Trump Bizarrely Wants The Government To Give Back The Documents He Stole!

[SweetSue92]

I posted his own tweet, you twit.

"God save the queen, man"

This your guy?

 

[beautress]

Awww... a trumptard called me a liar. How ever will I live that down?

The truth will get you freezed!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Who in the US if not the president would have the authority to have those documents?

Donald isn't President.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Trump lies in ALL CAPS – Trump is a dishonest, ridiculous loon.

.




Intelligent commentary for a bot.

As of this moment, look how you outnumber the humans on this board, online right now:

Total: 438 (members: 63, guests: 375)
Robots: 579




.

 

[multivita-man]

Can you explain how that would apply to a person who was president but had top secret documents from when he wasn’t?

1. Trump person willfully removed/retained classified materials; Biden did not.
2. Biden (and Pence and Hillary) cooperated with law enforcement to return those materials; Trump did not.

I know that doesn't matter to you, but these have always been important distinctions under the law.

Which came first? Chicken or the egg kinda thing. If an ex-president is held to this standard how can we not hold a guy who wasn’t president and had documents in his possession to the same standard.

Your interpretation of the standard is incorrect. Sorry.

As a matter of fact if that’s the standard today despite the SC ruling why aren’t both Clintons, the obies and the bushes in prison now?

I think you misunderstand the law.

 

[multivita-man]

As President he had access to all classified material.

He did...so what?

Just as he can't take White House furniture home with him, he can't take sensitive government records to Mar a Lago. Just because he had access to, handled, or even created classified materials, that doesn't mean they're his to take. Any information he received or sent in connection with his duties as president are government records, not his. They're government property, not his.

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump person willfully removed/retained classified materials; Biden did not.
2. Biden (and Pence and Hillary) cooperated with law enforcement to return those materials; Trump did not.

I know that doesn't matter to you, but these have always been important distinctions under the law.
Your interpretation of the standard is incorrect. Sorry.
I think you misunderstand the law.

1. Trump is listening to Fitton from Judicial Watch who went to court for the Clinton sock drawer tapes and was told that they were the president's personal property.
2. So Trump is being advised to insist that the tapes prove that the documents are all Trump's property

I think its bad advice, but at least I now know why Trump is doing what he's doing.
Gambling to die in jail or not is a bad bet.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SC actually said that in the Clinton sock drawer case. Are you now saying this isn’t true? If you are Clinton needs hauled to prison right now.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/JW-v-NARA-Clinton-Tapes-opinion-01834.pdf

By SC I assume you mean the Supreme Court.

The above link is to the "sock drawer" case where Judicial Watch case was dismissed by the District Court as seeking redress that the NARA was not empowered to provide.

Could you provide a link, case number, case name that was submitted to the Supreme Court? Form that I can find the ruling you say exists.

Thank you.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Trump is listening to Fitton from Judicial Watch who went to court for the Clinton sock drawer tapes and was told that they were the president's personal property.

Actually no.

The correction to the statement would be: "Trump is listening to Fitton from Judicial Watch who went to court for the Clinton sock drawer tapes and was told that the court could not provide the relief they sought."

2. So Trump is being advised to insist that the tapes prove that the documents are all Trump's property

I think its bad advice, but at least I now know why Trump is doing what he's doing.
Gambling to die in jail or not is a bad bet.

Agreed, Tom Fitton isn't a lawyer (IIRC) he's an English major, and Trump has taken to repeating falsehoods about that Judical Watch case. As you can see from Post #48 he has people thinking it's a Supreme Court decision.

WW

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump person willfully removed/retained classified materials; Biden did not.
2. Biden (and Pence and Hillary) cooperated with law enforcement to return those materials; Trump did not.
I know that doesn't matter to you, but these have always been important distinctions under the law.
Your interpretation of the standard is incorrect. Sorry. I think you misunderstand the law.

1. Biden stole classified documents from a SCIF. That is a crime. Pence, Biden, and Hillary could be prosecuted for mishandling classified info.
2. Agree that Trump did not cooperate with NARA and the FBI, based on his understanding of the Clinton tapes. (bad idea, I know)

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Biden stole classified documents from a SCIF. That is a crime. Pence, Biden, and Hillary could be prosecuted for mishandling classified docs.
2. Agree that Trump did not cooperate with NARA and the FBI, based on his understanding of the Clinton tapes. (bad idea, I know)

Wouldn't that be "Biden and Pence stole...". (Understanding that Clintons issues were email and electronic in nature.)

WW

 

[multivita-man]

1. Trump is listening to Fitton from Judicial Watch who went to court for the Clinton sock drawer tapes and was told that they were the president's personal property.
2. So Trump is being advised to insist that the tapes prove that the documents are all Trump's property

I think its bad advice, but at least I now know why Trump is doing what he's doing.
Gambling to die in jail or not is a bad bet.

I think Dershowitz was actually right about one thing. Had Trump just kept his mouth shut, prosecuting him would be much, much harder. Not because I don't think he's guilty (I think he's guilty as hell), but Trump (apparently) admitted the very thing that Jack Smith's team will argue. I don't see how a jury cannot convict him, short of nullification. That is always a possibility, regardless of his actual guilt.

 

[kyzr]

I think Dershowitz was actually right about one thing. Had Trump just kept his mouth shut, prosecuting him would be much, much harder. Not because I don't think he's guilty (I think he's guilty as hell), but Trump (apparently) admitted the very thing that Jack Smith's team will argue. I don't see how a jury cannot convict him, short of nullification. That is always a possibility, regardless of his actual guilt.

Please explain "nullification"

 

[multivita-man]

1. Biden stole classified documents from a SCIF.

AFAIK, this has no basis in fact.

Pence, Biden, and Hillary could be prosecuted for mishandling classified docs.

Technically, they broke the law, true. But none of these would qualify as criminal matters. You need evidence to show intent or a an obvious pattern of willful disregard for procedures and policies. You're not going to prove that when all of the above cooperated with law enforcement. In Clinton's case you can't even prove she received a single document/email with classification markers following usual classification conventions. "C" in an email isn't a classification marker. It just isn't. You can absolutely argue that she should have consulted with the security team in the DOS before setting up her server, but that's still not going to meet the standard of a crime. Lots of people use email in ways that are stupid on the job.

2. Agree that Trump did not cooperate with NARA and the FBI, based on his understanding of the Clinton tapes. (bad idea, I know)

Yep.

 

[multivita-man]

Please explain "nullification"

I mean that someone could hear all the evidence pointing to guilt and refuse to convict...because "reasons". It happens. Some jurors might decide that Trump did it but that this case is bullshit and a conspiracy against him, and they might decide to hang the jury to send a message to the government. That happened with the Bundy clan out West a few years ago. It's happened in other cases.

 

[kyzr]

AFAIK, this has no basis in fact.

Technically, they broke the law, true. But none of these would qualify as criminal matters. You need evidence to show intent or a an obvious pattern of willful disregard for procedures and policies. You're not going to prove that when all of the above cooperated with law enforcement. In Clinton's case you can't even prove she received a single document/email with classification markers following usual classification conventions. "C" in an email isn't a classification marker. It just isn't. You can absolutely argue that she should have consulted with the security team in the DOS before setting up her server, but that's still not going to meet the standard of a crime. Lots of people use email in ways that are stupid on the job.

1. Biden stole classified docs from the SCIF. There is no other way he could have them, based on how members of congress view classified info.

2. Having classified info is a crime under the Espionage Act. Intent doesn't factor in. Don't use Comey's wrong interpretation as your basis.

3. Don't want to re-look at Hillary's illegal bathroom server. She was a lawyer. She knew damn well that her illegal bathroom server was a crime, so was destroying subpoenaed evidence.

 

[HaShev]

What the fuck are you babbling about? Next time try responding in English. I don’t understand gibberish.

That's your reply to a million unnecessary deaths? AND that doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of purposely allowed China Fentanyl murders (in the name of cleansing populations) in modern day concentration camps called tent cities and drug zones.

 

[miketx]

Poor guy doesn't realize he is in deep dodo. Is it legal to prosecute the mentally unfit?

Damn you sick loons can't stop yapping about him!

 

[kyzr]

Damn you sick loons can't stop yapping about him!

What else are they going to yap about? Biden's gaffes and obvious senility?

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Biden stole classified docs from the SCIF. There is no other way he could have them, based on how members of congress view classified info.

Can classified documents be taken out of a SCIF?

President Joe Biden has been grappling with the discovery of classified documents at two locations: his post-vice presid

www.politifact.com

I hate to correct you again, but that is not true. Some want to view "classified documents" as a binary condition where the same measures are used in all cases. This is not true. Classified Documents exist win a range of classifications and not all classified documents have to be handled in a SCIF.

The above link is pretty close given my experience with handling Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, and TS/SCI.

WW