politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No former public official should have access, end of
Or his shitty lawyers, to be honest.
The shitty lawyers that didn’t tell him he needed to give them back… and helped shuffle them around.
First, latin phrases don't make you sound smart. they make you sound pretentious.
Secondly, there is the "Advice of Counsel" defense- saying, basically, that you were told by your lawyer that a given thing was legal. in Trump's case, it doesn't apply, largely because many of the people who were counseling him... weren't in fact his lawyer at the time that they were giving that advice; and I'm pretty sure you'd have to also make an argument that you didn't have any reason to know.
Latin terms are frequently used when discussing law, and that's one of them. It's maybe one of less commonly used ones among us laypeople compared to something like "habeas corpus," but it's still an actual term used to discuss a specific concept.
Lots of fields have terms of art that are maybe a bit unusual or unfamiliar to the average person, but using them doesn't mean the person is trying to sound smart, they're just using the proper terminology. Would you give someone shit for using the word "mortise" instead of something like "slot” or "hole" when discussing woodworking? Or for using baker's percentages when sharing a bread recipe? Somehow I doubt it, so why give people shit for using legal terms when talking about law?
I agree, and I think the person above you was a jerk about it, but 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is a much more common way of phrasing it in English.
Fwiw clearance holders have a two year period where their clearance is still valid after leaving a cleared job however having continued active access to the classified material is entirely different and not very likely at all.
Ordinarily you'd be right, but Americans do have the right to see what evidence is being used to accuse them. If you're accused of improperly handling Document A1, you have to reasonably know what that document is, otherwise the government could accuse you of any crime and hide the evidence under the guise of "it's classified, trust us bro!"
Also, he's (probably) already seen these documents, so there's no further damage that could be done allowing him to examine them again in a reasonably secure location (provided he doesn't talk about them, of course).
To be clear, no one is saying Trump can’t ever see what is in these documents. They’ve just limited where and how his legal team can discuss the documents with him.
We all know he's clearly incapable of doing that.