“Of course they did! They may have been the boxes etc. that were openly and plainly brought from the White House, as is my right under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump posted on social media.

  • Rakonat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remind me again how Hilary’s emails were a crime but the literal theft of top secret documents is just an ethical dilemma?

    • elvith@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe, just maybe this depends on which political party / person is doing the thing?

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was talking about this guy’s actual legal arguments about hypothetical administrative powers of the presidency. I do not give a shit about Hillary’s emails and I did feel that what trump did was illegal.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have to, they can’t start a criminal investigation if they didn’t think it was a crime. Both crimes are just as equally “administrative”.

        Similarly all of our foundational documents are living documents so a penalty just needs to be issued and precedent would be set. No one legitimately expected such a fucking masturbatory love of a document the writers of specifically said to change … Often and as the need presents.

        • roguetrick@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I’m talking about law. Administrative law is set by the administrative branch of the government as delegated by congress. It’s not codified, but is the policy and procedures of those administrative bodies, which has the force of law. Breaching those policies and procedures, which is what Trump did, is in violation of administrative law.

          A legal duty is a more nebulous concept that is generally based on legal precedent. Usually has to do with something related to torts. You can’t just take someone to court for an novel legal duty and expect that to magically stick criminally. It needs to be codified by congress or created in administrative law first.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If it’s a law they have a legal duty, your hedging doesn’t particularly make sense.

            legal

            1 of 2

            adjective

            le·​gal ˈlē-gəl 

            Synonyms of legal

            1

            : of or relating to law

            She has many legal problems.

            2

            a

            : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE

            a legal government

            b

            : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR

            a corporation is a legal but not a real person

            c

            : established by law

            especially : STATUTORY

            the legal test of mental capacity—K. C. Masteller

            3

            : conforming to or permitted by law or established rules

            The referee said it was a legal play.

            Fishing in this lake is legal.

            4

            : recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity

            5

            : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members

            a bottle … that some legal friend had sent him—J. G. Cozzens

            6

            : created by the constructions of the law

            A legal fiction is something assumed in law to be a fact regardless of the truth of that assumption.

            legal

            2 of 2

            noun

            : one that conforms to rules or the law

            • roguetrick@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not getting into semantics, I’m talking about the original post I replied to, namely

              he has a clear duty to protect their secrecy

              Which is talking about a duty in derived sense, not a codified duty.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                He does, nothing you’ve offered implies or states otherwise.

                No, it has to do with a law or rather a series of them an oath to office and an oath to maintain national secrets.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      you should stop using ‘top secret’, because its almost irrelevant and bad actors are grabbing onto it like it has substance.

      hes being prosecuted for document mishandling, regardless of ‘top secret’ status. their secret status is irrelevant (technically, not morally).

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are lists higher punishments for the level of security. There are a few excuses for this shit that somewhat make some sense, yours just now is not one of them.