No former public official should have access, end of
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
166 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19120 readers
3886 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
provided he doesn’t talk about them, of course
We all know he's clearly incapable of doing that.
Well Putin’s not going to like this..
Putin doesnt care, he and MBS have already bought copies
Very likely Trump already sold all our secrets to Russia, China, and whomever.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The decision appears to largely be in line with restrictions special counsel Jack Smith sought to protect classified information that may be evidence in the case against Trump, which accuses him of criminally mishandling sensitive national security secrets at his Florida club and residence after he left office.
The development is one of the first times the court has set terms around classified information in a case where Trump’s team has tried to downplay the seriousness of how records were handled.
Trump’s legal team had wanted more leeway on the locations where they could discuss classified records with him, including at the Mar-a-Lago club and his Bedminster, New Jersey, residence.
Judge Aileen Cannon warned in her order of the consequences should any classified or otherwise sensitive information be improperly revealed to the public, pointing out such disclosures may violate the law.
Cannon held a sealed hearing about the handling of classified information in the case on Tuesday in South Florida, according to multiple sources familiar with the proceeding.
Cannon also asked for additional briefing on the rules Nauta and de Olivera should be subject to under the relevant law, the Classified Information Procedures Act.
The original article contains 815 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
🙃