Question for my conservative friends here.

[Father O'Blivion]

trump should not be in court, no laws were broke

Your premise is false

There will be a trial unless Trump pleads out. Given that, I assume your answer to the OP is no, correct?

 

[elektra]

So far the only person to pass the "bar" is Trump who intentional took, and intentionally retained national security documents.

Intentionally took? Questionable at best, Trump did not pack the boxes.

And, the law allows Presidents to intentionally keep documents. It is called, Presidential Library

 

[Father O'Blivion]

Intentionally took? Questionable at best, Trump did not pack the boxes.

And, the law allows Presidents to intentionally keep documents. It is called, Presidential Library

Yes. That all will come out in the trial. What if he is found guilty?

 

[elektra]

There will be a trial unless Trump pleads out. Given that, I assume your answer to the OP is no, correct?

You can assume anything in a free world.

The trail is a shame, tyranny.

A better question are you willing to be part of the Tyranny and Corruption that has taken over the Government the answer is obvious, yes.

Father O'Blivion wishes to live in and participate in a tyrannical government that persecutes and imprisons the citizens who disagree with the power of the Democratic Party

 

[eagle7-31]

If Trump is found guilty in the documents case with Cannon presiding, will you agree the government proved its case and Trump deserves the punishment meted out?

Before the obvious question is asked, yes I will believe the government did not prove its case if he is acquitted with Cannon presiding..

Presidential Records Act, this is not criminal case.

 

[meaner gene]

Guilty of what, exactly? A glorified case of not returning the library books on time.

Actually that's a perfect example. Do you think a library should give up trying to get their books back?

 

[Father O'Blivion]

You can assume anything in a free world.

The trail is a shame, tyranny.

A better question are you willing to be part of the Tyranny and Corruption that has taken over the Government the answer is obvious, yes.

Father O'Blivion wishes to live in and participate in a tyrannical government that persecutes and imprisons the citizens who disagree with the power of the Democratic Party

All of that because I ask about a verdict in a US court of law in front of a jury? I said in the OP I would accept the verdict either way.

I would argue it I who wishes to live in freedom under the rules set forth in constitution.

 

[elektra]

Yes. That all will come out in the trial. What if he is found guilty?

You are Oblivious to the law and court proceedings.

It has already been pointed out that the law is not broken, that the law does not apply.

Any trail at this point is pure corrupt politics, and now that I point that out, you either are against political trails on trumped up charges or you wish to live in a lawless corrupt dictatorial country.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

Presidential Records Act, this is not criminal case.

Here is the indictment:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

 

[Father O'Blivion]

You are Oblivious to the law and court proceedings.

It has already been pointed out that the law is not broken, that the law does not apply.

Any trail at this point is pure corrupt politics, and now that I point that out, you either are against political trails on trumped up charges or you wish to live in a lawless corrupt dictatorial country.

It's up to the courts to decide if a law has been broken. I agree with this.

This is the very antithesis of lawlessness.

May I put you down as a 'no' to the OP?

 

[JWBooth]

Actually that's a perfect example. Do you think a library should give up trying to get their books back?

Nope, nor are politically motivated federal indictments used in the effort to retrieve them.

 

[eagle7-31]

Here is the indictment:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

The PRA refutes that and this political indictment does not reflect that. its an end run to get at Trump nothing more.

 

[elektra]

All of that because I ask about a verdict in a US court of law in front of a jury? I said in the OP I would accept the verdict either way.

I would argue it I who wishes to live in freedom under the rules set forth in constitution.

Accepting a trail where no law was broke, is what you are accepting. You are accepting political tyranny and the persecution of the innocent.

The Constitution, nice of you to bring that up, under the Constitution, what position did Trump occupy? What does the Constitution state, about Executive power.

It is nice of you to admit, that you are willing to participate in political trails of the innocent, where the charges are fabricated and laws are misinterpreted to persecute and demean the innocent.

You brought up the trail, how about giving us the law that was broke, like exactly word from word, as written, not copied from the internet.

 

[meaner gene]

Intentionally took? Questionable at best, Trump did not pack the boxes.

And, the law allows Presidents to intentionally keep documents. It is called, Presidential Library

Please read the presidential records act. It says that a president "must" turn over all presidential records to the National Archives upon leaving office.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...

www.archives.gov

Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

Accepting a trail where no law was broke, is what you are accepting. You are accepting political tyranny and the persecution of the innocent.

The Constitution, nice of you to bring that up, under the Constitution, what position did Trump occupy? What does the Constitution state, about Executive power.

It is nice of you to admit, that you are willing to participate in political trails of the innocent, where the charges are fabricated and laws are misinterpreted to persecute and demean the innocent.

You brought up the trail, how about giving us the law that was broke, like exactly word from word, as written, not copied from the internet.

The indictment spells out the laws he is accused of breaking. He still considered innocent at this point.

 

[elektra]

It's up to the courts to decide if a law has been broken. I agree with this.

This is the very antithesis of lawlessness.

May I put you down as a 'no' to the OP?

No, it is not up to the courts to decide if a law is broke. If that is the case you should be in court right now and every aspect of your life examined to determent if a law is broke.

Typically it is the FBI, the Police, that determine if a law is broke, then they make an arrest. That is not what happened here.

A trail will determent if a person committed the crime, like a murder. Obviously the law was broke, the court is not determining if a law was broke. In the real world it is pre-trail where it is determined if the law was broke.

But given the political nature of your thread, your OP, you really do not care if Trump broke the law, you are happy to see him suffer persecution and am willing to accept a new role of our courts, determining if a crime was committed, not if someone committed a crime.

 

[miketx]

What about my question?

Yes by all means, keep voting democrat.

 

[meaner gene]

... how about giving us the law that was broke, like exactly word from word, as written, not copied from the internet.

This reminds me of a request someone made for me to post a congressional transcript from the 2nd congress to prove they actually voted on an act of congress.

Once requests reach this level, it proves desperation is the only tool left in your arsenal.

 

[miketx]

What you close your eyes to, is that in our country, there are two types of crimes. Those of negligence and those of intent.

Even in the Clinton case, the bar wasn't just negligence, but gross negligence.
And in the case of Biden and Pence, the bar is criminal intent.
So far the only person to pass the "bar" is Trump who intentional took, and intentionally retained national security documents.

Look, we we got us an eye witness.

 

[Father O'Blivion]

No, it is not up to the courts to decide if a law is broke. If that is the case you should be in court right now and every aspect of your life examined to determent if a law is broke.

Typically it is the FBI, the Police, that determine if a law is broke, then they make an arrest. That is not what happened here.

A trail will determent if a person committed the crime, like a murder. Obviously the law was broke, the court is not determining if a law was broke. In the real world it is pre-trail where it is determined if the law was broke.

But given the political nature of your thread, your OP, you really do not care if Trump broke the law, you are happy to see him suffer persecution and am willing to accept a new role of our courts, determining if a crime was committed, not if someone committed a crime.

In this case, the grand jury decided the law was broken and there was enough evidence to prove it. The trial will prove it, or not. It's how the system works. Will you accept the verdict?