Smith's patience has expired.

[Hollie]

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.

You made no meaningful post. You decided to enter the thread with a silly conspiracy theory.

Why don't you pass on the depth of your training in the law and a'splain us as to the legal definitions of the ''sly underhanded bullshit Trump is trying to pull here''? What is the US Code covering ''sly underhanded bullshit''?

 

[BlindBoo]

But the question of whether the PRA has an impact on the element of unauthorized possession under Section 793(e) does not turn on any evidentiary issue, and it cannot be deferred. It is purely a question of law that must be decided promptly. If the Court were to defer a decision on that fundamental legal question it would inject substantial delay into the trial and, worse, prevent the Government from seeking review before jeopardy attaches. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d). (“The court must not defer ruling on a pretrial motion if the deferral will adversely affect a party’s right to appeal.”).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0_1.pdf

 

[berg80]

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.

Trump stole classified records he has offered no evidence of being de-classified. An act for which the PRA affords him no protection.


He then violated a subpoena seeking return of the classified docs he stole. Once again getting zero protection from the PRA.

 

[struth]

He already got her overturned twice.

So I guess it isn't like that at all.

He’s been overturned once, and that’s all it takes

Is that why he continues with these delay tactics? Does he not want to risk getting overhead again?

 

[Aldo Raine]

What do you mean by a “gag order”?

Since I didn't bring it up first you should ask the poster that did!
MAGA

 

[Rumpole]

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.

Because Trump has taken the breathtaking and unprecedented act of declaring, on national TV, in total defiance of the law, in direct violation of his oath of Article II section 3 of the US Constitution which says "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." in his insistence that he has the sole right to choose which papers belong to him, and which papers belong to the government, directly violating the PRA while making that claim as a private citizen, which, at that juncture, he has no right to do, anyway (he is not president). And, on top of that, willfully disobeyed the governments' request to return all the documents that he stole, to such an egregious degree it required a search warrant, and then continues to spew the same lie about the PRA.

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.

Clearly, you do not understand the governing laws in this case. I regret to inform you that Cannon has been rebuked by the 11th circuit twice, and two of the three judges who rebuked her were Trump appointees.

Three strikes and she's out. You're the one who is bamboozled.

 

[berg80]

I wish I could thank all the folks who have taken Trump's side in this debate. But I can't. Accurate info regarding this matter is readily available on the net, most of which has been provided by myself and those who have sided with me. Yet the simps persist.

What have we seen from Trump defenders in response to the factual content presented? Gratuitous insults, deflections, whataboutisms, and some ineffectual attempts to prove us wrong by repeating specious talking points. Essentially the same garbage arguments Don's attorneys have offered up. Ones that have been rejected even by Cannon herself. Her, and your, last line of defense being that the PRA is a legit defense against the indictment. A disproven notion she has left open to revisiting.

Article after article quoting legal experts as well as Smith's filing cite the irrefutable legal argument against the PRA defense. Eliciting a repeat of the same debunked arguments from MAGAists. And on it goes, as do many threads, with Don's minions flailing about, refusing to accept the demonstrable truth. A fact they will no doubt object to.............again...........without evidence.

 

[struth]

Because Trump has taken the breathtaking and unprecedented act of declaring, on national TV, in total defiance of the law, in direct violation of his oath of Article II section 3 of the US Constitution which says "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." in his insistence that he has the sole right to choose which papers belong to him, and which papers belong to the government, directly violating the PRA while making that claim as a private citizen, which, at that juncture, he has no right to do, anyway (he is not president). And, on top of that, willfully disobeyed the governments' request to return all the documents that he stole, to such an egregious degree it required a search warrant, and then continues to spew the same lie about the PRA.

Clearly, you do not understand the governing laws in this case. I regret to inform you that Cannon has been rebuked by the 11th circuit twice, and two of the three judges who rebuked her were Trump appointees.

Three strikes and she's out. You're the one who is bamboozled.

The court already ruled the PRA allows a president to do that. It’s not unprecedented


Do you have any idea what’s going on?

 

[struth]

I wish I could thank all the folks who have taken Trump's side in this debate. But I can't. Accurate info regarding this matter is readily available on the net, most of which has been provided by myself and those who have sided with me. Yet the simps persist.

What have we seen from Trump defenders in response? Gratuitous insults, deflections, whataboutisms, and some ineffectual attempts to prove us wrong by repeating specious talking points. Essentially the same garbage arguments Don's attorneys have offered up. Ones that have been rejected even by Cannon herself. Her, and your, last line of defense being that the PRA is a legit defense against the indictment. A disproven notion she has left open to revisiting.

Article after article quoting legal experts as well as Smith's filing cite the irrefutable legal argument against the PRA defense. Eliciting a repeat of the same debunked arguments from MAGAists. And on it goes, as do many threads, with Don's minions flailing about, refusing to accept the demonstrable truth. A fact they will no doubt object to.............again...........without evidence.

If Joey Xiden can steal, and sell classier documents, why can’t trump?

 

[berg80]

If Joey Xiden can steal, and sell classier documents, why can’t trump?

Just as Smith's patience with Cannon's idiocy has expired so too has mine with yours.

 

[berg80]

The court already ruled the PRA allows a president to do that.

Not with classified docs.

 

[struth]

Just as Smith's patience with Cannon's idiocy has expired so too has mine with yours.

Keep delaying

 

[struth]

Not with classified docs.

The president decides what’s classified or not

 

[Rumpole]

The court already ruled the PRA allows a president to do that. It’s not unprecedented


Do you have any idea what’s going on?

Cite the case, please.

 

[Rumpole]

The president decides what’s classified or not

The espionage act does not depend on any classification regime. Your point is moot.

Moreover....

NDI docs depend more on DNI damage assessments (which will have a bearing on sentencing, if found guilty), if anything, and their classification is an asterisk to the assessments. Moreover, the prez has NO authority to reclassify a nuke doc without coordination with the classifying source, per the ETA. and Trump had at least one nuke doc in his possession. Possession of that doc, alone, will get your 5 years.

Additionally, even if he reclassified a bunch of docs, they still belong to the government. The PRA gives final say on what docs belong to the gov to the archivist.

Additionally, Trump is making these claims of 'reclassification' as a private citizen, which he has no authority to do. If he had reclassified anything during his presidency, he would have to prove it, and since, even if he did, that he did not follow any of the standardized memorialization protocols, therefore, he can't prove that he did, and as a private citizen, and unless he can prove it, those docs are classified to whatever the docs say on the docs. But, it doesn't matter, the docs still belong to the government and their theft, and aggravated circumstances (obstruction the government's efforts to retrieve the documents) has resulted in a violation of the espionage act.

All that being said, none of it matters, per the first sentence, above.

 

[berg80]

The president decides what’s classified or not

He acknowledged being in possession of classified docs.

As I said, you folks keep making the same debunked arguments over and over. This is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

 

[Seymour Flops]

He acknowledged being in possession of classified docs.

As I said, you folks keep making the same debunked arguments over and over. This is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

He never lost his clearance after he left the White House until he was indicted. So he can’t be guilty of unauthorized possession of classified documents. You would have to try to get him under the presidential records act, which is not even a criminal statute.

Even if it were in the soul case, that is a precedent, the court ruled that a president is the sole authority on what is personal and what is not, as he leaves office.

Because Trump has taken the breathtaking and unprecedented act of declaring, on national TV, in total defiance of the law, in direct violation of his oath of Article II section 3 of the US Constitution which says "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." in his insistence that he has the sole right to choose which papers belong to him, and which papers belong to the government, directly violating the PRA while making that claim as a private citizen, which, at that juncture, he has no right to do, anyway (he is not president). And, on top of that, willfully disobeyed the governments' request to return all the documents that he stole, to such an egregious degree it required a search warrant, and then continues to spew the same lie about the PRA.

Clearly, you do not understand the governing laws in this case. I regret to inform you that Cannon has been rebuked by the 11th circuit twice, and two of the three judges who rebuked her were Trump appointees.

Three strikes and she's out. You're the one who is bamboozled.

So now, after arguing that Smith was right to say that the presidential records act had nothing to do with Trump’s case. Now you say, the presidential records act was what he violated.

 

[Billiejeens]

Judge rejects Trump’s effort to dismiss Georgia charges on First Amendment grounds

The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s criminal case in Georgia denied his bid to throw out the case on First Amendment grounds, rejecting the former president’s longshot argument that the entire case is an attempt to criminalize his political speech.

“The State has alleged more than mere expressions of a political nature,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in a 14-page ruling on Thursday.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/04/trumps-georgia-charges-first-amendment-00150622

When does all the winning begin?

The Appellate courts.
As reasonal people have said from the start.

 

[Billiejeens]

He acknowledged being in possession of classified docs.

As I said, you folks keep making the same debunked arguments over and over. This is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Debunked doesn’t mean what you think that it means.

 

[Rawley]

Because Trump has taken the breathtaking and unprecedented act of declaring, on national TV, in total defiance of the law, in direct violation of his oath of Article II section 3 of the US Constitution which says "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." in his insistence that he has the sole right to choose which papers belong to him, and which papers belong to the government, directly violating the PRA while making that claim as a private citizen, which, at that juncture, he has no right to do, anyway (he is not president). And, on top of that, willfully disobeyed the governments' request to return all the documents that he stole, to such an egregious degree it required a search warrant, and then continues to spew the same lie about the PRA.

And you have zero law to support that position.. Because of the action of your cult we are in totally unchartered territory.

Clearly, you do not understand the governing laws in this case.

You poopyhead. I win.

I regret to inform you that Cannon has been rebuked by the 11th circuit twice, and two of the three judges who rebuked her were Trump appointees.

Three strikes and she's out. You're the one who is bamboozled.

And the twit whose legal nonsense you are following has been slammed, unanimously by the Supreme Court, appeals courts and juries, virtually every time he has attempted to try a case.