Trump: ‘I’m Allowed to Do Whatever I Want’ With Classified Info
DONALD TRUMP SAID he “absolutely” plans to testify in the federal government’s case against him regarding classified documents he removed from the White House. “I’m allowed to do whatever I want … I’m allowed to do everything I did,” the former president told conservative podcast host Hugh Hewitt.
In an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” that dropped Wednesday, the host asked Trump, “Did you direct anyone to move the boxes, Mr. President? Did you tell anyone to move the boxes?” referring to the boxes of more than 300 classified documents the federal government seized last year from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
“I don’t talk about anything. You know why? Because I’m allowed to do whatever I want. I come under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump replied, while also taking a quick detour to bash Hewitt. “I’m not telling you. You know, every time I talk to you, ‘Oh, I have a breaking story.’ You don’t have any story. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do everything I did.”
Will be super interesting to see him try that under oath...
"OBJECTION YOUR HONOR. My client is a moron and just incriminated himself."
"Your honor, I object!"
"And why is that?"
"Because it's devastating to my case!"
https://youtu.be/Dx32b5igLwA
"Overruled."
"Good call."
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/Dx32b5igLwA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
His lawyers actually said that while he was president. They said he was incapable of being deposed without perjuring himself. Eventually they sent 10 questions written out and he had his lawyers with him to help respond.
"Perjury trap" is a fake term that tries to place the blame for "My client is a compulsive liar and literally can't tell the truth to save his life" on the other party. And whoever came up with the term deserves both a raise for being amazing at their job, and a knee to the groin for being a shit human being.
So, a lawyer.
Probably went to the same school as the lawyer that came up with "afluenza"
I cannot imagine the guy speaking a single word in court.
I can def see a man-child reaction exactly like this dumb statement -kinda like what he did on the debates with Hillary and Biden, interrupting and interjecting his sad alternate reality- as the cases pick up steam and hes forced to fly between Fla, DC, Ga and wherever his current cult rally/grievance is that day, oh boy, is it gonna be fun or what?
Thing is, neither a man-child reaction, nor making deranged statements, helps you in court. So, I'm imagining his lawyers will instruct him to please shut the hell up.
yeah cause the trumpet is well known for heading his lawyers advice
Eh, I also just imagine, he's not particularly excited for speaking there. The judge won't let him blathe on like an imbecil, but rather demand proof for his statements. And the only way, he can avoid subjecting himself to that power dynamic, is to not speak to the judge.
But yeah, we'll have to see...
I could see him yelling and screaming as they take him away.
https://youtu.be/sA0glbG6c-8#t=48s
Oh yeah, after the verdict, I can imagine him inciting another coup and whatnot.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/sA0glbG6c-8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I can.
And it almost is a replacement for PornHub.
It seems like he is showing what his defense will be. It won't be whether he moved documents or shared confidential information or whatever. It will be them challenging the scope of power of the presidency.
The defense comes down to the Afluenza Defense. Note, to my knowledge that never really worked before.
He keeps repeating he thinks he's allowed to do all these things and even when found in court he isn't allowed to do those things, they'll try to say he didn't know.
Thing is, he's playing dumb now, while he's repeatedly shown he knows full well what's right and what's wrong, his statements like how he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and no one would do anything about it, or the grab em by the pussy line.
He made statements showing he knows perfectly fine these are things one shouldn't do, but he does them anyway as he was never held responsible and could get away with it.
Except in the cases of Brock Turner, the convicted rapist and Ethan Couch, the teen who killed 4 people driving drunk and only served 2 years in prison.
And then there’s all the deferred sentence stuff that practically every white collar criminal gets to stay rich and out of prison.
What are you trying to say here? You clearly show they all got convicted.
It was just the sentencing they got treated lightly on.
And it's a given Trump won't see the inside of a jailcell.
But a conviction on any level will disqualify him politics, for a while.
I’m highlight that it’s lack of (the same) consequences for action as the rest of us would receive.
The only thing that will disqualify him will be individual states or congress. And unless the GQP is kicked out of power, I’m worried that a conviction isn’t going to do shit without real punishment.
Not really the scope of power so much as destroying Trump's delusional interpretation of the Presidential Record's Act.
If he honestly tries that in court he's going to get "Um, actually" lawyer-splained so fast BARRON'S kid's heads will spin.
It would make for a much shorter trial, at least. Basically just a guilty plea with extra steps.
He can in fact do whatever he wants, he just needs to deal with the consequences of his actions.
I don't see proof of that last part for the moment, hopefully it will become true
Well, technically, no consequences are some kind of consequences. But I really do hope that he will pay for what he did wrong.
If I was a Republican, and I fancied myself a man of wit, accountability, and maturity, I would not be able to reconcile my politics against just how absurdly juvenile, idiotic, and whiny Trump is at all times.
Yes, but what if they make you hate the others more than this mob?
That, and "eh, they're all the same", and when you need to support the team no matter what - can lull your critical faculties quite well.
Candidate Trump needs to be belligerent and defiant. Defendant Trump needs to STFU.
The problem is those two things are in competition. So he has to say, Russia, Russia, Russia as candidate Trump, but that isn't a relevant or useful argument for defendant Trump. He has to say, "I'm allowed to do this thing" as candidate Trump, but as defendant Trump, I'm allowed to break the law is not a defense.
His only hope is to delay. If he goes to trial on anything, defendant Trump loses. If he can hold out, then candidate Trump will win.
This is his bet. He wins and it all goes away and the US is ruled by a guy who believes he can get away with anything.
Maybe we get lucky and he has a cheeseburger embolism between now and then and then Walter Reed docs just choose to try a little less hard that day.
This attitude is terrifying to people who handle national security information. Just because you might have authority to declassify something doesn't mean you should. It's reckless and irresponsible to expose sources and methods unnecessarily - not to mention the information itself. There's a reason that declassified documents still have a lot of redactions.
This type of stuff is usually in a very controlled environment with significant physical security - not a bathroom.
Holy shit I hate this man so much.
No you are not. It is classified for a reason.
American government: ‘No, you’re not.’
You stopped being president nearly four years ago, man. Grow up.
I truly hate that technically, former presidents can be called Mr. President for the rest of their lives.
I still laugh that donnie Bin Laden and his supporters were outraged that a judge called him "Mr. Trump".
He's right until they prove him wrong.
There's literal audio recording of him acknowledging that he's fully aware he can't do whatever he wants with classified files.
As usual he's right until he proves himself wrong then claims he's right again.
He's aware that it's illegal, but until there are consequences, whether something is illegal or not means fuck all.
His lies here are for his reprogrammable meatbag base, though. They probably don't even know he contradicted himself in a recording.
I will die not understanding the allegiance this man has among his followers.
I think it's at least 90% racism and misogyny and the hope that they will get to unleash their worse selves on others. Hillary was right about them, and my dog, the huffing and puffing her correct statement created among the tone police/"liberal media" and of course his base that is even still having a fauxrage over it...while simultaneously proudly declaring themselves "deplorables" and playing the victim card over it.
he's allowed to do whatever he wants with whatever and whoever he wants whenever he wants or why else is he the king
Okay.
Catch is… I- and everyone else- get to do what ever we want to him
tell his Supporters.. you gotta fight them.. they're the ones who want him as King..
Do they still manufacture torches and pitchforks?
Let the courts sort out his stupidity.
Can he sit in prison while he awaits his trial?
….aT which point his lawyer jumped in and said the the real trump would never say that .. fake fake prank call don’t ever call here again!!
That all sounds to me like he's not trying to defend himself in court, that instead his entire plan is to win the presidency and stay there for life. All of these claims (I can do the thing, it's totally fine believe me) amount to confessions that he did what he's charged with, but are also appeals to his base that the courts are wrong and illegitimate.
That's basically it, that's his get-out-of-jail-free card (though the Georgia case complicates things somewhat), but he's not the only one that needs for him to be back in office. Russia is also depending on him getting in to help their flailing war effort in Ukraine, because I'm sure one of his first actions will be to suspend whatever aid he can to the Ukrainians. China and other countries would also probably love to see him back in because of how completely stupid and ineffective he is at anything he does, not to mention he's easily bought. America's loss will be alot of other country's gain.
Chances that Donald Trump has read any of the Presidential Records Act, or understands what it is for: 0%
Chances that it says "Former presidents can just keep whatever they want, no biggie, what are you going to do, arrest them?": Also 0%.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Donald Trump said he “absolutely” plans to testify in the federal government’s case against him regarding classified documents he removed from the White House.
In an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show” that dropped Wednesday, the host asked Trump, “Did you direct anyone to move the boxes, Mr. President?
I come under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump replied, while also taking a quick detour to bash Hewitt.
The law states: “Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.” There is an allowance for presidents to keep records that are of “a purely private or nonpublic character” and unrelated to presidential duties, but many of the documents Trump was found to possess came from government agencies, such as the C.I.A.
When Hewitt asked Trump if he would testify in his own defense at the trial in the documents case, the former president said, “That, I would do.
In addition to discussing his legal troubles, Hewitt asked Trump for his thoughts on an unrelated topic: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
The original article contains 567 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
He says a lot of shit Guarantee his lawyers won't let that happen.
oh noes. the manbaby is worried! anyways...
Good grief, I just wish that donnie Bin Laden could just be put in prison and have no access to media, whatsoever.
What a ridiculous and vainglorious so-called "man". So tired of his cult members, too.
Ah fuck. You just know that when he does soon of main arteries slubbed chockful of hamburger fat that certain people will erect statues of him looking like superman (body included) standing hand in hand with jesus, they will build shirnes and organize trips to go there to pray and worship...
That’s true. A president can do whatever he wants , it’s called diplomatic immunity. Every president has it, which is why none of them have ever been tried for a crime before.
That's not how diplomatic immunity works. It's to protect them in a foreign country while they're there. So a diplomat stationed in France can't be tried by the French authorities. It has nothing to do with being brought up on charges in their home country, and definitely doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.
Explain then why no other presidents ever got charged for any of their many crimes?
Because they’re rich and powerful. The law gives pathetic protections compared to that.
Well nobody should be above the law, so I say if you’re going to try Trump then fine but let’s be fair and try the other presidents too. Enough of the partisan bias.
Gotta be easy to name a crime for each of the last 4 Presidents right?
Of course, that’s elementary.
Please proceed, Sherlock.
I’ve given many examples in this thread
That was someone asking for examples
It’s easy to google for examples if you are really curious. Here I’ll do it right now since like most poors you’re too lazy to do anything for yourself. Ok I just googled president crimes and here you go. https://youtube.com/watch?v=5BXtgq0Nhsc&si=bAB0syFHw1sN6g6q
Noam Chomsky is a great linguist and a really shitty historian/geopolitical advisor.
Wrong and sad. Let’s see your source saying that no presidents ever did crimes before
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=5BXtgq0Nhsc&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
That is very much not what diplomatic immunity is.
It's to protect diplomats from specific laws within the nations in which they serve (often religious laws).
You’re trying to tell me that no president ever did a little oopsie until trump? That’s patently ridiculous, they must have immunity or else one of them would have got in some kind of trouble. Did Jackson go to jail for doing trail of tears? No? But Trump takes a couple sheets of paper home to read on the toilet and you want to put him in jail? It’s a clear partisan bias.
No, he didn't try to tell you anything other than the fact that diplomatic immunity has nothing at all to do with the president, you moron. But, yeah, Trump didn't do "oopsies"; he knowingly and intentionally broke the law. Which, incidentally, has nothing to do with what former presidents did or did not do.
If you think other presidents didn’t all break the law I’ve got a bridge to sell you!
If you think that's what I said, I'll sell that bridge to you...
No refunds on the bridge, sorry!
Ok. I will not refund you for the purchase of your own property.
It must be very easy for you to cite examples then, yes?
Trail of Tears was a shitty thing, but it was literally not illegal, and he had the support and direction of Congress. It wasn't like, a pet project. It was a popular policy at the time and not a scandal until later.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html#:~:text=These%20Indian%20nations%2C%20in%20the,forceful%20proponent%20of%20Indian%20removal.
I already replied to you with a whole video full of examples, why are you pestering me again? https://youtube.com/watch?v=5BXtgq0Nhsc&si=bAB0syFHw1sN6g6q
Noam Chomsky is not a source lol
Reeks of desperation on your part. Let’s see your better source arguing that no presidents ever did any crimes.
I don't need to prove the negative. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
You’re making the extraordinary claim that no presidents have ever done a crime until now, also I’ve provided you a list of many such crimes which you are free (but not able, perhaps?) to research yourself
I didn't make any claim, and I think it's reasonable to assume some Presidents probably committed crimes. There have been a lot of them, during some very corrupt times.
What I did was ask you for examples, and you specified the last 20 years. I'd love to hear those examples.
Obama bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital
No, Obama authorized military strikes in an active warzone and due to miscommunication - which happens often in war - a hospital was bombed.
Again, not great, and also not a crime. Bad things happen in wars.
Do you have any actual crimes to bring up?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=5BXtgq0Nhsc&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It literally was illegal, the Supreme Court said so. And Jackson said suck my nuts and did it anyway. And not only did he not get in trouble, they put him on the $20 bill. And now Trump took some papers to the bathroom with him and they want to put him in jail? Typical democrat double standards!
Lol no
https://www.nps.gov/places/pea-ridge-trail-of-tears.htm#:~:text=Trail%20of%20Tears%20Time%20Line,discovery%20by%20the%20United%20States.&text=Georgia%20in%201828-,On%20May%2028%2C%201830%2C%20the%20Indian%20Removal%20Act%20was%20signed,law%20by%20President%20Andrew%20Jackson.
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html#:~:text=Jackson%20is%20famous%20for%20having,Jackson%20simply%20ignored%20the%20decision.
Hurrr de durrr durrr you didn’t read far enough into the timeline I guess. You do know that the Supreme Court rules on laws after they are passed and not before, correct?
Actually you didn't read far enough. Here's the actual decision:
You’re literally making excuses for crimes against humanity to own Drumpf, maybe take a step back?
I literally did the opposite of that, and called the Trail of Tears bad. My actual words:
Things can be very, very bad, and not illegal. Chattel slavery was totally legal and not morally defensible
You called it a crime and it is not.
Do you have actual crimes, like Trump is accused of, or are you going to make up more nonsense?
The Trail of Tears was a literally crime against humanity you fucking psychopath
"Crimes against humanity" are a rhetorical device, and most assuredly weren't an actual thing in the 19th century, while chattel slavery existed.
This is why King Leopold wasn't brought up in an international court on crimes against humanity - that didn't exist.
I'm just going to assume you don't know of any actual crimes.
The Presidential Records Act requires that all presidential records be transferred into the custody of the National Archives at the end of the administration.
That doesn’t make it a crime to keep a few papers as a souvenir. Biden did the same thing btw he kept souvenir papers in the garage with his cool car. They all do it.
yes it does make it a crime 100%, that's the whole reason Trump's being charged with stealing classified documents because it violates the presidential records act that's how this shit works
Wrong, it’s not a crime. It’s a wild goose chase
I don’t think that idiom means what you think it means.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander and pretty soon sleepy Joe’s goose will be cooked!
it's funny that you think that this is smart
never mind that Giant mountain of evidence and things we watched on live TV and just keep burying your head in the sand
It literally does
Nope, sorry losers and haters but Trump did nothing wrong at all. He got impeached for making a perfect phone call and now this? Charged for reading a few papers on the toilet? Too bad he’s gonna beat the rap and win the presidency again
He doesn't need you to be his lawyer. It's not internet discussions that will prover if someone did anything outside of the law.
If Trump was just a bit more clever he could have saved himself a lot of trouble by just complying with the request of giving the stuff back.
It’s not possible for a president to do a crime and get in trouble for it, it’s never happened before in the history of presidents!
Maybe it needs to happen more.
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
True! Let’s start by putting the president from 20 years ago in jail!
If it never happened before is not a guarantee it won't happen in the future. Trump is a first in very many ways. If he had any bit of restraint in him he would have gotten away with it. He's just the first ex president to be stubborn enough to not stop doing illegal things after leaving the office.
It would open a whole can of worms and then you’ve got to put all of them in jail
Not really, just the one that doesn't know when to stop or moderate. Nixon could have been imprisoned, but knew when to bind in and tap out. Only your Orange idol is as thick that he thinks he's forever above the law.
Nixon was pardoned. Once Trump wins he can pardon himself. Easy peezy
If
All of who? All the ex-presidents?
But you wouldn't have to do that would you, because none of them have been convicted of a crime. Probably because they're too smart to get caught on like some people.
The fact that Trump is the world's biggest idiot is a big reason why he's the first President ever put on trial. But that's on him.
dumbest take I've read in a while.