Winning - Lawfare Silliness Falling Apart

[LevelUP]

The President has the legal authority to declassify documents at their discretion, but they still have to follow the law, including existing procedures. Among these are clearly marking that the documents have been declassified and reporting the declassification to the National Archives in their capacity as the federal records holder. There is no indication Trump did these things.

The President also does not own these documents. They are federal records material and are the property of the United States. Even if he had declassified them, Trump still committed a crime by retaining government documents which were not his property.

The inquiry into Trump’s handling of documents took months before his Florida compound was raided. If Trump’s intent was to comply with the laws, he/his people should have located and collected any federal record materials and turned them over to the correct depository. They didn’t. Instead, they obstructed the Department of Justice at every turn.

Trump broke the law. Period. He broke laws to which every federal employee is subject, including the President.

You may believe that he should not have been tried for these violations, as that is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that he violated federal law EVEN if he did declassify the documents.

It's a very difficult argument to make that Trump should not be prosecuted for holding these classified documents because you would be trying to make a subjective opinion argument about what the legal norms should be and then having enough legal knowledge to speculate on how this will ultimately play out in the courts, which could end up in the Supreme Court.

So, I concede that you are winning this argument.

Given its recent decisions on presidential immunity, if the SC sides with Cannon and does so before the election, Biden would pretty clearly be within his authority to have Trump and the conservative members of the Supreme Court killed by federal agents.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

The principle of presidential immunity is limited to official acts performed within the scope of presidential duties.

The idea that a president could authorize the killing of political figures, including former presidents or Supreme Court justices, is not only legally unfounded but also deeply unethical and contrary to the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that immunity does not extend to actions outside the bounds of lawful executive authority.

In light of recent tragic events, it's particularly important to avoid any suggestions, implicit or explicit, of violence against political figures.