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

[Marener]

You keep accusing me of lying, Marener. I don't make a habit of lying and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying that I am! You may not agree with my point of view but that doesn't make me a liar. I don't agree with your point of view but I don't call you a liar. Return the favor.

You claimed I ignored your quote but I didn’t. What is that if not a lie?

 

[Oldestyle]

You claimed I ignored your quote but I didn’t. What is that if not a lie?

I quoted the judge from that ruling. Then you asked me to quote the judge. What is that if it's not ignoring the quote I provided?

 

[Marener]

I quoted the judge from that ruling. Then you asked me to quote the judge. What is that if it's not ignoring the quote I provided?

You keep accusing me of ignoring things that I definitely did not ignore. If anyone ignores anything, it’s you ignoring my responses.

The fact remains that the judge did not rule that Clinton’s tapes were personal. She specifically sidestepped the issue.

But furthermore, her decision is not binding precedent.

 

[BlindBoo]

In 1990, HW Bush was the last US President to continue US support for re-packing Israel back into its 1948 border.

The Democrat Party has been controlled by Jews since it started.

The Republican Party only became "zionized" when Faux "News" recruited the SUBS....

Not really. In 1991 he threaten to withhold some loan guarantees over the building of new Settlements in the Occupied Territories and moving resettling Jews from Europe there. He never suggested it was a move to have Israel return to the proposed 1948 borders. It didn't work as there are more settlements in the West Bank now than ever before.

 

[Oldestyle]

You keep accusing me of ignoring things that I definitely did not ignore. If anyone ignores anything, it’s you ignoring my responses.

The fact remains that the judge did not rule that Clinton’s tapes were personal. She specifically sidestepped the issue.

But furthermore, her decision is not binding precedent.

Precedents aren't binding. Judges are free to make decisions that go against precedent. When they do so however they're required to explain WHY they've done so! The judge in the Clinton case was definitive that what constituted "personal" was solely determined by a President and NOT by an archivist! What has taken place with Trump is a complete reversal of that precedent...something that by all appearances is political. So where is the explanation of WHY that reversal was deemed just?

As for what you've chosen to ignore? I'm still waiting to hear your defense of Joe Biden allowing his DOJ to bring charges against his chief political rival for something that he himself was FAR more guilty of!

 

[Oldestyle]

You keep accusing me of ignoring things that I definitely did not ignore. If anyone ignores anything, it’s you ignoring my responses.

The fact remains that the judge did not rule that Clinton’s tapes were personal. She specifically sidestepped the issue.

But furthermore, her decision is not binding precedent.

And you'll note that while I have accused you of ignoring some of my points...I've NEVER done you the disservice of accusing you of being a liar!

 

[Oldestyle]

Sorry but what Trump did is criminal and people have gone to jail for it plenty of times...

Really Ted? What US President has even been charged with a crime let alone gone to jail for being in the possession of allegedly classified documents?

 

[Marener]

Precedents aren't binding. Judges are free to make decisions that go against precedent. When they do so however they're required to explain WHY they've done so! The judge in the Clinton case was definitive that what constituted "personal" was solely determined by a President and NOT by an archivist! What has taken place with Trump is a complete reversal of that precedent...something that by all appearances is political. So where is the explanation of WHY that reversal was deemed just?

As for what you've chosen to ignore? I'm still waiting to hear your defense of Joe Biden allowing his DOJ to bring charges against his chief political rival for something that he himself was FAR more guilty of!

Binding precedents are binding. Didn’t you read my link? Judges are not free to violate the binding precedent of a higher court. This is the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

The ruling in the Judicial Watch case simply has no relevance to the current situation and has not in any way been reversed.

Trump hasn’t attempted to claim the classified documents in his house were personal documents. You would have to be absolutely insane to believe they were, which is probably why he hasn’t claimed such a ridiculous idea.

 

[Marener]

And you'll note that while I have accused you of ignoring some of my points...I've NEVER done you the disservice of accusing you of being a liar!

Your accusations are false. You’ve done me the disservice of accusing me falsely.

 

[bripat9643]

No, Squeaky, he was not.

Yes he was, unlike Biden who was not. The president can declassify any document.

You keep accusing me of ignoring things that I definitely did not ignore. If anyone ignores anything, it’s you ignoring my responses.

The fact remains that the judge did not rule that Clinton’s tapes were personal. She specifically sidestepped the issue.

But furthermore, her decision is not binding precedent.

Horseshit. She specifically ruled that the president determines what his personal papers are.

 

[Marener]

Horseshit. She specifically ruled that the president determines what his personal papers are.

You guys could start to have a point when Trump says the government’s highly classified defense documents are his personal papers.

Until then, it’s pointless.

 

[Oldestyle]

Your accusations are false. You’ve done me the disservice of accusing me falsely.

We have a difference of opinion. To YOU that makes me a liar? You've done ME the disservice here, Marener...accusing me of something that I have not accused you of even when we have a different view of things! All I'm asking is that you stop accusing me of being a liar. I think we both know that isn't the case.

 

[Marener]

We have a difference of opinion. To YOU that makes me a liar? You've done ME the disservice here, Marener...accusing me of something that I have not accused you of even when we have a different view of things! All I'm asking is that you stop accusing me of being a liar. I think we both know that isn't the case.

What you’re accusing me of is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that I responded to the case you cite and did not ignore it.

Your accusation is factually false.

 

[Oldestyle]

Binding precedents are binding. Didn’t you read my link? Judges are not free to violate the binding precedent of a higher court. This is the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

The ruling in the Judicial Watch case simply has no relevance to the current situation and has not in any way been reversed.

Trump hasn’t attempted to claim the classified documents in his house were personal documents. You would have to be absolutely insane to believe they were, which is probably why he hasn’t claimed such a ridiculous idea.

What "higher court" is it that has set binding precedent on this, Marener? A court higher than the Federal judge who ruled in the Clinton case has ruled on this?

 

[Oldestyle]

What you’re accusing me of is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that I responded to the case you cite and did not ignore it.

Your accusation is factually false.

I was referring to your ignoring my repeated requests that you defend Joe Biden using his DOJ to go after his chief political rival by charging him with something that Biden himself is FAR more guilty of!

 

[bripat9643]

You guys could start to have a point when Trump says the government’s highly classified defense documents are his personal papers.

Until then, it’s pointless.

Anything he decides are his personal papers are his personal papers. That's what the judge ruled, dumbfuck.

https://clashdaily.com/2022/08/hilarious-the-case-of-clintons-sock-drawer-could-deep-six-the-dojs-anti-trump-campaign/​

​

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.​

“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,” she added. –JustTheNews​

 

[bripat9643]

Binding precedents are binding. Didn’t you read my link? Judges are not free to violate the binding precedent of a higher court. This is the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

The ruling in the Judicial Watch case simply has no relevance to the current situation and has not in any way been reversed.

Trump hasn’t attempted to claim the classified documents in his house were personal documents. You would have to be absolutely insane to believe they were, which is probably why he hasn’t claimed such a ridiculous idea.

Total bullshit. It's obviously 100% relevant. Allow me to quote it:

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.​

“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,” she added. –JustTheNews​

 

[bripat9643]

You guys could start to have a point when Trump says the government’s highly classified defense documents are his personal papers.

Until then, it’s pointless.

We have a point now. Trump determined what his personal papers are by taking hem with him when he left office.

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.​

“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,” she added. –JustTheNews​

 

[Marener]

What "higher court" is it that has set binding precedent on this, Marener? A court higher than the Federal judge who ruled in the Clinton case has ruled in this?

There is no direct precedent because no president has been insane enough to take highly classified government documents home after they leave office.

 

[Libby von H]

Kudlow is a hardcore right wing partisan ideologue.

A former President trying to overthrow a free and fair election, using his own manipulated rubes to attack our nation's Capitol during the constitutional peaceful transfer of presidential power on a lie, dwarfs this to an absurd degree. And the history books will certainly reflect that.

Which means nothing. If Hitler says 2+2=4 do you post that it's bullshit