We are experiencing the biggest scandal in America's political history right now.

[Oldestyle]

You can't rebut fact check. And now Marener owns Oldestyle as well. This is over.

You can't rebut FactCheck.org? Sorry, John but that's done quite often actually. They are a liberally biased site that pushes a liberal agenda. They get rebutted quite often.

 

[Oldestyle]

I’d already explained why your court case is irrelevant.

A district court decision is not a binding precedent for any other district court. Only a higher court can bind a lower court.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System - National Agricultural Law Center

The legal system within the United States is made up of federal and state courts that resolve legal disputes and interpret...

nationalaglawcenter.org

The espionage act is used all the time to prosecute anyone who has illegally taken classified documents.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/politics/fact-check-espionage-act-trump-willful-retention-prison/index.html

One more time, the Judicial Watch case you cited discussed the authority that NARA has or doesn’t have. Trump’s subpoena didn’t come from NARA. It came from the DoJ investigation a violation of the espionage act. Trump’s case is criminal. It has a grand jury subpoena. The Judicial Watch case has nothing of the sort.

In the law, the stare decisis doctrine means that legal precedents should be followed when they are applicable. So, if a judge rules on a similar case, they should either base their ruling on legal precedents or explain why they chose not to do so. Would you like to provide the explanation by this court as to why they didn't follow the precedent set by the earlier Clinton case, Marener?

 

[Marener]

In the law, the stare decisis doctrine means that legal precedents should be followed when they are applicable. So, if a judge rules on a similar case, they should either base their ruling on legal precedents or explain why they chose not to do so. Would you like to provide the explanation by this court as to why they didn't follow the precedent set by the earlier Clinton case, Marener?

It’s not a similar case.

 

[Oldestyle]

I’d already explained why your court case is irrelevant.

A district court decision is not a binding precedent for any other district court. Only a higher court can bind a lower court.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System - National Agricultural Law Center

The legal system within the United States is made up of federal and state courts that resolve legal disputes and interpret...

nationalaglawcenter.org

The espionage act is used all the time to prosecute anyone who has illegally taken classified documents.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/politics/fact-check-espionage-act-trump-willful-retention-prison/index.html

One more time, the Judicial Watch case you cited discussed the authority that NARA has or doesn’t have. Trump’s subpoena didn’t come from NARA. It came from the DoJ investigation a violation of the espionage act. Trump’s case is criminal. It has a grand jury subpoena. The Judicial Watch case has nothing of the sort.

Of course you can provide precedent of a President being charged under the Espionage Act for being in possession of "classified documents"...right, Marener?

 

[Oldestyle]

It’s not a similar case.

Why isn't it? The judge in that case stated quite clearly that it is the President and only the President who decides what are personal papers. So why was that right accorded to Bill Clinton and not to Donald Trump?

 

[Marener]

Of course you can provide precedent of a President being charged under the Espionage Act for being in possession of "classified documents"...right, Marener?

He’s not the president. He’s a former president, which means the espionage act applies to him just like everyone else.

Trump is the only former president stupid enough to try this childish crap.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You can't rebut FactCheck.org? Sorry, John but that's done quite often actually. They are a liberally biased site that pushes a liberal agenda. They get rebutted quite often.

I said that you can't, you have not, and you will not. This is over.

 

[Marener]

Why isn't it? The judge in that case stated quite clearly that it is the President and only the President who decides what are personal papers. So why was that right accorded to Bill Clinton and not to Donald Trump?

1. That’s not what the judge said. You haven’t quoted the judge.
2. Highly classified government documents aren’t personal papers
3. Not even Trump has been so stupid as to claim this
4. If Trump wanted to claim this, he could have tried to make this argument in court when he received his subpoena.
5. The Judicial Watch case was a civil action to compel NARA to do something. This case is a criminal case to enforce the espionage act. They’re not at all similar.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

1. That’s not what the judge said. You haven’t quoted the judge.
2. Highly classified government documents aren’t personal papers
3. Not even Trump has been so stupid as to claim this
4. If Trump wanted to claim this, he could have tried to make this argument in court when he received his subpoena.
5. The Judicial Watch case was a civil action to compel NARA to do something. This case is a criminal case to enforce the espionage act. They’re not at all similar.

Keep rebutting Oldestyle: it is so easy.

 

[Oldestyle]

He’s not the president. He’s a former president, which means the espionage act applies to him just like everyone else.

Trump is the only former president stupid enough to try this childish crap.

He's a former President that had the legal right to classify or declassify documents at will. Which brings us right back to the Constitutional question of whether a former President can be guilty of possessing "classified" documents which he took while he WAS President! Something that obviously should have been settled in court just as the Clinton case was settled in court! So why didn't that happen, Marener?

 

[Oldestyle]

Keep rebutting Oldestyle: it is so easy.

And yet you struggle at it so mightily, John! LOL

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

He's a former President that had the legal right to classify or declassify documents at will. Which brings us right back to the Constitutional question of whether a former President can be guilty of possessing "classified" documents which he took while he WAS President! Something that obviously should have been settled in court just as the Clinton case was settled in court! So why didn't that happen, Marener?

That has already been answered, Oldestyle was proven wrong, let's move on.

 

[Oldestyle]

1. That’s not what the judge said. You haven’t quoted the judge.
2. Highly classified government documents aren’t personal papers
3. Not even Trump has been so stupid as to claim this
4. If Trump wanted to claim this, he could have tried to make this argument in court when he received his subpoena.
5. The Judicial Watch case was a civil action to compel NARA to do something. This case is a criminal case to enforce the espionage act. They’re not at all similar.

Then I'd like to hear you take a crack at defending Joe Biden using his DOJ to go after his chief political rival for something that he himself was TOTALLY guilty of! He stole classified materials dating back to when he was a Senator. Love to hear your take on that, my friend!

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Then I'd like to hear you take a crack at defending Joe Biden using his DOJ to go after his chief political rival for something that he himself was TOTALLY guilty of! He stole classified materials dating back to when he was a Senator. Love to hear your take on that, my friend!

Whataboutism does not work as a defense. The judge will tell you what is the truth,

 

[Oldestyle]

That has already been answered, Oldestyle was proven wrong, let's move on.

I hate to point out the obvious here, John but you stopped adding anything to the debate quite some time ago. Perhaps it would be best if you moved on.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I hate to point out the obvious here, John but you stopped adding anything to the debate quite some time ago. Perhaps it would be best if you moved on.

You got trampled some time ago and are just waving your finger above the dirt.

 

[Oldestyle]

I'm just waiting to hear from Marener why Joe Biden shouldn't be charged with the same crime that his DOJ is trying to pin on Trump?

 

[Oldestyle]

Marener seems to be having a hard time answering that last question. God knows John doesn't have the chops to do it. I think my work here is done!

 

[scruffy]

You can't rebut fact check.

lmao

What an idiot.

This ^^^ is the extent of the leftard brain.

Zero. Zip. Squat.

And now Marener owns Oldestyle as well. This is over.

We got him this time.

(Seven years later)

We got him this time.



It's only beginning, doofus.

That 15% inflation is going to bite you in the ass.

 

[Mac1958]

Why is Kudlow even allowed to spew this hate speech? Right Komrade? He's in NYM Gov Hochul needs to silence him!

You authoritarians just can't help yourselves.