It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wire Tap claim...timing...Exec Order 13489...could this be it?

page: 2
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




2205 states that all of those things occur except in the restrictions access imposed by 2204.
Forgive me if I was mistaken in thinking that English was your first language.


Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208--


What do you think that notwithstanding means?




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe




In an earlier thread, EO13489 was pointed out as where Obama sealed his records for good in regards to birth certificate, transcripts from school, etc

Those records are protected by laws and have been since before Obama took office. Yours are protected. Mine are protected.

Executive Orders are not laws and those are not Presidential Records.

(c) ''Presidential Records Act'' refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207. (d) ''NARA regulations'' refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270. (e) ''Presidential records'' refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.

www.archives.gov...


(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

www.archives.gov...


Apparently Trump's tax records are not protected so your information is not protected either. The Fake News thinks they can publish any confidential documents on citizens that they want if it promotes their stories and ratings. How are you with that?

Now nobody would care you might say, well not so, at any given time a citizen could become part of a story and then your whole confidential information becomes fair game to them, contrary to laws.

Time to charge these lefty fake news'ers with their crimes.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Apparently Trump's tax records are not protected so your information is not protected either.

If the leaker of Trump's tax records is discovered they can, and should be, prosecuted.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   
The Trump administration asked the investigative panel for "more time" when the initial 3.13.2017 deadline arrived.

The panel gave Trump's Justice Department until March 20th to produce evidence.

Today 3.14.2017, Sean Spicer said that the Justice Department "should" have evidence by the 3.20.2017 deadline.

Is this correct?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I guess.
What happens if the DOJ comes up empty?

Trump says, "I made it up."

I don't think so.

edit on 3/15/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Apparently Trump's tax records are not protected so your information is not protected either.

If the leaker of Trump's tax records is discovered they can, and should be, prosecuted.

If Maddow is right and Trump leaked them himself, does he get into trouble?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

No.
Unless he blames it on someone else.

edit on 3/15/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe




2205 states that all of those things occur except in the restrictions access imposed by 2204.
Forgive me if I was mistaken in thinking that English was your first language.


Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208--


What do you think that notwithstanding means?


I know what notwithstanding means.

Do you know what "subject to" means?


(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available--


This is the part that Bush before Obama actually understood and corrected in EO13233 by specifically putting 2205 A,B,C in the order and stating that these could not be overruled.

Under Obama's EO, that small "subject to" is what keeps his privilege and records sealed for at least 12 years except by order or to the incumbent President or himself or designated appointee. He also specifically added the section for being able to shorten the time frame these records could be available to such a request.

So 2204 applies in its entirety, the small piece Obama seems to have missed is that he did not input the exclusion of weekends and holidays into the EO.

The extension asked for by the DoJ happens to line up just right for the timing of how the records could be released.

Obama and the dems have become oddly silent since this accusation. A minor miss in the reworking of a EO by his team could be the downfall if these records do exist.

Essentially his EO trumps 2205 simply because of that "subject to" phrase.

edit on 3/15/17 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
But evidently this only applies to Democrat administrations I guess. Republican administrations need to release everything to the public.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Kinda like someones...maybe a Presidents official Tax Return ? I seriously doubt anyone would want to see my tax return but hopefully it is protected better than President Trump's tax return was.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thesaneone

Yes.
They are protected just as much those of the president are.


Just as much as, say, a 1040 IRS form?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Outstanding work VC !!!!
Stay with it.

On a side-not, I'm also glad that at least one person understands requirements and procedures.

Buck



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Anywho...just my mind working over time on the timing and strangeness with which all of this is happening.


Mind working over time...actively attempting to validate absurd claims. Same diff.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe




In an earlier thread, EO13489 was pointed out as where Obama sealed his records for good in regards to birth certificate, transcripts from school, etc

Those records are protected by laws and have been since before Obama took office. Yours are protected. Mine are protected.



It's arguable that his birth certificate is protected. A record that's already public cannot be made private again. In fact, Hawaii's Office of Information Practices (OIP), which oversees Hawaii's open records law, formally determined this, in 2003, when the contract for University of Hawaii coach, June B Jones, was requested by a member of the public under the Uniform Information Practices Act.

Because June B. Jones (through his agent), and UH had already disclosed information from the contract to the public, the OIP concluded the contract was no longer protected by statute:


We find that there is no reasonable basis to withhold those portions of the contract which have been disclosed by UH or Coach Jones, through his agent. We also find that the public’s interest in the contract outweighs Coach Jones’ privacy interest and that, based upon the information provided to us by UH, disclosure of the contract will not reasonably frustrate the Athletic Department’s ability to operate. For those reasons, the contract, in its entirety, should be disclosed.


Obama waived his statutory protections when his campaign and the White House disclosed his birth certificate copies to the public.

However, the Hawaii Department of Health stills claims the record is protected by statute. The most logical conclusion is that whatever the public was shown does not match what the HDOH has on record...otherwise, the agency would disclose his birth certificate upon request from the public.
edit on 15-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe




In an earlier thread, EO13489 was pointed out as where Obama sealed his records for good in regards to birth certificate, transcripts from school, etc

Those records are protected by laws and have been since before Obama took office. Yours are protected. Mine are protected.



It's arguable that his birth certificate is protected. A record that's already public cannot be made private again. In fact, Hawaii's Office of Information Practices (OIP), which oversees Hawaii's open records law, formally determined this, in 2003, when the contract for University of Hawaii coach, June B Jones, was requested by a member of the public under the Uniform Information Practices Act.

Because June B. Jones (through his agent), and UH had already disclosed information from the contract to the public, the OIP concluded the contract was no longer protected by statute:


We find that there is no reasonable basis to withhold those portions of the contract which have been disclosed by UH or Coach Jones, through his agent. We also find that the public’s interest in the contract outweighs Coach Jones’ privacy interest and that, based upon the information provided to us by UH, disclosure of the contract will not reasonably frustrate the Athletic Department’s ability to operate. For those reasons, the contract, in its entirety, should be disclosed.


Obama waived his statutory protections when his campaign and the White House disclosed his birth certificate copies to the public.

However, the Hawaii Department of Health stills claims the record is protected by statute. The most logical conclusion is that whatever the public was shown does not match what the HDOH has on record...otherwise, the agency would disclose his birth certificate upon request from the public.


I honestly never gave a crap about the whole birth certificate thing. It was a witch hunt a long the lines of what's going on with Trump and taxes right now.

My whole point of the thread was the way the times lined up for the extension and how the committee may have thought making the hearing on the 20th would avoid anything being released when Obama's EO actually undermined that without the committee realizing it or realizing it too late.

Anywho... here's to the 20th!



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sorry, the issue came up in your OP, Phage responded, and I had to correct what could be misinformation. Most people don't understand that Obama made his birth certificate public so it's no longer protected by privacy laws.

"Witch hunt" implies that Obama is a victim of unfair accusations. He's not.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sorry, the issue came up in your OP, Phage responded, and I had to correct what could be misinformation. Most people don't understand that Obama made his birth certificate public so it's no longer protected by privacy laws.

"Witch hunt" implies that Obama is a victim of unfair accusations. He's not.


No worries...i was just saying while that is what got me to look at the EO, it isn't anything I ever got involved with looking in to.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It's the EO establishing Executive Privilege. It basically restores what Reagan set up by EO during his term.

GW Bush had tried to give himself greater privileges, but that was struck down in court.

So, if you don't like this EO ... blame Ronald Reagan because every President since him (including Donald Trump) has been working under the same standards.

ETA

Reagan EO 12667

GW Bush EO 13233

Source
edit on 15-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It's the EO establishing Executive Privilege. It basically restores what Reagan set up by EO during his term.

GW Bush had tried to give himself greater privileges, but that was struck down in court.

So, if you don't like this EO ... blame Ronald Reagan because every President since him (including Donald Trump) has been working under the same standards.

ETA

Reagan EO 12667

GW Bush EO 13233

Source


Maybe you should read them...they get to make their own EO stipulating changes to the PRA.

None are the same and all are changed by the new POTUS when they are in office.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It's the EO establishing Executive Privilege. It basically restores what Reagan set up by EO during his term.

GW Bush had tried to give himself greater privileges, but that was struck down in court.

So, if you don't like this EO ... blame Ronald Reagan because every President since him (including Donald Trump) has been working under the same standards.

ETA

Reagan EO 12667

GW Bush EO 13233

Source


Maybe you should read them...they get to make their own EO stipulating changes to the PRA.

None are the same and all are changed by the new POTUS when they are in office.


No, they aren't all changed with every President. And apparently, you haven't read them yourself.

The EOs in question are as I noted earlier.

Ronald Reagan EO 12667
GW Bush EO 13233
Obama EO 13489

Obama's restored Reagan's substantially, after Bush had tried to make changes which didn't hold up in court.

Why don't you print Reagan's EO and Obama's in full and let folks read for themselves?
edit on 16-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join