this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
297 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3606 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
297
Meadows told special counsel he could not recall Trump ever declassifying Mar-a-Lago docs: Sources (abcnews.go.com)
submitted 1 year ago by PeleSpirit@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Appearing to contradict former President Donald Trump's primary public defense in the classified documents case, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has told special counsel Jack Smith's investigators that he could not recall Trump ever ordering, or even discussing, declassifying broad sets of classified materials before leaving the White House, nor was he aware of any "standing order" from Trump authorizing the automatic declassification of materials taken out of the Oval Office, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 58 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Of course, this is all irrelevant to what he remembers. Declassification is not and has never been a "say it and it's done" sort of procedure. There is a form to fill out and the declassification is only official when the declassified stamp is physically added (usually by the President, though not necessarily always) to the document.

Even the whole "if the President tells the classified information publicly it becomes declassified" thing still requires going through this official procedure afterwards. Honestly, the courts have never really addressed the legality of the spoken word method, not that Trump did that anyways for the material in question.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago

All these guys belong in prison.

[–] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Yep. The espionage act doesn’t even require anything to be classified. He stole, hid, and refused to give back defense secrets. Doesn’t matter if they’re classified or not. That’s decades of prison.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I DECLARE DECLASSIFICATION

[–] orbitz@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Yup, with their gishgallop they flood the zone with excuses and hope people start picking apart the details of their obvious lies...rather than focusing on the fact the whole thing can't be done by the handwaving of an Adderall binging narcissist President without proper procedures. The government has so much paperwork for getting a passport, you think declassification takes less? Okay that's just a guess I really have no idea on the paperwork needed for declassification but I assume it's more than to say yes to the lady behind the desk, or announce it to the chandelier in your bathroom while you squeeze out a deuce.

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The fact of the entire trump disaster is that the American political and legal system was never designed to support such a colossal fucking moron like him. There are a lot of gaps in what should be done because no one has ever been this stupid and managed to get elected before. And as a result, we’re charting new territory.

It’s almost like trying to legally bind a monkey from throwing its shit. We all know it shouldn’t throw it- but it’s a dumb animal, so… how exactly do you proceed to explain to it that people don’t want shit hurled at them, that it’s being punished for tossing shit, and simultaneously ensuring that whatever is done, at the end of the day…. No more shit gets yeet’d at innocent people.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mark is also begging federal courts to dismiss the charges in GA.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

~~Federal courts can't dismiss state charges.~~

Edit: After some thought, I may be wrong about the above. Removing to federal does mean that the charges remain state charges, but are tried in the federal court venue, with federal court rules. Does that include the ability to dismiss the charges? Maybe it does, but I would think the state of Georgia should have a say in that. Whether they actually do, I don't know.

Meadows is trying to have his case removed to federal court, and he probably has a good case for it: he was a federal employee being charged with crimes based on his acts as a federal employee.

Now, I don't think he was acting as a federal employee, but I can see how it's arguable enough to have his case removed to federal court, based only on the information in the indictment. They're still state charges, still adherent to Georgia pardon laws.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That’s a fantastic argument. Let’s say if federal courts do grant Mark permission to move his charges to federal court because he committed state crimes when he was federal employee - then what stops states like Texas, Florida, and any other states form goon squads of state employees with guaranteed pardons from governors to go to battleground states and “find 11,800 votes” for our beloved president?

“StATeS RiGHtS!!!!!” when it comes to forcing women to give births, “federal rights” when those state rights become too much of a trouble for me.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think I'm a little confused, but let me try and work through it.

If someone from Florida (Florida Man) went to Wisconsin, and attempted to muddle in a Wisconsin election, that would be a crime in Wisconsin, and Florida Man would be charged in Wisconsin. A pardon for such a crime would need to come from the state of Wisconsin.

If Florida Man was a state of Florida employee, they would not have any grounds to have the Wisconsin case removed to federal court. If Florida Man was a federal employee in Florida, then whether they had grounds to have the case moved to federal court would depend on the actions they were charged with, and if those actions were in the course of their job as a federal employee. In either case, removed to federal court or not, the charges remain state charges, and any pardon or commutation would need to come from the state where the charges were filed.

Back to Meadows: Mark Meadows is still trying to play both sides, even now. He was certainly very careful about how far across the line he was dipping his toes when Trump was still in office. That's why he can claim that while he was a federal employee (White House Chief of Staff), the actions he is being charged with (arranging meetings, making phone calls, etc.), were his actions as WHCoS, and gain the grounds to have his case removed to federal court.

It's also important to remember that each defendant's request to removed to federal is handled separately. Because of that, I would also expect that each trial would be separate, as opposed to trying all federally removed cases together. Since we're talking about GA RICO charges, it becomes highly likely that if one defendant is convicted of GA RICO in federal court, others will go the same way.

Other defendants are not as lucky as Meadows. Guiliani is a perfect example. Even though he has previously made th overt claim that he was Trump's personal attorney, and his actions were taken in that context (going to Ukraine to try and get them to charge Hunter Biden with ... something?), now he's trying to say that he wants his case removed to federal. He is not on any federal payroll, and he wasn't when Trump was in office, either. Beyond that, the actions he is charged with wouldn't be ones taken in the course of a federal position even if he'd had one. They were taken for the benefit of Trump personally, attempting to overturn an election for Trump.

Trump himself shouldn't get his case removed to federal court, as the actions he is charged with are not ones which were taken in the course of his position as president. But we're in all sorts of uncharted territory, so who knows how that will play out.

My edit above was because I realized that if a case is removed to federal, the federal judge gains the power to rule on the case, and dismissing a case is ruling on it.

[–] Nusm@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Read all about it in this month’s issue of DUH.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The passive voice isn't going to save you from the hangman, Mark.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure of what you're saying. You're speaking figuratively, right?

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When a witness uses the old "I can't recall" it's not really an answer and earns you no leniency points

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm talking about the hangman part, are you saying figuratively for the justice system?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

He did it with his mind Mark. He’s Jesus.