Perhaps I fail to understand

often NOT easily understood..

...*rump's.

From the "unwashed masses". From the start, most of the "unwashed", were/are people of color. Many of whom were enslaved, as "property".

It evolves from there, to here.

(tears)

You take something from your parents' house that you've used for a while.

They notice it's missing. Is it stolen?

That is, did you take it without permission?

Note the requirements for "classified." Obama issued the last EO stipulating what that meant. Obama wasn't bound by his orders to his underlings. His successors were no less bound. *That* is the problem. Obama didn't bind himself. He couldn't bind Trump.

Since pretty much all authority for classification rests with the President--in this case, Obama, since he last issued (to my knowlege) and EO about such "trivia"--what does that mean for Trump?

That requires not asking, "What does it mean for subordinates?" because Trump wasn't Obama's subordinate. Officially, he was Obama's equal. So every time it comes up with "Was Trump acting within the law?" ask, "Was Obama acting within the law?" Put in the same actions. Often, my response is, "Dunno." I don't inow the details or the case law, if it exists.

They are the property of the US government. I don't remember hearing Obama took anything without permission.

When he left office.

for traffic offenses. But thanks for one more version of, "If this was (you chose: an average Joe, government employee, my friend with a security clearance) then he would have hit the slammer so fast .. " And yada, yada. But then, it's not an average Joe at the middle of this. So the point is rather moot. No?

line doesn't really stand up very well.


Thousands upon thousands of traffic stops occur every day - the tiny minority that end up 'incarcerated' almost never wind up there on account of traffic violations. (warrants, weapons and drugs lead the way by wide margins) Am I giving 'bad policing' a pass by insisting on that basic truth? Not from where I stand.
------ ------

DOJ is meticulous, as we're seeing in the Oath Keepers trial.

And when it comes to cases involving classified documents, DOJ also is meticulous.

For example, Sandy Berger walked out of NARA with classified documents. That he had done so was discovered by NARA in October 2003 and referred to DOJ shortly thereafter. He was never arrested. He was investigated (an investigation that wasn't publicly acknowledged until 2004) and then plead guilty in 2005 to a misdemeanor and sentenced to two years of probation -- he never spent a day in jail, either before or after his guilty plea.

Or, more recently, federal authorities began investigating Benjamin Pierce Bishop with electronic surveillance at least as early as September 2012 and conducted a search of his home in November 2012. That investigation and search established that he was passing classified information to a Chinese citizen and that he also was in possession of classified materials in his home. A criminal complaint was not sworn out against Bishop until March 2013. Initially, he was released to a halfway house pending trial but he violated the terms of his pre-trial release and returned to custody. But he wasn't sentenced, as part of a plea agreement, until March 2014 -- 18 months after the investigation began.

Same as it always was.