Trump Lied?

[postman]

Which judge? Most have said the opposite and now he has to have a bench trial in NY in front of a judge that’s already ruled against him repeatedly, because his bargain basement lawyer didn’t file the papers in time to get a jury trial!

Remember, this was a civil trial, which means the defendant HAS TO take the stand. Or face the consequences of the jury treating his absence as a negative inference.

Question: Do defendants have a 5th Amendment right not to testify in a civil case?

Answer: Yes, but that failure to testify can be used against them and considered by the jury.

 

[konradv]

Remember, this was a civil trial, which means the defendant HAS TO take the stand. Or face the consequences of the jury treating his absence as a negative inference.

Question: Do defendants have a 5th Amendment right not to testify in a civil case?

Answer: Yes, but that failure to testify can be used against them and considered by the jury.

Kind of taking a chance leaving his fate in the hands of one person who’s already ruled against him, instead of a group of citizens with no prior knowledge.

 

[postman]

Trump was hiding them from the DoJ. The DoJ gave him a grand jury subpoena and he was told explicitly that he was legally required to turn over all these documents. There was no negotiation. It was a legal requirement he turn them over on a specific date. So when that date came, Trump didn't turn over everything and kept them in his desk and closets, but told the DoJ he had looked everywhere and that he handing over every single document.

This was an argument for Trump, that he was "negotiating" with the National Archives.

That's like flying into restricted airspace, and wanting to "negotiate" with the armed fighter escort.

 

[postman]

Kind of taking a chance leaving his fate in the hands of one person who’s already ruled against him, instead of a group of citizens with no prior knowledge.

Trump was a like a paraplegic. He didn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Marener]

This was an argument for Trump, that he was "negotiating" with the National Archives.

That's like flying into restricted airspace, and wanting to "negotiate" with the armed fighter escort.

It's not even that. It's like flying into restricted airspace and negotiating with the Coast Guard. The Archives has nothing to do with the grand jury subpoena.

If Trump wanted to negotiate about the subpoena, he needed to take the DoJ to court.

 

[bripat9643]

That doesn't mean the courts can't review the decision the president made.

Actually, yes it does.

If Trump decided that the classified invasion plan of Iran was a personal document, he clearly was not following the law. The courts are there to make sure presidents follow the law.

That's not clear at all. This is just one more example where progas get it wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

This was an argument for Trump, that he was "negotiating" with the National Archives.

That's like flying into restricted airspace, and wanting to "negotiate" with the armed fighter escort.

Wrong. The president decides which papers are his according to Judge Berman

 

[Marener]

That's not clear at all. This is just one more example where progas get it wrong.

How is it not clear? The PRA defines government documents and personal documents.

An invasion plan is clearly a government document based on the definitions set in law.

Are you going to deny this?

 

[bripat9643]

How is it not clear? The PRA defines government documents and personal documents.

An invasion plan is clearly a government document based on the definitions set in law.

Are you going to deny this?

Judge Berman says the determination is at the President's "sole discretion."

 

[Marener]

Judge Berman says the determination is at the President's "sole discretion."

I didn't ask who determines it. I asked if it met the definition of a personal document.

You won't answer it because you'd be a moron to think that the legal definition of a personal document would include the secret military invasion plan of Iran. He's clearly violating the law.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't ask who determines it. I asked if it met the definition of a personal document.

You won't answer it because you'd be a moron to think that the legal definition of a personal document would include the secret military invasion plan of Iran. He's clearly violating the law.

Who determines it is the only thing that matters because the judge says it's whatever the President says it is.

You turds keep trying to get around the fact that the president is the ultimate authority when it comes to deciding which documents are classified, not some bureaucrat in the NA or at the FBI.

 

[Marener]

Who determines it is the only thing that matters because the judge says it's whatever the President says it is.

The law says what it is. Is the president allowed to violate the law?

 

[bripat9643]

The law says what it is. Is the president allowed to violate the law?

Judges say what the law is.

 

[Marener]

Judges say what the law is.

And the judge can say whether Trump followed the law or not.

 

[bripat9643]

And the judge can say whether Trump followed the law or not.

One already did.

 

[Marener]

One already did.

When did that happen? The decision you're quoting was about Clinton, not Trump.

 

[playtime]

He was when he took the documents, moron.

stole.

 

[playtime]

Raided Mar A Lago. The whole point of that exercises was to distract the public from Bidens corruption problem.

they didn't 'raid' it ... they had a lawful warrant AND the FBI gave donny's SS a heads up when they were gonna be there AND showed up in plain clothes.

 

[konradv]

Raided Mar A Lago. The whole point of that exercises was to distract the public from Bidens corruption problem.

If you call it a raid, fine, J6 was an insurrection.

 

[playtime]

“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “

how very interestink that certain select words were omitted from the very rw biased JW...

As another court in this district has observed, “[t]he PRA incorporates an assumption made by Congress (in 1978) that subsequent Presidents and Vice Presidents would comply with the Act in good faith, and therefore Congress limited the scope of judicial review and provided little oversight authority for the President and Vice President’s document preservation decisions.” CREW v. Cheney, 593 F. Supp. 2d 194, 198 (D.D.C. 2009). Indeed, the PRA permits the President to dispose of any Presidential records that “no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value” after notifying the Archivist of the United States and designated members of Congress of the proposed disposal. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(c),(d).
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-08/memorandum opinion.pdf

now it changes the narrative to the truth, 'eh?