Aileen Cannon begins unredacting filings against Jack Smith's demands

You keep bringing up that case yet you have no idea what the decision meant.

In the case of Judicial Watch v. NARA the findings are exactly OPPOSITE of what you present them to be.

EXACTLY
OPPOSITE

 

It is not.

What IS a criminal statute is 18 USC 793(e) which is what Trump has been charged under.

What the PRA does is define what is a "Presidential Record" vs. what is a "Personal Record"

The PRA defines that, not the President, not NARA. Some of the records kept by Trump are CLEARLY defined, under the PRA, as PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS. As such they are property of the United States. Trump has zero authority to keep Presidential Records. None, Zilch, Nada.

Now, some of those PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS that he kept (that, again, he had ZERO authority to keep) were documents relating to the National Defense. Since he refused to turn over those documents when requested, when subpoenaed and finally a lawful search warrant had to be acted on...shows he clearly and willfully kept those documents. An absolute clear violation of 18 USC 793(e) and thus he has been indicted on that charge, multiple times.

I cannot make the situation any more clear than that. If you continue to try and bring in unrelated stuff then I can only assume that you are unteachable or that you clearly don't care that Trump broke the law.

 

I don't think clarity is the point, repeating disinformation "talking points" is the point IMO.

 

Like I said, either willfully ignorant or willfully spreading disinformation.

 

Your myopic thinking lacks context. On purpose of course.

 

Just curious as to why the title of the document is so important to you?

 

He had no right to any of that. He certainly doesn't have a right to withhold NARA's documents (because that's who owns that ****, not Trump) to try to find personal unclassified notes.
Certainly has no right to keep classified materials in the ****ing poolhouse. Certainly has no right to say "they're in the poolhouse" then move boxes to other rooms and not inform NARA.

The defamation per se has to do with the claim that a lawyer was offered a quid pro quo, there being no corroborating evidence for that it is a naked accusation.
That redaction was entirely standard.

 

My point was, there could be a legitimate argument that he owned a lot of those documents. We're talking about a big bunch of boxes that he did not pack himself. He likely did not know everything that was in the boxes. And I certainly don't blame him for not assuming they all belonged to NARA just because they said so. NARA got their panties twisted and quickly assumed all the worst. After reading the redacted content, it looks like it could be pretty innocent. I could be wrong, but these knucklehead officials have to prove it. I don't believe for a minute they were acting in good faith. Unlike the other obviously fraudulent cases he's been dealing with in New Yuck, this one has the potential to be something. If I had to guess, it's probably fraudulent too, but hopefully the truth is revealed.

 

He had documents marked as CLASSIFIED in his house.
How are you getting the idea that these charges are fraudulent?
Setting aside your opinion on the New York cases (which I think are completely valid) how do you come to the conclusion that, more likely than not, these Florida charges are fraudulent.

He had the documents
He was not authorized to have the documents
He refused to return the documents.

These three facts are beyond dispute. Those three facts make a clear, unquestionable violation of 18 USC 793(e)