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.”

  • @[email protected]
    -7•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
      6•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

      • @[email protected]
        -5•1 year ago

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

        • @SCB
          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?

            • @SCB
              4•1 year ago

              “Crimes against humanity” are a rhetorical device, and most assuredly weren’t an actual thing in the 19th century, while chattel slavery existed.

              This is why King Leopold wasn’t brought up in an international court on crimes against humanity - that didn’t exist.

              I’m just going to assume you don’t know of any actual crimes.

                • @SCB
                  4•1 year ago

                  You’re dumb, but even you aren’t dumb enough to actually think that’s what I’m saying, when my own words state the opposite.

                  • @[email protected]
                    -3•1 year ago

                    Literally you’re saying that Trump taking papers to his house is worse than slavery and genocide.