The false claim that Trump was in wrongful possession of confidential documents

[surada]

Prove it. Don't waste your time referring me to your propaganda site.

Why do you think Trump's lawsuits have been dismissed?

 

[Clipper]

Obama has tons of classified documents in a warehouse in Chitcago.

You do know that as thread starter you've had your ass handed back to you after what has happened, right?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thats not a serious conversation.

Copies are subject to COPY RIGHTS. If you have a legal right to make copies of documents then no, you are not a theif. And no, you are not allowed to return copies you made instead of the originals you took from the library.

Trump was in possetion of original Presidential documents he recieved, like for example letters from Kim Jong Un.

Suppose that is true, though I have no idea how you would have verified something like that. Your Korean reading comp that good?

What's the criminal penalty for keeping a personal letter when you leave the White House?

 

[dudmuck]

Obama has tons of classified documents in a warehouse in Chitcago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Suppose that is true, though I have no idea how you would have verified something like that. Your Korean reading comp that good?

What's the criminal penalty for keeping a personal letter when you leave the White House?

As soon as you explain how that is relevant to the charges listed in the affidavit.

And, go. Until then, derail attempt ignored.

 

[bripat9643]

You do know that as thread starter you've had your ass handed back to you after what has happened, right?

Hmmmm . . . . wrong.

 

[AntonToo]

Suppose that is true, though I have no idea how you would have verified something like that. Your Korean reading comp that good?

What's the criminal penalty for keeping a personal letter when you leave the White House?

NA did not recieve those letters and Trump spoke about having them (and even lying about having returned them)

Donald Trump suggests he turned over Kim Jong Un letters to National Archives. (He didn't)

The claim about the letters from the North Korean leader comes amid a probe into whether Trump improperly took classified docs out of the White House.

www.usatoday.com

PRA itself does not have criminal penalties, but that is not the standard of the thread's topic.

OP claimed that this is a "bogus scandal" and as I explained to him there are clearly at least some violations of law here, so no, it's not bogus.

 

[Clipper]

NA did not recieve those letters and Trump spoke about having them (and even lying about having returned them)

Donald Trump suggests he turned over Kim Jong Un letters to National Archives. (He didn't)

The claim about the letters from the North Korean leader comes amid a probe into whether Trump improperly took classified docs out of the White House.

www.usatoday.com

PRA itself does not have criminal penalties, but that is not the standard of the thread's topic.

OP claimed that this is a "bogus scandal" and as I explained to him there are clearly at least some violations of law here, so no, it's not bogus.

To the cult it's a "bogus scandal" because to the cult Trump is God & he's infallible.

 

[Seymour Flops]

As soon as you explain how that is relevant to the charges listed in the affidavit.

And, go. Until then, derail attempt ignored.

AntonToo brought up the Kim Jong Il letter, not me. He would be the one to ask its relevance.

I'll be happy to debate the charges listed in the affidavit. Thrilled to. Just as soon as you answer two questions that determine it's own relevance:

1) Who signed affidavit? I'll give you a starting place to research that question:

2) Quote the redacted portions in full:

Until you can answer both of those, I think the presumption of innocense still applies.

 

[bripat9643]

NA did not recieve those letters and Trump spoke about having them (and even lying about having returned them)

Donald Trump suggests he turned over Kim Jong Un letters to National Archives. (He didn't)

The claim about the letters from the North Korean leader comes amid a probe into whether Trump improperly took classified docs out of the White House.

www.usatoday.com

PRA itself does not have criminal penalties, but that is not the standard of the thread's topic.

OP claimed that this is a "bogus scandal" and as I explained to him there are clearly at least some violations of law here, so no, it's not bogus.

As you already pointed out, violating the PRA carries no penalties. And the issue of classified information has yet to be settled.

 

[Dragonlady]

OMG, you don't know what "documents" means. E-mails ARE documents. I thought you couldn't be any more stupid, and you just blew it away. Fucking amazing

Talk about attempting to parse the language. Until they are printed, emails are NOT documents.

Donald Trump STOLE documents he had no right to take, out of the White House. These were physical documents, in file folders. Hillary Clinton stored emails which were sent to her via government email from co-workers, on her private server. Hillary didn't "take" anything. Everything on her server was sent to her email by others.

Thats not a serious conversation.

Copies are subject to COPY RIGHTS. If you have a legal right to make copies of documents then no, you are not a theif. And no, you are not allowed to return copies you made instead of the originals you took from the library.

Trump was in possetion of original Presidential documents he recieved, like for example letters from Kim Jong Un.

Your understanding of "copyright" law has nothing to do with who has the right to make photocopies. Written material is referred to as "copy". "Copyrights" say who owns the rights to profit from the written material.

If I write a book, I own the copyright to that book. No one can make a movie of my book, or use material in my book without my permission. If you want to turn my book into a play, I would want a payment for those rights, as the copyright owner.

 

[AntonToo]

Your understanding of "copyright" law has nothing to do with who has the right to make photocopies.

Copyright

The Supreme Court has acknowledged the compatibility of copyright and First Amendment free expression, but tension does exist as owners often seek to limit dissemination.

www.mtsu.edu

Copyright law, as enumerated in Title 17 of the U.S. Code, cover the right to:

• reproduce a work in copies or phono records;

Sure seems like it does have something to do with it. Either way, it's moot to the point - Trump failed to return originals.

 

[Billo_Really]

NOT.

The Appeals Court ruled in favor of the DOJ.

 

[bripat9643]

The Appeals Court ruled in favor of the DOJ.

There is no appeals court at this point, dumbass. There is only judge Conner.

 

[Billo_Really]

There is no appeals court at this point, dumbass. There is only judge Conner.

You are 3 weeks behind the times.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Who signed affidavit?

Irrelevant

Quote the redacted portions in full:

Also irrelevant

Thanks for wasting my time. I sure do hope Trump's lawyers are better than you. For his sake.

Also, your pathetic dodge is noted. Several of them, actually

 

[Seymour Flops]

Irrelevant

Also irrelevant

Thanks for wasting my time. I sure do hope Trump's lawyers are better than you. For his sake.

Also, your pathetic dodge is noted. Several of them, actually

How could it not be relevant to the credibility of a document to know who signed it, and what it says?

What else is there to judge credibility of a document but the content and the author?

 

[Rigby5]

They are not allowed to remove any documents from the white house. Those documents belong to the American people.

The American people are owed a copy for NARA, in order to satisfy the FOIA.
But typically the White House requests or is sent copies from the originators, for discussion purposes, and those copies belong to whomever annotates them during the discussions.
Presidents, staff, lawyers, etc., are above and immune to the whole hierarchy of classified document rules that the president establishes for everyone else.

 

[Rigby5]

You just can't sanely explain why you think so.

You never can. You just say shit because you emotionaly like how it sounds, rationality be damned.

The National Achives is the legal custodian of the presidential documents and records. Thats a basic fact you can't refute, just like you can't refute that Trump kept them at Mar-a-lago past any reasonable timeframe of turning them in.

Does it effect your assertions in any way? Nope, you just keep saying whatever feels good.

NARA is the legal custodian of the ORIGINAL classified documents and records.
That does NOT include the copies sent to the White House for personal use by the president.
That does not include any personal mementos a president may want to keep, like awards, titles, honorary degrees, speeches, letters, etc.

While Trump was slow, lazy, and careless in their handling, the law is clear that president can do whatever they want with all the White House docs.
No one is above the president or gets any say at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Democrats proved their accusations in both impeachments. Republicans even admitted Trump was guilty but they were afraid to condemn him and lose their base.

You seem to be forgetting/ignoring the bald fact that the people who are accusing Trump of these crimes, and providing the DOJ with evidence, and in the case of the Mar-a-Lago search, the probable cause for the search. Trump's own people are turning him in and testifying against him, and that includes Jared and Ivanka.

Not at all true.
Absolutely nothing was ever found.
We even all watched the Zelensky phone call video, and no one could possibly say that had any sort of aspect of extortion or hinting at a fake investigation.