Smith's patience has expired.

[Rawley]

If you are still confused by this basic issue by now you are being willfully ignorant.

Nah Not confused at all. Just laughing at your blind fealty to Comrade Smith's ranting.

 

[berg80]

LOL Hmm. THe Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with Presidential Records. Is that what Comrade Smith has ordered you to chant? LOL

The PRA requires presidents to return presidential records at the end of their term but allows them to keep personal records, such as diaries or journals, that are not connected to their official duties as president. Classified docs are not personal records. Got it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I can't believe that there is so much confusion about who has authority to designate documents as personal or presidential.

Judicial Watch: Clinton Sock Drawer Audio Tape Case Exonerates Pres. Trump - Judicial Watch

A decade old legal case that could exonerate former President Donald Trump has been buried by legacy media. “[Special counsel] Jack Smith is terrified of the only standing legal case decision from a court concerning the Presidential Records Act,” said Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at...

www.judicialwatch.org

“[Special counsel] Jack Smith is terrified of the only standing legal case decision from a court concerning the Presidential Records Act,” said Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch.

The case Farrell is referring to is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration – also known as the “Clinton sock drawer” case. Former President Bill Clinton created White House audio tapes with historian Taylor Branch and stored them in his sock drawer. Judicial Watch sued to obtain access to the tapes and lost.

“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “

“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.

In her ruling, Jackson wrote 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.’”

Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

The National Archivist is a glorified file clerk. They were never given the kind of authority that Democrats want them to have, for use against Donald Trump specifically.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Don't feed the sealions.

 

[Rawley]

The PRA requires presidents to return presidential records at the end of their term but allows them to keep personal records, such as diaries or journals, that are not connected to their official duties as president. Classified docs are not personal records. Got it?

This entire case is about Presidential Records. None of these issues have ever been litigated becasue your cult has chosen, for rank partisan political reasons, to take the breathtaking and unprecedented act of indicting a former President over some documents.

 

[berg80]

“[Special counsel] Jack Smith is terrified of the only standing legal case decision from a court concerning the Presidential Records Act,” said Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch.

No he isn't. Because Trump is charged with violating the Espionage Act which covers classified docs, not personal records.

The PRA requires presidents to return presidential records at the end of their term but allows them to keep personal records, such as diaries or journals, that are not connected to their official duties as president. Classified docs are not personal records. Got it?

 

[berg80]

This entire case is about Presidential Records.

That's a flat out lie.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No he isn't. Because Trump is charged with violating the Espionage Act which covers classified docs, not personal records.

The PRA requires presidents to return presidential records at the end of their term but allows them to keep personal records, such as diaries or journals, that are not connected to their official duties as president. Classified docs are not personal records. Got it?

You need to research this case carefully:

A decade old legal case that could exonerate former President Donald Trump has been buried by legacy media.

“[Special counsel] Jack Smith is terrified of the only standing legal case decision from a court concerning the Presidential Records Act,” said Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch.

The case Farrell is referring to is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration – also known as the “Clinton sock drawer” case. Former President Bill Clinton created White House audio tapes with historian Taylor Branch and stored them in his sock drawer. Judicial Watch sued to obtain access to the tapes and lost.

“He took them from the White House with him into private life,” said Farrell. “There’s classified material on those tapes and arguably it’s the sort of running stream of consciousness record of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Pretty important stuff.”

. . .

Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “

“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.

In her ruling, Jackson wrot

“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.’”


Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

Judicial Watch: Clinton Sock Drawer Audio Tape Case Exonerates Pres. Trump - Judicial Watch

"Unconstrained authority," "absoloute, unreviewable right," are not vague phrases that we need to debate. That is the only relevant precedent in the Trump case.

 

[Rawley]

That's a flat out lie.

Comrade Smith tell you so? LOL

 

[Rumpole]

I heard a former DoJ official say during an interview she thought a motion in limine would be in order rather than a writ of mandamus. Because it would serve the purpose of forcing Cannon to rule on the matter of the PRA's application to the case, for which it has none. If she idiotically rules it is applicable then Smith would appeal to the 11th circuit.

Right --- He'll appeal to the 11th circuit with a writ of mandamus, which requires compelling circumstances which, at that juncture, if Cannon refuses to obey the law as Smith has so laid out, he'll have a basket of compelling facts for that mandamus, which has been my point all along. But, to do so, he must make sure there is no other less drastic remedy for this judge who refuses to obey the law. I don't think there is, based on my research, but,I'm not an attorney. I'm basing this on the opinions of a number of legal analysts, who seem to agree on this point.

 

[Rumpole]

You need to research this case carefully:

A decade old legal case that could exonerate former President Donald Trump has been buried by legacy media.

“[Special counsel] Jack Smith is terrified of the only standing legal case decision from a court concerning the Presidential Records Act,” said Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch.

The case Farrell is referring to is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration – also known as the “Clinton sock drawer” case. Former President Bill Clinton created White House audio tapes with historian Taylor Branch and stored them in his sock drawer. Judicial Watch sued to obtain access to the tapes and lost.

“He took them from the White House with him into private life,” said Farrell. “There’s classified material on those tapes and arguably it’s the sort of running stream of consciousness record of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Pretty important stuff.”

. . .

Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “

“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.

In her ruling, Jackson wrot

“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.’”


Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

Judicial Watch: Clinton Sock Drawer Audio Tape Case Exonerates Pres. Trump - Judicial Watch

"Unconstrained authority," "absoloute, unreviewable right," are not vague phrases that we need to debate. That is the only relevant precedent in the Trump case.

Clinton was not charged with espionage. Your points are moot. Criminal law takes precedence over civil law in a criminal trial, which Trump's case is. In an espionage case, the PRA is irrelevant. "IANAL", my opinion is based on research

 

[Rawley]

but,I'm not an attorney.

That's quite evident

 

[Rumpole]

You can't support your bullshit, no skin off my nose. Noted.

I just did. I cited the relevant legal procedures most likely Smith will follow ('in my opinion), if you are not up to speed on the law, look it up. I gave you the links, now READ.

 

[Rawley]

I just did. I cited the relevant legal procedures most likely Smith will follow ('in my opinion), if you are not up to speed on the law, look it up. I gave you the links, now READ.

There is no relevant procedures or law. We are in completely uncharted territory because your cult has chosen, for rank partisan political reasons, to take the breathtaking and unprecedented act of indicting a former President over some documents.

To pretend any law or precedent in this case is clear is patently absurd. Comrade Smith is simply blowing smoke up your ass to get your cult all excited. And it's worked - look at the ridiculous shit you and Berg and ... are spewing.

 

[Dragonlady]

The irony in this thread is truly hilarious.
View attachment 926741

What's "off the meter" is the inability of the members of the Trump Cult to understand the charges, and the sly underhanded bullshit Trump is trying to pull here.

 

[WEATHER53]

Fly shit in a cattle pasture built to grand hysteria by Get Trumpers
Next thing expiring is Jack Shits time in the sun

 

[Hollie]

What's "off the meter" is the inability of the members of the Trump Cult to understand the charges, and the sly underhanded bullshit Trump is trying to pull here.

Reads like one of the more high EQ, (Entertainment Quotient) Trump humper conspiracy theories.

I happen to be an officer in the Sly Underhanded Bullshit Network. That sound you hear outside is Trump, himself, piloting the Black Helicopter circling overhead.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Clinton was not charged with espionage. Your points are moot.

They are completely irrelevant and off-topic. This has been explained in detail many times on this board.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fly shit in a cattle pasture built to grand hysteria by Get Trumpers
Next thing expiring is Jack Shits time in the sun

Oh my, that's quite a low iq outburst

 

[Dragonlady]

Reads like one of the more high EQ, (Entertainment Quotient) Trump humper conspiracy theories.

I happen to be an officer in the Sly Underhanded Bullshit Network. That sound you hear outside is Trump, himself, piloting the Black Helicopter circling overhead.

So you can't refute the post in any meaningful way, so you display your complete ignorance with a world salad threat against the sane people here.

How about telling why Cannon is correct is her theory that the PRA might apply in this case, and why the CRA trumps national security and the Espionage Act. I'd love to see how what passes for your mind, works.