Unsigned Trump order told Pentagon to seize voting machines

And your Dems helped put him in office. I guess they liked Trump better than their own candidate.

 

Your literally making things up. JFC

If these came from the National Archive, and thats what is being reported, then they are document that were reviewed as part of his official duties, or that he had a hand in creating.

But you just keep deflecting to “China Joe” and his growing economy

 

Guess what else was part of Trumps official documentation, not only in the very same document, but the opening statement, that you claim he participated in.

“I would like to begin today by addressing the heinous attack that took place yesterday at the United States Capitol,” “Like all Americans, I was outraged and sickened by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem.

“The Demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American Democracy, “I am directing the Department of Justice to ensure all lawbreakers are prosecuted to the fullest extent” of the law.”

We must send a message - not with mercy but with justice. To those who engaged in acts of violence and destruction, I want to be very clear: you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement. You do not represent our country. And if you broke the law, you belong in jail.”

 

If you think it bolsters your assertions to claim that my question whether or not AOC was the operative responsible for placing the document into the national archives is a strawman assertion then let's backup.

You wrote,
"Firstly, I don't discount that this document was created by opposition and planted in the Archives by opponents."

Now this I consider a fairly strong assertion and if you still stick by it then my question is entirely relevant. Will you thick-headedly deflect that AOC was not who you had in mind when writing this assertion? Created by opposition and planted in the Archives by opponents - your assertion leads directly to my question, nothing irrelevant about it. However, since you seem to enjoy taking a point out-of-context and deflecting the points made by other members let me clarify for you and others that my intent with my statement was using the congresswoman's name as a symbol of the opposition. You of course are responsible for backing up your assertion with whom it was in the Executive branch or in the national archives that processed the document in the manner you suggest it may have come into being. Was it Mark Meadows? Not likely.

Yes, I absolutely expect that there is a chain of custody for Presidential documents required by law to be placed in the national archives. Do you?

You continue to assert your opinion as carrying authoritative merit:

Since you are arguing your point based in part on your experience then it is also of some relevance to ask what Federal agency forms the basis of your authority on legal requirements placed on Presidential Records. However, you are welcome to keep this information to yourself since you also state that you never worked for the White House. It's not clear to me how your compensation as an annuitant contractor to your former agency is relevant to this discussion. And it is not clear that your familiarity with procedures of an agency not required to preserve records by law as is required for Presidential Records is of much merit.

You didn't find anything of value in the Wikipedia link and I agree that it lacks sufficient detail to answer some of the questions you have posed that I agree are relevant to this discussion. For example, I am also curious how this document made its way to Politico. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a government based source on the web that provides sufficient detail to answer all of the questions you've raised in this thread. However, this link answers some of your questions and provides some interesting content for folks here that are interested in learning more details about how government actually functions in the real world: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html.

Folks can follow the link if they want to learn more about what is required by law to be preserved, here are a few of the topics covered:

(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials...
(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency...

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Here's a statement of relevance directly to our specific discussion in this thread and your assertion that my statement, "I suppose you might want to investigate the office of the archivist too." is somehow irrelevant and a strawman:

(e) The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any action initiated by the former President asserting that a determination made by the Archivist violates the former President’s rights or privileges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivist_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ferriero

The courts are conspiring against Trump too apparently, eh? The DC DC ruled against Trump and now the SC has as well and here you are arguing about document control issues that you know damn well are unlikely to be available with the level of detail you are asking questions about.

It is a fascinating diversion to see what information is available for the detailed mechanics used to comply with the PRA. Rather than just asking questions maybe you should do a bit of research yourself.

Here's another resource, https://www.archives.gov/files/guid...-archives-and-records-administration-2020.pdf

Designate a White House Counsel attorney to serve as contact with NARA on all PRA issues, including access requests to NARA for Presidential records of former Presidents

Because the Administration faces an ongoing array of PRA issues, it is essential for NARA to have a primary point of contact in the White House Counsel’s Office as soon as possible. This is particularly important for responding to special access requests that NARA receives from Congress and the Courts for the Presidential records of former Presidents. The Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, and Trump Administrations have followed this approach to good effect. NARA can provide training and guidance to such counsel on all requirements of the PRA.

What does this mean, well, one of the things this means is that there is an attorney in the White House Counsel's Office that was likely legally liable for ensuring conformance with the PRA. Whoever this person was worked for this guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Cipollone. Is Pat Cipollone a candidate in your theory that this particular document under discussion in this thread was created by and transmitted to the NA by the opposition? Seems a bit of stretch to me. Well, that's probably putting it a bit too mildly.

***
Leftists are using CIA tactics to smear Trump. Yeah, right. You still miss my point that you claim to understand so well. My point is that Trump and supporters like you are exactly the kind of karma that the US deserves. Trump plays checkers while Putin and Jin Peng play chess. And if you think the connection to Putin was nothing other than a left wing disinformation campaign then you are welcome to share your take on why about two weeks after Trump's "private" meeting with Putin in Brazil he announced a full withdrawal of US forces supporting the Kurds in Northwest Iraq and Northeast Syria. The singular event that led Mattis to resign. Simple facts, not in dispute, independent of any media spin.

***
False dichotomy of American Politics? I'm not sure what you're going after with this disclaimer. At one point in time most members of this forum have likely been led to believe as a matter of faith that not being with their savior is being against them. And this behavior is apparent in your posts in defense of Trump. You twiddle around the plot when everything about this draft EO is consistent with everything that Trump did in 4Q 2020. Your arguments align with those of folks that called for prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for releasing the Pentagon Papers. I'm surprised you haven't called for Betsy Woodruff Swan's head on pike. And finally you attempt to derail the discussion to voting rights and rigged elections. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Yep…..thats what. He said in public.

He also said this on Jan 6th:

 

So what is your point?
Am I to believe by your post that claiming we will never give up or concede is a secret dog whistle to riot and attack capital police?

 

Prove he actually saw it.

 

Maybe they should have kept those on an internet connected secret server along with classified material in the basement, then erase the whole thing when it looks like it's going to blow up?

 

But your side is trying to deny Trump from even running in elections, AKA vote suppression.

 

Well Republicans won Florida on a local election that was won with fraud. It was proven and the sham candidate admitted to thr scheme, but Republicans turned a blind eye.

Both republicans and democrats voiced discontent at the elections integrity commission. The Democrat lawsuit was from a commission member who sued to get access to documents because nothing was being shared with him...likely documents exposing Trump fraud. Fact is that once the judge ordered the committee to share information with democratic committee members (not sure why they weren't sharing in the first place), Trump closes up shop. Put 2 and 2 together.

 

He organized a riot to overturn an election.

If that doesn't disqualify him from being POTUS, what does?

 

The document that was on his desk and in the National Archives.

 

Where did I say presidential advisors don't write executive orders? I said they are not written without the presidents consent, whcih you admit. You even admit the president will ask his staff to have something drafted on his behalf, which means he was aware of the internal talks about seizing election machines and asked his staff make a draft.

Again, where did I say Trump drafted it? I said he was aware of internal talks and it was being seriously considered. You don't make an EO if it's not in serious consideration. You think interns just sit around all day making drafts involving concepts the president has no idea about?

JFK's staff drafted nuclear war orders etc. at the request of JFK. You think they were making these orders out of thin air behind his back? Seriously?

 

(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.

All inspected personally by Trump with his God-like powers before being sent to NARA? Cause that is the claim from the left in this thread. He didn't sign it, but the left he asserts he must have seen it. If that is not your claim what exactly is your claim.

Your opinions about what is consistent behavior for Trump are your own attempt to argue from authority. Are you a recognized authority on Trump?

Your post has one strawman after another.

The checkers/chess bit is a strawman.

I never said anything about a court conspiracy. Another strawman.

Pentagon Papers. Another strawman.

Connection to Putin. Another strawman.

Trump and supporters like you are exactly the kind of karma that the US deserves.

Strawman and an emotional rant. The bit about Trump being my savior. That is no way to conduct a well reasoned discussion. This should be a friendly discussion. Right?? There is no point discussing this issue if it raises your blood pressure.

As for my experience with Federal records, preparation of correspondence for agency Senior Executives, etc. I have worked at the Department level for four Cabinet agencies and in three of those positions had direct interaction with the Department records office. As far as the specific agencies I worked at I will say that one was The Department of Justice. I may not know anything directly about how the White House operates and never claimed to. But I know a lot about Federal records retention policy and implementing guidelines. I know a lot about the process of preparing correspondence for signature by a Cabinet Secretary. So in this regard I am an authority.

 

Do you people just make this stuff up as you go every time you get caught with fake information?

If Democrats were so sure, why would they submit dozens of federal law suits to stop the investigation. I thought it was Democrats always claiming if you are not afraid of the information, why are you protesting so much?

And Trump (as you say) closing shop doesn't stop any judges order to to share information. But make up what ever makes you feel better. When all you have is exaggerations its pretty easy to know the truth.

 

You are not informed on the issue. Look up the 2016 elections integrity commission.

https://apnews.com/article/florida-5343b101e96d5c7f42d1ee54da7cc0ce

I can see most of the MSM buried these stories because it didn't fit the narrative

 

The fact is, you don't know anything of what you claimed. You are guessing at best trying to make an argument.
You don't know who drafted it
You don't why it was drafted
You don't even know if he saw it

But we do know he didn't sign it.

 

You are making things up? Why are you against voters deciding who they want to vote for? Why are you against democracy? Why are you for vote suppression?

 

he could murder someone on Park Ave, and his supporters would still love him.

Trump said so.

 

You admitted the president directs his staff to make drafts on EOs. Are you saying this draft was written without his consent?

 

Let me try again, do you still maintain this assertion or not?

 

so Neo-Nazis and Communists should be allowed to run for President?

huh

 

You need to quit making things up. It's embarrassing when actual videos that debunk your wild claims are available.


Note: This video is from January 6, prior to the protest.

You're welcome.

 

Nope, I said no consent is needed for any staff to draft an EO.
And I didn't make any claims about Trump reading, drafting, or not reading the EO is question.
I am saying you don't know so stop pretending you do

 

"I don't discount" is not exactly an assertion. But I stand by the statement.