Garland, Wray Must Be Impeached for Unconscionable Trump Raid

…All presidents take mementos and other records when they leave office. They don't pack their own boxes. The National Archives takes the position that almost everything is a "presidential record." And the federal government, in general, over-classifies almost everything.

<CONTENTS EDITED FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATION>


Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/garland-wray-must-impeached-unconscionable-trump-raid-opinion-1733523





The OP author is exactly right. Garland must be impeached. Wray must be impeached. Both vastly overreached their power and violated the rights of Trump and many other Americans aligned with him.

 

The new majority in the House in January need to hold the DOJ and the FBI leaderships accountable for their trampling upon the rights of Americans who happen to be part of the loyal opposition and targeting a political rival and possible future opponent. Wray and Garland need to be impeached in the house and tried in the senate

 

The president is required to surrender all papers arising out of his presidency, he is not allowed to take anything per the Presidential Records Act, nor is he allowed to destroy anything, and there is already testimony that he did that, and often.

But here is the one bit FLAW in your reasoning.

The espionage act does not depend on classification. The issue isn't 'classification' the issue is 'Espionage'.

Newsweek's moderate reputation has shifted rightward since it was taken over by Asian religious organization.

https://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/

But, I won't downgrade their status to that of Gatewaypundit, but I think it's important to know where they are coming from.

Mike Davis, the author, is a buddy of Gorsuch, Davis a right wing legal journalist. He's entitled to his opinion, but there are just as many opinions by legal pundits that disagree with him.

So, let's argue your post on it's merits.

So,.....

If the documents are of strategic nuclear value, and it is deemed that they pose a grave threat to the security of the United States if not treated with high security, your 'bureaucratic dispute' argument will fall flat on it's face, in court.

As for impeaching Garland, now I know the author is way out of whack with reality, You don't impeach an officer for fighting crime, which is his job.

There is no way in hell Garland, who is the Attorney General, the director of the FBI, and a Federal Magistrate would have signed off on the warrant if they didn't consider all the issues you mention, and beyond. And you think some pundit with a paltry number of twitter followers barking on the sidelines on some right wing website is going to carry any strength when the rubber hits the road in a court of law? I don't think so.

But, no matter, here's the argument:

The espionage act does not depend on classification. It was enacted years prior to the classification scheme. It will only mitigate a charge if it is assessed that not much damage was done. However, if the assessments do state serious damage was done, or could have been done given the reckless disregard for their security, all bets are off. Moreover, Trump has a history of recklessness on document security (evidence on request). But, as for the 'blanket classification' Trump's been touting, there is no evidence of that and there is direct witness testimony to the contrary.

 

Your description of the situation is 100$ accurate. But what you are leaving out is that the DOJ couldn't care less about a former president taking classified documents with him. What they want is some mud from somewhere about anything that they can throw against the wall hoping it might stick.

 

May, they sure were lucky that Trump took home classified documents.

 

Yes. The House has no more important task that returning these vile rogue agencies that are attempting to fix our elections, back to the rule of law.

 

a Trump appointee still controls the FBI

had Biden fired him and took control of the FBI with a Biden loyalist... the right would have a better shot at this

 

Hell hath no fury like a Trump hater. These people don't even try to hide their hate. They have no problem lying if they think it will hurt Trump. And it's a large group of politicians, journalists, entertainers, and talking heads. It's sad to see adults behave with juvenile emotions.

 

or perhaps, and I know this may sound silly, the real reason the Former President keeps getting investigated is that he and/or the people around him have done some things that were wrong...

 

He is allowed to keep and or destroy his personal notes, diary's and journals.

 

Apparently you haven’t figured out the function of Trump “hate”. The meme works as a blanket pardon for the former President and a grant of immunity from reason for those that employ it allowing them to continue to live within their safe space of victimhood.

It epitomizes juvenile behavior.

 

impossible, as god's anointed one trump and his apostles can do nothing wrong.

 

Garland, Wray Must Be Impeached for Unconscionable Trump Raid

I didn’t realize allegedly being ‘unreasonable’ was a criteria for being impeached. Who knew.

 

incumbent Presidents cannot take property of the US Government, and all documents, formal or contemporaneous, which have strategic, administrative, historical nature, etc., must be surrendered to the National Archives per the Presidential Records Act (within the parameters set forth therein, such as "Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the Archivist of the United States has provided his written views on the proposed disposal". However, the NA asserted what documents it wanted returned by the President).

I don't know that that is true, but even it is is, so? Whatever the classification is, it stands until reclassied.

Four things:
1. It most definitely is a crime, it was property of the US Government, papers of nuclear national security interest.
2. The declassification privilege is not absolute ( no 'right' is absolute). Trump cannot declassify nuclear secrets and strategic documents of a national security interest whose declassification poses a serious and grave threat to US National Security without authorization from the nuclear authorities (evidence provided on request). Moreover, there is a protocol for declassification.
3. There is no evidence he declassified the docs, because all declassified docs must be restamped clearly marking the docs, and all the national security personal, nuclear personnel, anyone pertinent needing to know, need to receive a memo advising them of that fact. No evidence this was done. reclassification cannot be done in secret to himself, that's absurd. In short, the PResident can't just say 'I declassified them' in retrospect. He's not president now and he had no evidence that he did declassify them, contemporaneously or otherwise, when he was president. Moreover, his claim of a 'standing order' is bogus, there is no such thing (how are his staff going to restamp every document going to and from his home everytime he makes off with a document? ) and there are some 18 former staff that have declared that as fact.
4. Classification is a consideration in the Espionage statutes, but the degree to which classification is pertinent depends on the degree of threat to US National Security if made public which depends on an damage assessment. Overall, nothing in the codes states a requirement that the code depends on classification, as the Espionage act was enacted some 30 years prior to the creation of the classification regime.

The potential criminal violations
Espionage act: 18 U.S.C. § 793, 2071, and 1519

No right or privilege granted by the Constitution is absolute. There are regulations limiting President's power to declassify nuclear documents that fall into the 'Restricted Data category, which require knowledge authority to reclassify, and thus special training, which the President doesn't have, and thus such documents require approval from the nuclear authorities. See 42 U.S. Code § 2274 - Communication of Restricted Data

 

Actually they can ... thanks to Clinton and his sock drawer....

Dan Bongino unfiltered

 

The FBI literally FOUND the documents that they were looking for in Trump's Club ... how do you impeach people for doing the job that
Trump himself implored them to do back in 2018, when he signed increased penalties for taking documents? This is rabbit hole crap.

 

guilty guilty guilt! no due process! all of trump and any of his voters are automatically guilty!!

by the way, are you a trans?

 

Dude - the FBI went before a judge to get permission to search Trump's Club - AND they FOUND the documents they were looking for. This
is something that happens hundreds of times every day in this country. How can you stand their crying about lack of due process when
this is LITERALLY how due process is played out every day in this country.

By the way, are you Russian?

 

yes, a very moral judge in the eyes of liberal voters. A supporter of jeffrey Epstien. lmao.

I'm not russian, but if you're trans, I accept you for you. no matter what you call yourself.

ABCDEFG,HIJKLMNOP,QRSTUVWXYZ.

LGBTQ+2 ABCDEFG.

 

That would be a hell of a surprise to my wife of nearly 30 years, and I know you meant it as an insult, but whatever.
As for the guilt by association ... well ...you'll note the years passing between the two photos ... a friendship that lasted years ...

 

wife implies a woman, that's pretty sexist man. sigh, so much hatred coming from democrats today.

you do know that if someone talks to someone else, and then that person that they talked too turns out to be a felon, that they're guilty of being a felon also, right?

 

Well, they keep dreaming and hoping against hope.

 

Unfortunately Pelosi watered down the criteria for impeachment even below that to unlikable.

 

Just for the record, 42 U.S. Code § 2274 says no such thing that prohibits the president from anything. You really should not let your zeal make crap up.

 

What nuclear documents are you referring to? Are you saying Trump has Nuclear documents?