This is breaking speculation maybe? Trump to announce.

[Delldude]

Oh Garland really, really, really does not want to venture in to uncharted territory, but at this point, he is FORCED in to it! If Trump simply complied with the law, and returned what was not his to take or have, he wouldn't be in this legal mess!

Garland is sworn to uphold the law, without fear of favor.... Trump's insistence to defy the law, puts Garland on the spot!

If Trump can get away with breaking clearly defined laws on national security, by the DOJ, then how could the DOJ prosecute others for defense security breaches in the future in a fair manner?

Trump screwed himself,by making the ordeal public, and a circus, as he chose to do.

Only issue is these situations have happened before with little or no consequence......

But Trump.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Only issue is these situations have happened before with little or no consequence......

But Trump.....

No they haven't. Never has an expresident stolen boxes of classifiedmaterials then lied about returning them. And strutted justice thewhole way. Never before.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I think he’s going to announce that he’s running.

This will get very interesting after the backlash he has received for the last election. I sense a Trump/DeSantis rift growing, which will inevitably divide the Republican Party.

 

[Leo123]

Trump wants adoration as #1 goal.

Democrat talking point.

 

[Flash]

He may win. He could lose in the primaries. That’s not the point though.

The more he bad mouths DeSantis the more people will vote against him in the Primaries.

He got away with "Lying Ted" and "Little Marco" because they were never going to get much of the vote. DeSantis is a different candidate and Trump will do better by just keeping his mouth shut with that New York street talk.

 

[MagicMike]

One can piss and moan over the perceived 'facts' forever, until it is decided by DOJ whether or not they want to venture into the uncharted political seas and charge a former president, it's all baloney.

So when indictments do come out I suppose those charges will be good enough "facts" for you and we can finally count on you shutting the fu-k up about "no facts?"

Meaning you're not going to then start pissing and moaning about how THOSE facts aren't facts and how you have "different" facts?

 

[Leo123]

LOL. Much too typical a response.

I voted for the Don in 2016 in the vain hope he would empty the swamp; shut down the war machine and limit the influence of big corporations and billionaires. That’s the last time I voted.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1668028963807-png.723203/

We all underestimated the swamp. Career politicians with a death grip on power. We did not realize they would go so far as to employ the FBI in their corruption.

 

[BackAgain]

No they haven't. Never has an expresident stolen boxes of classifiedmaterials then lied about returning them.

Neither did Trump, you perpetually dishonest hack.

And strutted justice thewhole way. Never before.

But you do have a way with pure gibberish.

 

[Dayton3]

IF the Traitor declares he is candidate, the R.N.C. will stop paying his legal bills. Plus, all PAC the Traitor has generated will be shut off as well.

No way the Traitor can afford all his legal bills, and he is in deperate need of money.

How is Donald Trump a "traitor"'?

Seriously.

 

[gipper]

We all underestimated the swamp. Career politicians with a death grip on power. We did not realize they would go so far as to employ the FBI in their corruption.

The FBI has long been a corrupt organization. It’s prime purpose is to protect the powerful. Trump knew this.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Neither did Trump, you perpetually dishonest hack.

Moot point. The classification of the documents is irrelevant.

He took our stuff, defied a subpoena and his laywer lied on a federal document.

But you do have a way with pure gibberish.

 

[BackAgain]

Moot point. The classification of the documents is irrelevant.

Wrong. It’s all but entirely relevant. But you’ll not be able to grasp why.

He took our stuff,

That, too, depends. Did he take papers when he was still president? They were entirely proper to take home with him to work on then. Some of the documents may thereafter belong to the United States. That’s true. But that only means that he retained possession. That’s different than taking. And it’s not a crime. The Presidential Records Act is still not a criminal statute.

defied a subpoena

Nope. He was in ongoing negotiations.

and his laywer lied on a federal document.

So you claim. But idiots like you can’t define “lie” very well, either.

 

[Care4all]

Only issue is these situations have happened before with little or no consequence......

But Trump.....

No, they really and truly have never ever happened before!

His arrogance, defying the law, has outdone himself and all others, unprecedented for any President!

 

[Delldude]

So when indictments do come out I suppose those charges will be good enough "facts" for you and we can finally count on you shutting the fu-k up about "no facts?"

Not at all.
Indictments don't mean dick, convictions are what count.
It's all about the rule of law.......you break the law, you face the consequences.......no matter who you are or what political party you belong to.
Capeesh?

 

[MagicMike]

Not at all.
Indictments don't mean dick, convictions are what count.
It's all about the rule of law.......you break the law, you face the consequences.......no matter who you are or what political party you belong to.
Capeesh?

So that means when the convictions finally come around you will finally stop your whining about no "facts?"
But meanwhile you'll continue snowflaking about Congress and the DOJ investigating him?

 

[Delldude]

No, they really and truly have never ever happened before!

His arrogance, defying the law, has outdone himself and all others, unprecedented for any President!

Oh really?

Since 2005, the FBI and the Justice Department have launched at least 11 such investigations, some targeting high-profile former U.S. officials, including a former national security adviser and a former CIA director.

Here’s are some of the notable cases:

April 2005 – Former U.S. national security adviser Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to knowingly removing classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration. Berger admitted to concealing and removing five copies of a classified document from the Archives in September and October 2003.

Berger also admitted to concealing and removing handwritten notes in violation of the Archives’ policy. In September 2005, Berger was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and give up his security clearance for three years.

March 2015 – Retired U.S. Army General David Petraeus, a former CIA director, pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. The plea followed revelations that Petraeus shared some of the materials with his biographer and mistress.

Petraeus was sentenced to two years of probation and a $100,000 fine.

July 2015 – U.S. Navy reservist Bryan Nishimura was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine after he pleaded guilty to downloading and storing classified documents from his deployment to Afghanistan in 2007-2008 on his personal devices and media. A search of his home in May 2012 turned up numerous classified materials, both in digital and hard copy formats.

May 2018 – Former CIA contractor Reynaldo Regis pleaded guilty to charges of unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, as well as to making false statements to federal law enforcement officers. Prosecutors said during his time at the CIA, Reyes conducted unauthorized searches of classified databases and copied the information into dozens of notebooks, which he then took home.


In November 2018, Reyes was sentenced to 90 days in jail. Regis’ lawyer later told the Associated Press and other news outlets that his client “had no nefarious purpose. It was just a mistake.”

There are seven others listed....have at it.

FBI, Justice Department Routinely Prosecute Misuse of Classified Documents

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wrong. It’s all but entirely relevant. But you’ll not be able to grasp why.

Which of the statutes being investigated in the affidavite are dependent on classification level...besides "I won't grasp why." (See below for charges).

That, too, depends. Did he take papers when he was still president? They were entirely proper to take home with him to work on then. Some of the documents may thereafter belong to the United States. That’s true. But that only means that he retained possession. That’s different than taking. And it’s not a crime. The Presidential Records Act is still not a criminal statute.

He was issued a subpoena to return the documents. He didn't. Also his laywer lied on an official form.

At the end of his term he is required by law to return presidential records. It doesn't matter where they are.

Just so we are on the same page.

The statutes violated in the affidavit are criminal.

1. "The most notable federal statute is 18 U.S. Code § 793, also known as the Espionage Act, which deals with the possession of documents and materials related to national security, particularly information that could be used to harm the U.S. or benefit a foreign country."

2. "18 U.S. Code § 1519 bars the destruction or falsification of any documents or materials “with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence” governmental matters or investigations, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years or a fine."

3. "The final statute prohibits “willfully and unlawfully conceal[ing], remov[ing], mutilat[ing], obliterat[ing], or destroy[ing]” any government property, and carries a fine or prison sentence of up to three years."

Mar-A-Lago Raid: FBI Investigating Whether Trump Violated These 3 Statutes

A document attached to the search warrant shows federal investigators are looking into whether three statutes could have been violated, including the Espionage Act.

www.forbes.com

Nope. He was in ongoing negotiations.

Lol, back to negotiations again huh? Ignoring a suboeona and lying on a federal document about the documents is not negotiation.

So you claim. But idiots like you can’t define “lie” very well, either.

Lie: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth."

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[Delldude]

So that means when the convictions finally come around you will finally stop your whining about no "facts?"
But meanwhile you'll continue snowflaking about Congress and the DOJ investigating him?

DOJ and FBI can investigate Him all they want, they're pretty good at it, been what, 6-8 years now and they've found nothing. They have an impeccable track record to this point.
Who says a conviction will come of it?
There is your main issue......you are so certain about nothing.
This like all the 'facts' you suck up from your 'news sources'?

 

[Delldude]

Which of the statutes being investigated in the affidavite are dependent on classification level...besides "I won't grasp why." (See below for charges).



He was issued a subpoena to return the documents. He didn't. Also his laywer lied on an official form.

At the end of his term he is required by law to return presidential records. It doesn't matter where they are.

Just so we are on the same page.

The statutes violated in the affidavit are criminal.

1. "The most notable federal statute is 18 U.S. Code § 793, also known as the Espionage Act, which deals with the possession of documents and materials related to national security, particularly information that could be used to harm the U.S. or benefit a foreign country."

2. "18 U.S. Code § 1519 bars the destruction or falsification of any documents or materials “with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence” governmental matters or investigations, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years or a fine."

3. "The final statute prohibits “willfully and unlawfully conceal[ing], remov[ing], mutilat[ing], obliterat[ing], or destroy[ing]” any government property, and carries a fine or prison sentence of up to three years."

Mar-A-Lago Raid: FBI Investigating Whether Trump Violated These 3 Statutes

A document attached to the search warrant shows federal investigators are looking into whether three statutes could have been violated, including the Espionage Act.

www.forbes.com

Lol, back to negotiations again huh? Ignoring a suboeona and lying on a federal document about the documents is not negotiation.


Lie: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth."

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

So not only you are a spark chaser, but a legal analyst to boot?
You know what sections of US Code DOJ is pursuing or are you just playing arm chair lawyer?

 

[Catsnmeters]

So not only you are a spark chaser, but a legal analyst to boot?
You know what sections of US Code DOJ is pursuing or are you just playing arm chair lawyer?

My source is in the link I provided just below the statutes.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?