I accidentally took home with me some top secret, national security classified documents
But when the cops came I pointed at the boxes and said "I declassify them". There. Now I can't get in any trouble 馃槆
41-45, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies 禄
hippyjoe1955 路 61-69, M
[@samueltyler2 ] Not sure why https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact doesn't work. But if you want simply Google Tapes in Bill Clinton's Sock Drawer You will find the article second item down.
samueltyler2 路 80-89, M
@hippyjoe1955 I do give you one thing, you really try hard. If you would start using real critical thinking, perhaps you would see the light!
I did what you suggested, Googled the sock thing and did look at the specific article you suggested. First, it appears that the tapes in discussion were not official records, that is, they were recordings Clinton made of his recollections of what happened during the day. They were not official, confidential, top secret papers. The discussion as to what is personal property of a president is interesting, and not really settled in the court. The reporter concluded that the court said something, I will have to find the actual court comment. But, when you read the article, it also states that the president must inform the national archives. I assume, it is not just telling them that I am destroying things, but requesting input from the archives as to if I may destroy them. Neither of us knows what the court may have meant in the discussion. That is totally different from what Nixon did, and what #45 did.
Let is put it in a different frame, not with national secrets, but with a person's medical records. If I even open a patient's chart, my "signature" is recorded. I may not take written records home. If I am found to be viewing records without any clinical need, I can be prosecuted under HIPAA. You said you have been to record rooms, and understand how you access records, apparently, you seem to think national security is less important?
I did what you suggested, Googled the sock thing and did look at the specific article you suggested. First, it appears that the tapes in discussion were not official records, that is, they were recordings Clinton made of his recollections of what happened during the day. They were not official, confidential, top secret papers. The discussion as to what is personal property of a president is interesting, and not really settled in the court. The reporter concluded that the court said something, I will have to find the actual court comment. But, when you read the article, it also states that the president must inform the national archives. I assume, it is not just telling them that I am destroying things, but requesting input from the archives as to if I may destroy them. Neither of us knows what the court may have meant in the discussion. That is totally different from what Nixon did, and what #45 did.
Let is put it in a different frame, not with national secrets, but with a person's medical records. If I even open a patient's chart, my "signature" is recorded. I may not take written records home. If I am found to be viewing records without any clinical need, I can be prosecuted under HIPAA. You said you have been to record rooms, and understand how you access records, apparently, you seem to think national security is less important?
hippyjoe1955 路 61-69, M
@samueltyler2 Well except for the trying real hard I would say the same for you. Too bad you drank the koolaide. Have a nice oblivion. You are oblivious to what is going on and what has gone on.
samueltyler2 路 80-89, M
@hippyjoe1955 touche, you act like the playground bully, all you can say is...
hippyjoe1955 路 61-69, M
@samueltyler2 And you play the village idiot. Next. Tell you what try to do some thinking instead of criticizing and see how little bullying you get from me.
samueltyler2 路 80-89, M
@hippyjoe1955 you do realize that you really are acting like a non-thinking jerk!