How to drive an irrational leftist insane

[BackAgain]

I am the least partisan poster at this website! Jealous?

You are an overtly hyper partisan hack. Your self description is just another lie.

Nobody is jealous of you. What I feel toward you is disgust and a lot of pity.

 

[The Duke]

The video is one you probably don’t want to see. The fellow is a Criminal Lawyer. A Lawyer who can explain the law. Now here is the problem as far as you are concerned. He explains what the law actually means instead of what you think it says. That is troubling for the Trumptards. They don’t like dealing in facts.

The Lawyer explained why Hillary wasn’t charged and Trump was. It has to do with the Precedent cases that came before.

That is obviously NOT the case. Most of the relevant precedent cases are listed here:

The Clinton Sock Drawer Tapes Case and Armstrong vs. Bush I & II.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

Here some facts for you: Presidents can do pretty much what they want to with classified documents.

Read them, destroy them, it doesn't matter. NARA has no right to make demands of a president, either.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are an overtly hyper partisan hack. Your self description is just another lie.

Nobody is jealous of you. What I feel toward you is disgust and a lot of pity.

Nope, I am not. I am one of only a few posters at this website who will publically admit when he is wrong. If you give me a good enough argument, I will acknowledge that. I'm also courteous to other posters. I am Father Fucking Theresa!

 

[BackAgain]

Nope, I am not. I am one of only a few posters at this website who will publically admit when he is wrong. If you give me a good enough argument, I will acknowledge that. I'm also courteous to other posters. I am Father Fucking Theresa!

Anybody who has made a mistake can acknowledge it. Most of us have done so. I don’t recall seeing you ever do so.

And courtesy isn’t your hallmark.

You’re a dishonest, hyper-partisan and generally unfunny waste of electrons, here at USMB.

 

[Marener]

That is obviously NOT the case. Most of the relevant precedent cases are listed here:

The Clinton Sock drawer tapes case and Armstrong vs. Bush I & II.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

Here some facts for you: Presidents can do pretty much what they want to with classified documents.

Read them, destroy them, it doesn't matter. NARA has no right to make demands of a president, either.

Still parroting the same lie after being shown the language from the cases that contradict your assertions.

Some people never learn.

 

[Marener]

Anybody who has made a mistake can acknowledge it. Most of us have done so. I don’t recall seeing you ever do so.

And courtesy isn’t your hallmark.

You’re a dishonest, hyper-partisan and generally unfunny waste of electrons, here at USMB.

You can’t even admit that you were wrong for attacking my use of the word “sow”.

 

[BackAgain]

You can’t even admit that you were wrong for attacking my use of the word “sow”.

No? Ok. Try this. You’re still a laughable assclown. But I did make a mistake on that one.

 

[The Duke]

No. I have a problem with judges who demonstrate they’re willing to ignore the law to help Trump.

Everyone should unless you want to live in a “banana republic”.

Search warrants usually take personal property away. FFS, what the hell do think they’re for?

As for the PRA, it has nothing to do with her decision. Read it yourself.

Thanks for reminding me how stupid you are.

Federal search warrants are different than state. They have to say what they're looking for and only seize that as evidence.

I say it was an intimidation tactic and an egregious violation of the 4th Amendment.

I don't see anything they seized that day being allowed as evidence. (I could be wrong)

 

[Billo_Really]

Anybody who has made a mistake can acknowledge it. Most of us have done so. I don’t recall seeing you ever do so.

And courtesy isn’t your hallmark.

You’re a dishonest, hyper-partisan and generally unfunny waste of electrons, here at USMB.

That was harsh!

 

[BackAgain]

That was harsh!

Aww.

 

[The Duke]

Still parroting the same lie after being shown the language from the cases that contradict your assertions.

Some people never learn.

"As another court in this district has observed, “[t]he PRA incorporates an assumption made by Congress (in 1978) that subsequent Presidents and Vice Presidents would comply with the Act in good faith, and therefore Congress limited the scope of judicial review and provided little oversight authority for the President and Vice President’s document preservation decisions.” CREW v. Cheney, 593 F. Supp. 2d 194, 198 (D.D.C. 2009)."

"On appeal, the D.C. 12 Circuit reversed, holding that the PRA precluded judicial review of the “President’s recordkeeping practices and decisions” because such judicial review “would upset the intricate statutory scheme Congress carefully drafted to keep in equipoise important competing political and constitutional concerns.” Armstrong I, 924 F.2d at 290–91."

"Thus, the PRA requires the President to “maintain records documenting the policies, activities, and decisions of his administration,” but “leav[es] the implementation of such a requirement in the President’s hands.” Id., citing 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)."
"The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records."

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

I couldn't copy this stuff the other day for whatever reason, bad bootup or something.

It works today!

 

[Billo_Really]

Aww.

Whaa!

 

[Faun]

That is obviously NOT the case. Most of the relevant precedent cases are listed here:

The Clinton Sock Drawer Tapes Case and Armstrong vs. Bush I & II.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

Here some facts for you: Presidents can do pretty much what they want to with classified documents.

Read them, destroy them, it doesn't matter. NARA has no right to make demands of a president, either.

Earth to mary ... Trump's not the president anymore. He can no longer decide which classified documents he wasn't to keep at Mar-a-Raided.

 

[The Duke]

Earth to mary ... Trump's not the president anymore. He can no longer decide which classified documents he wasn't to keep at Mar-a-Raided.

It does not work like that. You may want it to, but that's not how it is. Read the laws listed in my last post.

 

[Marener]

Federal search warrants are different than state. They have to say what they're looking for and only seize that as evidence.

I say it was an intimidation tactic and an egregious violation of the 4th Amendment.

I don't see anything they seized that day being allowed as evidence. (I could be wrong)

Good news! The federal search warrant said what they’re looking for and seized what they stipulated in the warrant.

There’s no reason to believe the evidence seized can’t be allowed as evidence.

 

[SavannahMann]

That is obviously NOT the case. Most of the relevant precedent cases are listed here:

The Clinton Sock Drawer Tapes Case and Armstrong vs. Bush I & II.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

Here some facts for you: Presidents can do pretty much what they want to with classified documents.

Read them, destroy them, it doesn't matter. NARA has no right to make demands of a president, either.

Let me reiterate the appropriate response that you seem to be forgetting. Presidents can. Former Presidents can not.

You may have been the top secret information officer of the entire CIA. Nothing was closed to you. You worked for thirty years, and then retired. Ten seconds after walking out that door, you are not entitled to any more secret access.

When Trump watched Biden take the oath of office, Trump no longer had the authority to do diddly squat as President. At that moment, It was all Biden. Just as Obama lost his authority when Trump was sworn in.

At that moment, Trump had to comply with the standards that exist for everyone. Trump doesn’t get to hide information from the DOJ. He doesn’t get to ignore subpoenas. He doesn’t get to veto or overrule anyone anymore. He’s a former President. Former being the operative word.

 

[Marener]

Th

"As another court in this district has observed, “[t]he PRA incorporates an assumption made by Congress (in 1978) that subsequent Presidents and Vice Presidents would comply with the Act in good faith, and therefore Congress limited the scope of judicial review and provided little oversight authority for the President and Vice President’s document preservation decisions.” CREW v. Cheney, 593 F. Supp. 2d 194, 198 (D.D.C. 2009)."

"On appeal, the D.C. 12 Circuit reversed, holding that the PRA precluded judicial review of the “President’s recordkeeping practices and decisions” because such judicial review “would upset the intricate statutory scheme Congress carefully drafted to keep in equipoise important competing political and constitutional concerns.” Armstrong I, 924 F.2d at 290–91."

"Thus, the PRA requires the President to “maintain records documenting the policies, activities, and decisions of his administration,” but “leav[es] the implementation of such a requirement in the President’s hands.” Id., citing 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)."
"The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records."

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

I couldn't copy this stuff the other day for whatever reason, bad bootup or something.

It works today!

The case is irrelevant because it specifically made no determination as to whether the court could decide what is and isn’t a personal record.

“Bearing in mind the Armstrong decisions and all of the considerations raised by the parties, the Court has serious doubts about whether the former President's retention of the audiotapes as personal is a matter that is subject to judicial review. But the Court need not decide this question because whether judicial review is available or not, the relief that plaintiff seeks—that the Archivist assume “custody and control” of the audiotapes—is not available under the PRA.”

The case was decided on entirely different grounds.

 

[The Duke]

the relief that plaintiff seeks—that the Archivist assume “custody and control” of the audiotapes—is not available under the PRA.”

"the relief that plaintiff seeks—that the Archivist assume “custody and control” of the audiotapes—is not available under the PRA.”"

Archivist can't demand things of the president. That's what started this whole shitshow.

Now I know why Democrats wanted Merrick Garland so bad; They must have leverage on him, and he's corrupt AF.

So is Jack Smith.

Testimony: In 2010, Justice Department Sought Lois Lerner’s Help to Prosecute Tax Exempt Groups Engaging in Politics - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

 

[Faun]

It does not work like that. You may want it to, but that's not how it is. Read the laws listed in my last post.

That's exactly how it works. An ex-president, who's now just a private citizen like you and I, who has no security clearance, has no authority to access classified intel. No less store them in their personal, unsecured residence.

 

[Marener]

"the relief that plaintiff seeks—that the Archivist assume “custody and control” of the audiotapes—is not available under the PRA.”"

Archivist can't demand things of the president. That's what started this whole shitshow.

False. The ruling is that the court can’t demand the archivist to get the records because the statute says the archivist does not have a legal responsibility to do so.