Trump Indicted

[Dante Reawakened]

I read the indictment way earlier, faggot. It's accusatory, but here's the thing: Many of those crimes do not apply to former presidents.

There is case precendence[sic] for this and a lot of shit is going to get thrown out and then probably the whole thing tossed.

Save this post

such nonsense

 

[Marener]

A U.S. President is authorized to retain classified documents and to declassify documents.

No, they aren’t.

 

[The Duke]

Sure Tom. The top secret document about our nuclear capabilities was a “personal document”.

This guy is a doofus.

A doofus that lost at getting Clinton to give up his personal papers and tapes from when he was president because they

had classified things on them. He's pretty much right, at least 75% of that shit is gonna be tossed slap out.

 

[The Duke]

No, they aren’t.

Case law says different than your opinion.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

When the real criminals are the prosecutors.

Uhm, about that. How many Democrats in the Senate do you think would do the right thing?


Do keep in mind they've been marching in lockstep since Obama. I think this needs to be Convention of States time

to iron out some deep wrinkles in the fabric of the USA.

stupid fucks like you amaze me

A number of prominent jurists and legal scholars have warned that a constitutional convention could open up the Constitution to radical and harmful changes. For instance, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2014, “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”[2] Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:

[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.[3]

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and...

www.cbpp.org

 

[airplanemechanic]

How many indictments is Biden under again? Round to the nearest 10.

Here, I'll show you how.

Trump is under 34 felony indictments in New York State. Trump is under 37 federal indictments. 34 + 37 is 71.

Round 71 to the nearest 10....and Trump is under about 70 indictments.

Now you try.

Nobody would touch Biden with a 10 foot pole. He has democratic immunity. He can and does do what he wants. He knows the demofacist DOJ won't touch him. They won't go after any democrat.

Just because you have no charges against you doesn't mean shit when the entire DOJ is sucking your fucking dick and ignoring troves of evidence against you. That's not justice. That's just funny.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

A doofus that lost at getting Clinton to give up his personal papers and tapes from when he was president because they

had classified things on them. He's pretty much right, at least 75% of that shit is gonna be tossed slap out.

It's not about personal papers/presidential papers. And the case law is violations of the espionage act

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He's pretty much right, at least 75% of that shit is gonna be tossed slap out.

It's so sad to see you cultists do this to yourselves.

Just kidding, it's hilarious.

 

[The Duke]

Read the indictment, dope.

Learn some history, colossal dingleberry.

 

[The Duke]

It's not about personal papers/presidential papers. And the case law is violations of the espionage act

It absolutely is, you fuckin' moron.

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's when they new intel on how fucking stupid Trump is, really panned out.

Hey Dante dickhead, why didn't they indict Eric Holder? Why did they ONLY go after Bannon when BOTH were found guilty in congress of the same exact charge? What difference was there between them? Oh yea, Holder was an Obama loving Demwit dem. Bannon liked Trump.

 

[Marener]

A doofus that lost at getting Clinton to give up his personal papers and tapes from when he was president because they

had classified things on them. He's pretty much right, at least 75% of that shit is gonna be tossed slap out.

His attempt to get Clinton to turn over recordings he made as president was absurd and bound to fail.

This is not nearly the same as Trump taking hundreds of clearly marked classified documents.

Tom Fitton is the one that told Trump he could do this, which is insane, and the reason that Trump is in this mess.

And you continue to ignore the allegations of Trump obstructing an investigation.

 

[Marener]

Case law says different than your opinion.

There is no case law that says a president can take classified documents.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit isn’t about classified government documents.

 

[Lastamender]

LMAO. Damn, you have an impeccable ability to be the counter factual...

Do an image search for Q salute and Trump rally. Also see how Trump has retweeted Q stuff. And as if MTG is a Lefty.

You would not a fact if it bit you.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

It absolutely is, you fuckin' moron.

And the case law is violations of the espionage act

that's one of Trump's many public statements

 

[Lastamender]

His attempt to get Clinton to turn over recordings he made as president was absurd and bound to fail.

This is not nearly the same as Trump taking hundreds of clearly marked classified documents.

Tom Fitton is the one that told Trump he could do this, which is insane, and the reason that Trump is in this mess.

And you continue to ignore the allegations of Trump obstructing an investigation.

And you continue to ignore the relentless persecution from a weaponized DOJ and FBI.

 

[The Duke]

Show me where a ham sandwich ever committed espionage...

View attachment 793389
NOFORN

It's not about personal papers/presidential papers. And the case law is violations of the espionage act

It's so sad to see you cultists do this to yourselves.

Just kidding, it's hilarious.

"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, 2 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."

"Thus, the PRA requires the President to “maintain records documenting the policies, activities, and decisions of his administration,” but “leav[es] the implementation of such a requirement in the President’s hands.” Id., citing 44 U.S.C. § 2203"

"PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that 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.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records."

"Thus, a close reading of the Armstrong II decision suggests that the limited judicial review authorized by the D.C. Circuit left untouched that portion of Armstrong I that gave the President unfettered control over his own documents."

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't look very good for what they're trying to do here.

 

[Skylar]

Nobody would touch Biden with a 10 foot pole. He has democratic immunity. He can and does do what he wants. He knows the demofacist DOJ won't touch him. They won't go after any democrat.

Just because you have no charges against you doesn't mean shit when the entire DOJ is sucking your fucking dick and ignoring troves of evidence against you. That's not justice. That's just funny.

How about Obama. Hillary. Comey. Wray. Any of the sundry villains in your ilk's increasingly absurd little conspiracy fantasies?

Durham could have charged *anyone* save Biden with crimes. And recommended charges for anyone. Yet nothing. Durham found zero crimes. Even the one plea he got (for fucking community service) was from an IG investigation.

Jack Smith is barely more than 6 months into his investigation and already has 43 indictments and 2 defendants.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

There is no case law that says a president can take classified documents.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit isn’t about classified government documents.

It's about the fact that "After his presidency, Trump was not authorized to posses or retain classified documents.'" the laws are exact

 

[Leo123]

No, they aren’t.

Yes they are.