Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Trey Gowdy: Democrats want to remove Republican governors instead of illegal immigrants" video.

@nandy1256 That's not fascism. And whether the documents were declassified or not, is irrelevant. The president has the final say over what are personal records and what are presidential records, neither NARA nor the DOJ have the authority to override the president.
7
@nandy1256 Now, why did Hunter broker a deal to sell Congo cobalt mining rights to China for a fee, thereby undermining US interests?
6
@nandy1256 Nobody really cares about minutiae like that.
2
@yankee2666 Well said.
2
Exactly.
2
@nandy1256 Trump can't declassify documents just by thinking about it, I agree, but he is not required to go through processes required by others within the executive branch. He said they were declassified and then removed them from the WH, a panel of judges may conclude that is sufficient. The classified/declassified debacle is a red herring, since it doesn't really matter...the president decides which records are personal and which are presidential.
2
@nandy1256 Trump cannot declassify documents by simply thinking about it, however, he is not required to follow the same processes as others within the executive branch. Even if the documents are ruled classified, it changes nothing in terms of legal consequences.
1
@nandy1256 I agree somewhat, sure.
1
Article 1 Section 10. Hey, Abbott, look it up and do your duty.
1
@davids.2703 It defines it, but the president has the final say. From "Judicial Watch vs NARA." Read the 2nd paragraph. "Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against defendant National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Plaintiff asks the Court to declare audiotapes created by former President William Jefferson Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during the Clinton administration to be “Presidential records” under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f), and to order defendant “to assume custody and control” of them and deposit them in the Clinton Presidential Library. Plaintiff contends that defendant has acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by failing to exercise control over the audiotapes and by not making them available in response to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. Defendant has moved to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed."
1
@scantsrants7865 Why do you people simply ignore absolute facts which don't support your world view? How can you live like that, existing in a reality which is based not on facts, but on your needs and wants?
1
@somethingginterestingg4275 Unclassified documents aren't necessarily available to the public. And if those records were deemed personal records by the president, you wouldn't get access to them. The Judicial Watch precedent I posed above explains.
1
@somethingginterestingg4275 FYI: "NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed."
1