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

[bripat9643]

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

Sorry, but judge Amy Burman ruled on this issue..

​

“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​

 

[Oldestyle]

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

So what are you claiming is the binding precedent here?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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!

None of your charge, Oldestyle, is true. Trump is the criminal here, and the DOJ rightly is after him.

 

[Oldestyle]

What we have here is a precedent from the Clinton case that has been ignored by the judge in the Trump case. So where is the explanation as to why that choice to ignore precedent was made?

 

[Marener]

Trump determined what his personal papers are by taking hem with him when he left office.

So you’re just assuming?

 

[Oldestyle]

None of your charge, Oldestyle, is true. Trump is the criminal here, and the DOJ rightly is after him.

Biden DIDN'T take classified documents illegally when he was a Senator? Really, John?

 

[Marener]

So what are you claiming is the binding precedent here?

I’ve been trying to tell you. There is none. The case you reference has no relation to Trump’s case. It is not relevant. It is not even a binding precedent.

 

[bripat9643]

None of your charge, Oldestyle, is true. Trump is the criminal here, and the DOJ rightly is after him.

Totally wrong. Garland and Smith are the criminals.

 

[bripat9643]

So you’re just assuming?

No, I'm assuming nothing.

 

[Oldestyle]

I’ve been trying to tell you. There is none. The case you reference has no relation to Trump’s case. It is not relevant. It is not even a binding precedent.

Of course it's not a binding precedent. It would only be that if it was a Supreme Court ruling. It is however most definitely a precedent. It's a judge ruling that a President is the sole person who can determine what are his personal papers. You may not like that precedent but it applies.

 

[bripat9643]

I’ve been trying to tell you. There is none. The case you reference has no relation to Trump’s case. It is not relevant. It is not even a binding precedent.

How is it not relevant?

 

[Marener]

No, I'm assuming nothing.

Then show me where Trump said the highly classified military documents are his personal papers.

 

[Marener]

Of course it's not a binding precedent. It would only be that if it was a Supreme Court ruling. It is however most definitely a precedent. It's a judge ruling that a President is the sole person who can determine what are his personal papers. You may not like that precedent but it applies.

Show me when Trump declared the highly classified military documents are his personal papers.

Until you can do that, it doesn’t apply.

 

[bripat9643]

Then show me where Trump said the highly classified military documents are his personal papers.

He showed that when he took them from the white house. The judge didn't say the president had to make some formal declaration, shit for brains

 

[Oldestyle]

Show me when Trump declared the highly classified military documents are his personal papers.

Until you can do that, it doesn’t apply.

Show me where ANY President has had to "declare" what their personal papers are, Marener?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Of course it's not a binding precedent. It would only be that if it was a Supreme Court ruling. It is however most definitely a precedent. It's a judge ruling that a President is the sole person who can determine what are his personal papers. You may not like that precedent but it applies.

No, the judge certainly did not rule that silliness. Just stop it, Oldestyle.

 

[Marener]

He showed that when He took them from the white house, ignoramus.

That’s an assumption, dipshit.

 

[Oldestyle]

No, the judge certainly did not rule that silliness. Just stop it, Oldestyle.

John? This is a discussion among people much more intelligent than you. My suggestion would be for you to sit quietly in the corner and listen.

 

[Oldestyle]

That’s an assumption, dipshit.

It's an "assumption" based on what every President before him has done, Marener! Why is Trump being treated differently than Bill Clinton?

 

[Marener]

Show me where ANY President has had to "declare" what their personal papers are, Marener?

They never had to because it was never a point of controversy before.

It is now.

So where did Trump declare the classified military documents to be his personal papers?