Trump: ‘I’m Allowed to Do Whatever I Want’ With Classified Info - eviltoast
Trump: 'I'm Allowed to Do Whatever I Want' With Classified Info
www.rollingstone.com
The former president told Hugh Hewitt that he “absolutely” would testify in the federal government’s probe of his handling of sensitive material

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.”

  • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
    116·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      3·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      31·
      1 year ago

      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.

      These Indian nations, in the view of the settlers and many other white Americans, were standing in the way of progress. Eager for land to raise cotton, the settlers pressured the federal government to acquire Indian territory

      https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html#:~:text=These Indian nations%2C in the,forceful proponent of Indian removal.

          • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
            110·
            1 year ago

            Reeks of desperation on your part. Let’s see your better source arguing that no presidents ever did any crimes.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              6·
              1 year ago

              I don’t need to prove the negative. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

              • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
                16·
                1 year ago

                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

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  5·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

      • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
        112·
        1 year ago

        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!

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          5·
          1 year ago

          Lol no

          Trail of Tears Time Line

          The Supreme Court ruled in 1823 that the Native Americans’ right of occupancy on lands in the United States was secondary to the right of discovery by the United States.

          State of Georgia pushed Indian Removal

          Gold was found in Northern Georgia in 1828

          On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson

          https://www.nps.gov/places/pea-ridge-trail-of-tears.htm#:~:text=Trail of Tears Time Line,discovery by the United States.&text=Georgia in 1828-,On May 28%2C 1830%2C the Indian Removal Act was signed,law by President Andrew Jackson.

          • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
            18·
            1 year ago

            1832: Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision.

            https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html#:~:text=Jackson is famous for having,Jackson simply ignored the decision.

            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?

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              5·
              1 year ago

              Actually you didn’t read far enough. Here’s the actual decision:

              In Worcester, the Court ruled that only the United States, and not the individual states, had power to regulate or deal with the Indian nations.

              The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision.[10] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce,[11][12] although Jackson’s political enemies conspired to find evidence, to be used in the forthcoming political election, to claim that he would refuse to enforce the Worcester decision

              • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
                15·
                1 year ago

                You’re literally making excuses for crimes against humanity to own Drumpf, maybe take a step back?

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  1 year ago

                  I literally did the opposite of that, and called the Trail of Tears bad. My actual words:

                  Trail of Tears was a shitty thing, but it was literally not illegal

                  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?