363d
@mott-the-hoople saidI have helpfully included the relevant portions of the tape transcript presented in the indictment above. Maybe you should read it.
“ there's a tape where Trump is recorded doing so and admitting the document was "secret" and that he never declassified it.”
have you heard it in its full context?
What we have here is a democrat presidential candidate putting the doj on the republican frontrunner…dont try to play it as anything else.
There's no evidence at all Biden had anything to do with the Grand Jury's decision to charge Trump in this matter. And political candidates for any office do not get a pass for their criminal conduct.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142851
363d
@no1marauder saidbiden did set all this in motion…
I have helpfully included the relevant portions of the tape transcript presented in the indictment above. Maybe you should read it.
There's no evidence at all Biden had anything to do with the Grand Jury's decision to charge Trump in this matter. And political candidates for any office do not get a pass for their criminal conduct.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20220823/bidens-white-house-was-eager-to-strip-trump-of-executive-privilege-prior-to-fbis-raid-report-says-1099916254.html
as I said, dont try to play it off as anything other than a corrupt party weaponizing every govt agency in their lust for power.
363d
@mott-the-hoople said"Sputnik"?
biden did set all this in motion…
https://sputnikglobe.com/20220823/bidens-white-house-was-eager-to-strip-trump-of-executive-privilege-prior-to-fbis-raid-report-says-1099916254.html
as I said, dont try to play it off as anything other than a corrupt party weaponizing every govt agency in their lust for power.
Ex-Presidents have no valid claim to "executive privilege".
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142851
363d
@no1marauder saidnow you have gone full blown stupid…
"Sputnik"?
Ex-Presidents have no valid claim to "executive privilege".
“ In Nixon II, the Supreme Court determined that the Communications Privilege continues to protect presidential communications after the conclusion of the Administration within which the communication occurred and may be asserted by the former President.1 As described above, the Court found that a former President may legitimately assert the Communications Privilege to prevent disclosure of his official records after he has left office.2 The Court reasoned that the confidentiality necessary to ensure the free exchange of ideas between the President and his advisers while the President is in office
cannot be measured by the few months or years between the submission of the information and the end of the President’s tenure; the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives the individual President’s tenure.“
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-9/ALDE_00013385/
363d
@no1marauder saidHe was POTUS for crying out loud. He already read as many classified documents as he wanted for 4 years. How could his retaining some put anybody at risk? Same is true for Biden.
Many of our laws are meant to deter dangerous activity even if the specific act of lawbreaking did no immediate harm.
IF someone drove 75 mph past a stop sign in a school zone but didn't actually hit anyone, should the cop who saw this behavior give them a pass because no one was hurt?
Is this all about how long it took to return documents? This is all so silly. He could have taken pictures of all of the documents and returned them. Then he could email them to Anthony Weiner and still put nobody at risk any more then Hillary Clinton did. Think about that.
Why do you hate Trump so much? We all know he is bombastic, but what did he do to you?
@mott-the-hoople saidYou should read the whole article as it specifically discusses why Trump's claims of "executive privilege" fail if the present President does not support them (and he is under no obligation to do so):
now you have gone full blown stupid…
“ In Nixon II, the Supreme Court determined that the Communications Privilege continues to protect presidential communications after the conclusion of the Administration within which the communication occurred and may be asserted by the former President.1 As described above, the Court found that a former President may legitimate ...[text shortened]... President’s tenure.“
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-9/ALDE_00013385/
"Consistent with previous case law, the court viewed President Biden as the principal holder and keeper of executive privilege and the judiciary as ill equipped to . . . second guess the expert judgment of the sitting President.21"
President Biden does not, and should not, interfere with a criminal investigation just because the suspect wants him to.
363d
@metal-brain saidI'm not going to respond to such emotional histrionics. I'm here to clear up the legal issues not deal with such personalization of the matter. "Hating Trump" has nothing to do with any of them.
He was POTUS for crying out loud. He already read as many classified documents as he wanted for 4 years. How could his retaining some put anybody at risk? Same is true for Biden.
Is this all about how long it took to return documents? This is all so silly. He could have taken pictures of all of the documents and returned them. Then he could email them to Anthony Weine ...[text shortened]... bout that.
Why do you hate Trump so much? We all know he is bombastic, but what did he do to you?
The laws of the US regard it as dangerous for those without proper security clearances to have national defense information for obvious reasons. If you'd like the US Congress to repeal those laws and let anyone have classified documents regarding say "document[s] concerning military contingency planning of the United States" (Charge 11 of the Indictment) or "document[s] concerning nuclear weaponry of the United States (Charge 19 of the Indictment)" talk to them.
363d
@no1marauder saidNobody believes you. You clearly have a hard on for Trump. You want to see the orange man in orange prison clothing. Why is that so important to you? Trump did not start a war. If the measure of a bad POTUS is deaths he is less evil than Obama since Obama killed a lot of people in Libya.
I'm not going to respond to such emotional histrionics. I'm here to clear up the legal issues not deal with such personalization of the matter. "Hating Trump" has nothing to do with any of them.
The laws of the US regard it as dangerous for those without proper security clearances to have national defense information for obvious reasons. If you'd like the US Congress ...[text shortened]... ent[s] concerning nuclear weaponry of the United States (Charge 19 of the Indictment)" talk to them.
Why do have such a hard on for Trump?
363d
@mott-the-hoople saidThe DC Circuit in discussing Executive Privilege declared:
now you have gone full blown stupid…
“ In Nixon II, the Supreme Court determined that the Communications Privilege continues to protect presidential communications after the conclusion of the Administration within which the communication occurred and may be asserted by the former President.1 As described above, the Court found that a former President may legitimate ...[text shortened]... President’s tenure.“
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-9/ALDE_00013385/
" And the privilege may give way in the face of other "strong constitutional value[s,]" Dellums v. Powell , 561 F.2d 242, 247 (D.C. Cir. 1977), such as "the fundamental demands of due process of law" in criminal trials, United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. at 713, 94 S.Ct. 3090 ; see also Protect Democracy Project, Inc. v. National Security Agency , 10 F.4th 879, 886 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
https://casetext.com/case/trump-v-thompson-1
@metal-brain saidGrow up.
Nobody believes you. You clearly have a hard on for Trump. You want to see the orange man in orange prison clothing. Why is that so important to you? Trump did not start a war. If the measure of a bad POTUS is deaths he is less evil than Obama since Obama killed a lot of people in Libya.
Why do have such a hard on for Trump?
One of the excellent reasons for avoiding this Forum is the necessity some posters feel to engage in such childish, personalized rhetoric. If you want to discuss the facts and law of the matter fine, but I have no intention of trading personal barbs just because you have nothing of actual substance to say regarding it. Further posts like the one I am now responding to will be ignored.
363d
@no1marauder said"some posters feel to engage in such childish, personalized rhetoric"
Grow up.
One of the excellent reasons for avoiding this Forum is the necessity some posters feel to engage in such childish, personalized rhetoric. If you want to discuss the facts and law of the matter fine, but I have no intention of trading personal barbs just because you have nothing of actual substance to say regarding it. Further posts like the one I am now responding to will be ignored.
I agree and you are describing yourself. You are like a conservative woman who wants to see prostitutes in jail for something that harms nobody except her pride because her husband has lust for the sexy whore.
Trump is just a stubborn man. He is used to getting his way because he is rich. He stalled in returning documents, but it harmed nobody. He could have took photos of all of the classified documents, returned them and make all of the copies he wanted. He could have downloaded the classified documents to an attachment to an email and sent it to Anthony Weiner. Trump did not allow it to get on Weiner's computer though.
Whose conduct was more egregious? Trump or Hillary Clinton? Be honest.
363d
@metal-brain saidLMAO! You actually think that someone making copies of classified national defense information and then keeping them is legal?
"some posters feel to engage in such childish, personalized rhetoric"
I agree and you are describing yourself. You are like a conservative woman who wants to see prostitutes in jail for something that harms nobody except her pride because her husband has lust for the sexy whore.
Trump is just a stubborn man. He is used to getting his way because he is rich. He stall ...[text shortened]... Weiner's computer though.
Whose conduct was more egregious? Trump or Hillary Clinton? Be honest.
363d
@no1marauder saidOf course not, but how would you know if you got the documents back? My point is that he didn't need to retain the documents. He could have taken pictures like any spy can. This whole thing is beyond silly.
LMAO! You actually think that someone making copies of classified national defense information and then keeping them is legal?
As far as I can tell you have a hard on for Trump because he is bombastic. No other reason. He shoots his mouth off and it is annoying. I get that, but you have a big hard on for him and I do not understand why. Is it just trendy for democrats right now? It is just the thing to do?
363d
@no1marauder
I think you fear Trump because you have been indoctrinated to fear him. You are doing what Yoda warned against in Star Wars.
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
This is why democrats have become authoritarians. Fear put them on the path to the dark side. Now your hate grows. Mwahahahahah! Embrace your hate. Soon you will make this country just like Russia to fight Russia. Welcome to the dark side no1
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142851
@no1marauder saidAnything in the article concerning biden is irrelevant , biden wasnt president, nixon was. The scotus ruling is all that matters. The rest about biden is written by bidens people.
You should read the whole article as it specifically discusses why Trump's claims of "executive privilege" fail if the present President does not support them (and he is under no obligation to do so):
"Consistent with previous case law, the court viewed President Biden as the principal holder and keeper of executive privilege and the judiciary as ill equipped to . . . ...[text shortened]... not, and should not, interfere with a criminal investigation just because the suspect wants him to.