“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.

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months 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
      ·
      8 months 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
        ·
        8 months 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
          ·
          8 months 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
            ·
            8 months 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
              ·
              8 months 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.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  18 usc 1924 Is a law that created a duty, a legal duty.

                  (a)

                  Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

                  You say you don’t want to play semantics but that’s your entire argument.

                  • roguetrick@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    You actually don’t understand my argument. What you’re talking about now is WHY I think trump broke the law. It has nothing to do with oaths of office. Oaths of office do NOT create a legal duty. That code, as well as the administrative law around

                    without authority

                    from that code is what creates a legal duty.