Can a VP have classified materials/can they declassify - fact check

[SimplyMe]

You seem to be missing my point that presidential papers fall under the Presidential Records Act.

I understand what you are trying to say, it isn't my fault that you are just wrong. The Presidential Records Act is not a shield, it doesn't prevent a President from being prosecuted because he has records he should no longer have.

Beyond that, the law explicitly states, "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records." Now, while the President is serving in office, the law says, "The President shall remain exclusively responsible for custody, control, and access to such Presidential records." But that is only while the President is the incumbent, per the law.

When the President leaves office, the law states, "the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President."

So, under the PRA, the President never "owns" the records -- they aren't "his records" but are solely the property of the United States -- though the President is granted custody of the records so long as he remains in office. Beyond that, it states that as soon as the President leaves office he is to give the records to the National Archives -- there is no provision there to sort them out after he is out of office, or to hang onto them for a year before returning them. The law is very clear.

For a non-president, such as when Joe was a a United States Senator, then the Espionage Act could legitimately be used.

As I point out above, this conclusion is false. Neither the former President nor a Senator are protected by the Presidential Records Act -- the Presidential Records Act clearly states that the records belong to the government, not the President, and keeping them opens up the former president to laws such as the Espionage Act.

Again, this is the reason I keep pivoting toward AG Barr's comments -- he would be defending Pres. Trump if your version of the law was correct. Instead, he knows that what Trump is claiming (and you keep repeating) is not what the law states and that, based on the actual evidence, that Trump clearly appears to be guilty.

That is, if the non-president was truly committing espionage. Trump also deserves a trial by a jury and a judge that are not biased, yet the judge refuses to recuse herself or change the venue.

Are you changing trials here, or are we still talking about the documents? The judge in the documents case is a very pro-Trump judge, one Trump appointed; she even illegally ruled in Trump's favor for a special master, something the Appeals Court (with a Trump-appointed majority) really slapped her down for. Additionally, a jury in Florida should be one of the places in the country that has the best chance of drawing pro-Trump jurors.

And if a judge wrongly refuses to recuse themselves or change the venue, Trump could always appeal. I've not see any evidence Trump has attempted to; he just complains on social media, to rile people like you up, since he knows he has no valid appeal.

ALL Americans should be outraged anytime anyone is not given a fair trial. The same goes for the fantasy of Trump leading some unarmed coup and insurrection against the U.S., an unbiased judge and jury would really show how "ridiculous" and without any basis are such charges.

I haven't seen any "coup" or "insurrection" charges against Pres. Trump. What I have seen is conspiracy charges for trying to change the outcome of the certified election results. It will be interesting to see the evidence produced in the trial. And, again, if the judge or jury is "unfair" and biased, then Trump will have valid reasons to appeal and the appeals court would overturn the results.

And again, former-AG Barr has no issue with this indictment -- as someone who knows the law and the actions of Pres. Trump (since he was in the White House while much of this was going on), he stated, “I think it’s a legitimate case. As a legal matter, I don’t see a problem with the indictment. I think it’s not an abuse. The Department of Justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process.”

So he disagrees with your (and Trumps) claims about the prosecution being political. He also disagress about the Special Prosecutor being biased, he stated, “I know a lot of Republican lawyers who have worked with him over the years. And they tell me he is a tough, hard-nosed prosecutor, but that he is not a partisan prosecutor.”

 

[Valletta]

I understand what you are trying to say, it isn't my fault that you are just wrong. The Presidential Records Act is not a shield, it doesn't prevent a President from being prosecuted because he has records he should no longer have.

Beyond that, the law explicitly states, "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records." Now, while the President is serving in office, the law says, "The President shall remain exclusively responsible for custody, control, and access to such Presidential records." But that is only while the President is the incumbent, per the law.

When the President leaves office, the law states, "the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President."

It doesn't say the Archivist decides which records are presidential records, it only says the Archivist is to take control. The National Archives is a big storage library, the Archivist is not some elected authority, he or she is a civil servant in charge of the archived records and buildings.
Did you see Bill Barr on CNN? He was asked by the reporter if he had spoken to Jack Smith's investigators and he refused to answer. I bet he is involved.

 

[SimplyMe]

It doesn't say the Archivist decides which records are presidential records, it only says the Archivist is to take control. The National Archives is a big storage library, the Archivist is not some elected authority, he or she is a civil servant in charge of the archived records and buildings.

Classified records are, by default, Presidential records.

Did you see Bill Barr on CNN? He was asked by the reporter if he had spoken to Jack Smith's investigators and he refused to answer. I bet he is involved.

Which has nothing to do about his knowledge of the law or his legal opinion about the charges. I would imagine; however, that Bill Barr -- who as I noted was in the White House and a witness to Trump's actions on this last indictment -- was called to testify in front of the Grand Jury and, as such, "talked" (was asked questions under oath) by Jack Smith and/or his investigators. If he wasn't called to testify then it would seem to be a major failure by Jack Smith.

 

[Valletta]

May I ask? After reading

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information​

Where it states Biden is allowed to keep "Classified Information" he may or may not be authorized to even see, that he may keep these documents in China Town and Rehoboth Beach, as elsewhere? This is nonsense and destructive to our Constitutional bodies of government.

Joe had no authority or permission to keep classified documents in China Town.

 

[Valletta]

Classified records are, by default, Presidential records.


Which has nothing to do about his knowledge of the law or his legal opinion about the charges. I would imagine; however, that Bill Barr -- who as I noted was in the White House and a witness to Trump's actions on this last indictment -- was called to testify in front of the Grand Jury and, as such, "talked" (was asked questions under oath) by Jack Smith and/or his investigators. If he wasn't called to testify then it would seem to be a major failure by Jack Smith.

Not interested in what Republicans Bill Barr, Liz Cheney, or Mitch McConnell think. Both the matter of documents and January 6th have been known for some time, yet they wait and bring the charges so trials will be during the presidential campaign season. More election interference.