despite his long history of laziness as to his duties and his responsibilities, carelessness about protecting sensitive information, and general indifference to the law, Trump really was doing things the right way this time. But I highly doubt it, and anyone who's still willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt by now is in too deep to be reasoned with.

[Tom Bishop]

It doesn't say that the National Archives went in and seized documents from Trump to store safely. It says that Trump sent them boxes to archive which contained classified information or references and markings related to classified information. They are vague about what was recieved. And it "raised questions" such as if Trump still has classified documents, how they are being stored or were stored, and suggestions that he shouldn't have classified documents despite Wapo admitting that it is possible for ex-presidents to have classified documents.

The sentence about the Justice Department in the article sort of implied that they went in and seized something or were holding something, but they didnt.

The argument is that classified documents "may" have been handled improperly at some point in Trump's possession. The article suggest that something was mishandled, but also downplays it as hard to prove:

"Even with documents marked classified found where they don’t belong, prosecutors have a high legal bar to get to criminal charges. Prosecutors would have to prove someone intentionally mishandled the material or was grossly negligent in doing so — which can be a steep hurdle in its own right."

The article ends with an admission that there are a "ton of unknowns" and instructions not to jump to conclusions. Yet here you are wanting to do so.

They don't want to jump to conclusions and disclaim in the article that there is a lot of missing information because they think they might be wrong and dont really know.

What nonsense.

[AATW]

Again, the Department of Justice weren't the ones who took the documents from Trump, the National Archives were. They have confirmed this. There is no ambiguity about that fact, and Trump isn't disputing it, so I don't see why you are.

Because he’s a troll.

As for Trump ripping up documents, my inclination is to believe this was just stupidly/ignorance/force of habit than him actually trying to hide anything.
But it is another example of his oafish idiocy.

[JSS]

Again, the Department of Justice weren't the ones who took the documents from Trump, the National Archives were. They have confirmed this. There is no ambiguity about that fact, and Trump isn't disputing it, so I don't see why you are.

Because he’s a troll.

As for Trump ripping up documents, my inclination is to believe this was just stupidly/ignorance/force of habit than him actually trying to hide anything.
But it is another example of his oafish idiocy.

It's likely a mix of both.  I can see Trump dramatically tearing up papers because he thinks that's what a powerful President looks like.  I can also see him tearing up things that make him upset or embarrass him.

This is a guy willing to allow his followers to violently attack the capital for hours before addressing it on TV. Tearing up some papers to hide them doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

People can be stupid AND evil.  Humans are multi-talented.

[Lord Dave]

This article you are pushing is laughable.

Here is my summary:

"We know Trump possesses classified documents. Questionable! It's possible for ex-presidents to hold on to classified documents though. They need to keep them in a secured environment or a safe.

The classified documents are in a SCIF while the JD is considering what to do. We never actually state that the JD took classified documents from Trump, or that the SCIF was the one at Mar-a-Lago, or whether the classified documents were always stored there, or at a safe elsewhere. We just know that Trump has classified documents. Questionable!"

A laughable, speculative piece from a well known anti-trump rag.

Ironically, after speculating on the bad or improper things Trump may have done, last sentence of the Wapo article ends with this quote:

“There are just a ton of unknowns here,” Van Grack said. “So part of this is, people just need to not jump to conclusions.”

In other words, they don't actually know the full details, know themselves how it works, or if Trump actually did something wrong.

Ironically again, you are here posting this article and inviting us to jump to conclusions, despite the article instructing otherwise.

I posted an article without comment.  You jumped to conclusions about my motives.

Regardless, the national archives wouldn't have taken them back if he was supposed to have them. 


As for tearing...
My understanding is this is what he did in the private world when he was done reading something.  Not sure why as it seems foolish if you need that information but whatever.  He did it as habit, which he didn't stop despite being told it was illegal.  In this case he's less evil and more incapable of change.  Inflexible.  And doesn't give a shit about laws.

[Tom Bishop]

I see some people here who think that when the president is handed a document that it is the only copy of the document to exist and that there aren't people with the specific job to keep copies for archives.

Is there any evidence for this absurd line of thinking?

[Lord Dave]

I see some people here who think that when the president is handed a document that it is the only copy of the document to exist and that there aren't people with the specific job to keep copies for archives.

Is there any evidence for this absurd line of thinking?

Ummm...
I'm not sure you understand the presidental records act... So let me clarify.
If a document is given to the president, or created by the president, that very specific document must be preserved.  It does not matter if its a newspaper, a memo, an email, or a top secret dossier.  If the president receives it, it must be kept in archives when he finishes with it.
Go read the law yourself.

[Tom Bishop]

I see some people here who think that when the president is handed a document that it is the only copy of the document to exist and that there aren't people with the specific job to keep copies for archives.

Is there any evidence for this absurd line of thinking?

Ummm...
I'm not sure you understand the presidental records act... So let me clarify.
If a document is given to the president, or created by the president, that very specific document must be preserved.  It does not matter if its a newspaper, a memo, an email, or a top secret dossier.  If the president receives it, it must be kept in archives when he finishes with it.
Go read the law yourself.

Which part of the law prevents the president's staff from making or keeping a copy for archiving?

I can rip up and throw away my tax forms and it's still archived somewhere. We don't live in the 1600's. 

And if at someone in my household happens to want to tape my tax forms together from the trash, it just means that they did it because it was otherwise inconvenient to have to get the archived copies. The archived copies always exist, regardless of that.

[Rama Set]

I see some people here who think that when the president is handed a document that it is the only copy of the document to exist and that there aren't people with the specific job to keep copies for archives.

Is there any evidence for this absurd line of thinking?

Ummm...
I'm not sure you understand the presidental records act... So let me clarify.
If a document is given to the president, or created by the president, that very specific document must be preserved.  It does not matter if its a newspaper, a memo, an email, or a top secret dossier.  If the president receives it, it must be kept in archives when he finishes with it.
Go read the law yourself.

Which part of the law prevents the president's staff from making a copy for archiving?

I can rip up and throw away my tax forms and it's still archived somewhere. We don't live in the 1600's. 

And if at someone in my household happens to want to tape my tax forms together from the trash, it just means that they did it because it was otherwise inconvenient to have to get the archived copies. The archived copies always exist, regardless of that.

Regardless of the apologetics you want to make, it’s clear that Trump tearing up documents contravenes the Presidential Records Act. Sorry you don’t like it, but life is tough sometimes.

[Tom Bishop]

Regardless of the apologetics you want to make, it’s clear that Trump tearing up documents contravenes the Presidential Records Act. Sorry you don’t like it, but life is tough sometimes.

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

It makes much more sense to keep copies of the documents given to the president rather than to try to retrieve the paper later. The president is a person who is continuously on the move from room to room to meeting to meeting to building to building to state to state. Imagine giving him a paper and trying to track it down later. Your idea that if it's a paper which physically touches the president's desk it is that specific physical copy which needs to be preserved is a fantasy fiction, likely impractical in practice, and doubtfully is actually in the law.

[Lord Dave]

Regardless of the apologetics you want to make, it’s clear that Trump tearing up documents contravenes the Presidential Records Act. Sorry you don’t like it, but life is tough sometimes.

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

It makes much more sense to keep copies of the documents given to the president rather than to try to retrieve the paper later. Your idea that if it's a paper which physically touches the desk it is that specific physical copy which needs to be preserved is a fantasy fiction that I doubt is actually in the law.

Actually it is.
It was put in place after watergate specifically to ensure that everything the president documents or is given is directly put into public ownership.  The goal being that if the president scribbles some notes on a document, those notes will be archived for the public to read.  It also prevents the president from being given or writing notes to people with the intent of hiding something.  Or destroying said documents.



Go read the law!

[JSS]

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

Once Trump drew on documents with his sharpie they need to be archived. Not flushed down the toilet.

I wonder if that hurricane forecast map he drew on is archived. I'd love to see that on display somewhere to demonstrate his childlike mentality. 

[Tom Bishop]

Go read the law!

The law says that the Whitehouse staff can maintain the documents.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.

A quote there also suggests that an individual who is not the president can create a presidential record.

Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts:  any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account.  (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

Once Trump drew on documents with his sharpie they need to be archived. Not flushed down the toilet.

The news articles say that Trump threw away documents given to him, not that he threw away his own notes. You apparently have to completely make things up to maintain an argument.

[JSS]

If someone printed out a document to give to the president in the next room of the Whitehouse they are literally printing a COPY. It is not the sole copy of the document in existence. If you have a superfluous copy you throw it away when done, obviously.

Once Trump drew on documents with his sharpie they need to be archived. Not flushed down the toilet.

It says that Trump threw away documents given to him, not that he threw away his own notes. You apparently have to completely make things up to maintain an argument.

You know for a fact Trump never drew on a document given to him?

In fact we have all seen evidence of this. Here are two pictures of documents Trump drew on.

[Tom Bishop]

You know for a fact Trump never drew on a document given to him?

In fact we have all seen evidence of this. Here are two pictures of documents Trump drew on.

I don't believe I claimed anything about Trump not drawing on documents. I'm questioning whether he threw those away, as that was not even claimed from what I read.

[JSS]

You know for a fact Trump never drew on a document given to him?

In fact we have all seen evidence of this. Here are two pictures of documents Trump drew on.

I don't believe I claimed anything about Trump not drawing on documents. I'm questioning whether he threw those away, as that was not even claimed from what I read.

Then you might be interested in this article.  It's claimed quite explicitly that he tore up documents he had taken notes on.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164

“We got Scotch tape, the clear kind,” Lartey recalled in an interview. “You found pieces and taped them back together and then you gave it back to the supervisor.” The restored papers would then be sent to the National Archives to be properly filed away.

Lartey said the papers he received included newspaper clips on which Trump had scribbled notes, or circled words; invitations; and letters from constituents or lawmakers on the Hill, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“I had a letter from Schumer — he tore it up,” he said. “It was the craziest thing ever. He ripped papers into tiny pieces.”

[Tom Bishop]

No, actually, the quote you posted and bolded says that the type of papers he received were scribbled notes, not that he received torn up scribbled notes. It's in a separate paragraph describing the types of documents he received for archiving, not that it was torn up.

The source you provided does not even that say that he threw away and prevented documents from being archived. If a circle around someone's face is an artwork which must be preserved, so is his tearing up of the document.

[Rama Set]

No, actually, The quote you posted also said that the papers he received were scribbled notes, not that he actually tore those up as well.

The source you provided does not even that doesn't say that he threw it away and prevented documents from being archived.

I linked an article earlier about how Trump tears up his documents when he is done with them despite being told it was illegal to do so and that the White House staff had to reconstruct the documents he tore up. You hilariously claim that liberals can’t be objective yet here you are doing everything in your trollish power to deny any bit of wrongdoing by your God-Emperor. SAD!