Smith's patience has expired.

[Rawley]

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.

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.

All he has is the nonsense that Comrade Smith is feeding him

 

[Rawley]

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.

And your cult leader had more classified docs, spread over God's creation. Go figure.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Only cultists, because they are desperate and don't understand how appeals work.

Appeals aren't do-overs.

 

[struth]

Only cultists, because they are desperate and don't understand how appeals work.

Appeals aren't do-overs.

appeals courts are where smith goes to delay trials

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

appeals courts are where smith goes to delay trials

Well that's a bizarre comment that has no basis in reality.

 

[Marener]

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

This is nonsense.

Security clearances don’t give you the authority to retain classified documents at home.

Many people (probably the vast majority) who have been indicted for unauthorized possession have security clearances

 

[Seymour Flops]

This is nonsense.

Security clearances don’t give you the authority to retain classified documents at home.

Many people (probably the vast majority) who have been indicted for unauthorized possession have security clearances

Where else would he keep documents that he deemed personal?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He never lost his clearance after he left the White House until he was indicted.

Liar. Also, you know it is a lie. You posted it on hopes others would spend their time sifting through your steaming pile of bullshit.

Don't feed the sealions.

 

[Marener]

Where else would he keep documents that he deemed personal?

He’s never stated anywhere he deemed them personal and even if he tried, its an absurdity that has no basis in law or fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He’s never stated anywhere he deemed them personal and even if he tried, its an absurdity that has no basis in law or fact.

In fact, Jack Smith can show Trump had no idea he could do that and only learned it from a lawyer long after the fact and as he was about to be raided and indicted.

 

[Seymour Flops]

He’s never stated anywhere he deemed them personal and even if he tried, its an absurdity that has no basis in law or fact.

He hasn't put on his defense, yet.

Here is the case law:

Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration

Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. brings this action against defendant National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Plaintiff asks the Court to declare audiotapes created by former President William Jefferson Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during the Clinton administration to be “Presidential records” under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. § 2203(f), and to order defendant “to assume custody and control” of them and deposit them in the Clinton Presidential Library. Plaintiff contends that defendant has acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by failing to exercise control over the audiotapes and by not making them available in response to a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. Defendant has moved to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.

. . .

But even if the Court were inclined to agree with plaintiff's reassessment of President Clinton's decision, it would not alter the conclusion that the injury cannot be redressed: the PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)- (b). While the plaintiff casts this lawsuit as a challenge to a decision made by the National Archives, the PRA makes it clear that this is not a decision the Archivist can make,

 

[Marener]

He hasn't put on his defense, yet.

Then there’s absolutely no need for Cannon to drag the PRA into the case at this point in time.

Is Cannon putting on a defense for Trump?

 

[struth]

Well that's a bizarre comment that has no basis in reality.

Smith is scared of a letting jury hear the case

 

[Billiejeens]

Only cultists, because they are desperate and don't understand how appeals work.

Appeals aren't do-overs.

You are confused, boy.

 

[Billiejeens]

Then there’s absolutely no need for Cannon to drag the PRA into the case at this point in time.

Is Cannon putting on a defense for Trump?

You don't seem to understand the story.

 

[Marener]

You don't seem to understand the story.

You’re the last person anyone would expect to understand the story.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are confused, boy.

Haha, how frustrating it must be to be so incapable.

Let's demonstrate:

Describe one winning possible appeal for Trump.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then there’s absolutely no need for Cannon to drag the PRA into the case at this point in time.

Is Cannon putting on a defense for Trump?

I actually think Cannon is trying to save Smith from embarassing himself in a case that he is sure to lose. The courts have ruled that the president is the sole authority over what is and is not classified, and that the president is the sole authority over what is presidential and what is personal among whatever he receives as president.

I wondered why the judge would have even implied that it would be possible to allow the jury to look at the documents to determine whether they are personal or presidential. That distinction was made by Trump in the very act of sending them to his home, instead of to the national archives.

I'm thinking that she is hoping the lawyers that work with Smith would tell him that because of those two precedents, the case has no chance. Save the taxpayers some money and move to dismiss. Her little smack in the face of "unprecedented and unjust" is nothing compared to the Democrats' rage when he does lose.

Smith loses a lot, so he should be used to it. On the other hand, looking at him, one more humiliating defeat might send him around the bend, and he could be a physical threat to the judge in a maniacal rage. Look at the guy, would you want a female loved one to ride an elevator with him?

No doubt Trump knew about the court's ruling on presidential powers over white house documents, and relied on the precedents. Why would they not be his defense?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I actually think Cannon is trying to save Smith from embarassing himself in a case that he is sure to lose

No you don't.

 

[Marener]

I actually think Cannon is trying to save Smith from embarassing himself in a case that he is sure to lose. The courts have ruled that the president is the sole authority over what is and is not classified, and that the president is the sole authority over what is presidential and what is personal among whatever he receives as president.

I wondered why the judge would have even implied that it would be possible to allow the jury to look at the documents to determine whether they are personal or presidential. That distinction was made by Trump in the very act of sending them to his home, instead of to the national archives.

I'm thinking that she is hoping the lawyers that work with Smith would tell him that because of those two precedents, the case has no chance. Save the taxpayers some money and move to dismiss. Her little smack in the face of "unprecedented and unjust" is nothing compared to the Democrats' rage when he does lose.

Smith loses a lot, so he should be used to it. On the other hand, looking at him, one more humiliating defeat might send him around the bend, and he could be a physical threat to the judge in a maniacal rage. Look at the guy, would you want a female loved one to ride an elevator with him?

View attachment 928354

No doubt Trump knew about the court's ruling on presidential powers over white house documents, and relied on the precedents. Why would they not be his defense?

Please explain how the highly classified DoD documents could be considered personal documents.

There‘s nothing personal about them.

It has no basis in law or fact.

And until Trump attempts to raise this as a defense, Cannon shouldnt be trying to make it for him. Doing so raises questions of her impartiality. It’s not the first time Cannon appeared to be trying to make arguments on behalf of Trump.