OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Wacko nonsense. They are trying to frame Trump, as usual, or perhaps you missed the fact they illegally raided Maro-Lago?
If they wanted Trump, they'd leave him be because he already has the nomination in the bag unless they can tar him with something, and even then he may.
De Santis is great, but the democrats are clearly prefer someone other than Trump as the nominee.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Seriously, get some help for your TDS.
I know I'm going to regret asking, but how are they framing Trump and what was illegal about the search?
Uh-oh, poopslinger is breaking out his pseudo-psychiatrist schtick again. Gather round everyone while Dr. Know-nothing tries to explain to us that which hides in the darkest recesses of our minds.
If anyone belongs on the psychologist’s sofa for a close mental exam, it’s this phony jackass.
You know a thing or two about getting down on your knees so I'll trust your opinion.
1. How? They are drumming up fake charges with an illegal search warrant.
2. They didn't even use a real Constitutional judge appointed by a president and confirmed in the senate. They relied on an anti-Trump biased magistrate.
3. They illegally are leaking false information as well, such as claiming nuclear secrets were involved, violating Trump's civil rights and legal ethics.
4. The presidential records act grants Trump the right to take the docs.
5. Trump cannot violate the classification laws since he declassified the docs and had the legal authority to do so at any time.
6. Trump still has a security clearance and the way it works is a portion of the home also will be cleared and have it for those with security clearances if they view or will possess sensitive info.
Uh-oh, poopslinger is breaking out his pseudo-psychiatrist schtick again. Gather round everyone while Dr. Know-nothing tries to explain to us that which hides in the darkest recesses of our minds.
If anyone belongs on the psychologist’s sofa for a close mental exam, it’s this phony jackass.
You still sore about my assessment of you? You know, when I said you had the profile of a gender dysphoric individual that was raised by two granola, vegan type dykes that didn't wash themselves regularly and crapped in a box so they could save it for their compost garden? No need to be. You told me I missed on that one.
Here's some more detail showing the warrants were illegal. The law specifically grants an ex-president with the right to take such papers and even to deny access for 5 years to everyone, including the current president, and a president before leaving office can restrict some documents for up to 12 years.
Biden and the FBI have no right to seize Trump's papers and documents under the law.
"
The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.
Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
.....
The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed. Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years."
The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis | David Rivkin, Constitutional Attorney and Media Commentator
David Rivkin is a Constitutional Law Attorney who speaks on behalf of conservative matters.
Come on folks use your head for something besides a hat rack. If what Trump had was so important they wouldnt have waited 18 months to get the info. It was done this close to the mid terms for a reason.
"
Nothing is said about the former president himself, but applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced PRA statutory scheme. Thus if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House, he should be in the clear, even if some of those records are classified.
In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present—making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access."
www.wsj.com
Nothing is said about the former president himself, but applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced PRA statutory scheme. Thus if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House, he should be in the clear, even if some of those records are classified.
In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present—making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access."
Opinion | The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis
A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.
www.wsj.com
I didnt catch the Biden speech last night. So did he offer any thoughts on helping inflation? Any mention of the border situation? How about any mention of the rising crime rates and how criminals are let back out on the street the same day? Is he still planning to send tons of money to Ukraine?
Well, they've been trying to get it back for a while now. He could have just given it back when asked. I guess they could have asked nicely one more time.
Trump could have easily just given them back when first asked. Maybe he's playing some 3-D chess and knew they would do it before the mid-terms.
You can't deal with facts or what?
The statutes cited in the warrant do not apply to an ex-president. The governing statute is the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
The warrant is structured as a general warrant which was outlawed in the Bill of Rights. You can't just get a warrant legally to search for any and everything. It has to be specific.
He's legally entitled to those documents, even if classified but in this case he declassified them. He is under no obligation to provide them to anyone for at least a number of years. Eventually the archivist will be given all documents for public release unless classified but he can wait years for some documents if he wishes.
So you are saying it really was not that important... or the government is just too nice when it comes to Top Secret info.. what angle you taking here Scooter?
None of those things you mentioned are real problems. That’s your privilege talking. Shut up and stay focused on Orange.
I really didnt see the speech.. did he not mention any of those things?
My angle for that post was that everything could have been avoided if he gave back the documents. I don't know how important it was because I haven't seen them, but the classification would indicate that a lot of it was pretty important. I can only assume they wanted to give a former president the chance to do something when first asked before getting a warrant, but a grand jury and warrant isn't something that happens quickly. It's a process. Does that answer your question, scooter?
That is total nonsense. You're obviously confusing restricted access with "the right to take such papers and even to deny access" up to 12 years.
Section 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
(a) Prior to the conclusion of a President’s term of office or last consecutive term of office, as the case may be, the President shall specify durations, not to exceed 12 years, for which access shall be restricted with respect to information, in a Presidential record
This entry clearly explains the law for possession of such documents:
Section 2202. Ownership of Presidential records
The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
I have no problem with facts. The problem is you didn't offer them.
Well, you have a problem with reading comprehension then.
Furthermore:
For the first two centuries of U.S. history, outgoing presidents simply took their documents with them when they left the White House. The materials were considered their personal property.
But for the past four decades, every presidential document — from notebook doodles to top-secret security plans — is supposed to go directly to the National Archives as the material is considered the property of the American people.
So when former President Donald Trump left office on Jan. 20, 2021, all his records should have traveled from the White House to the National Archives, according to Jason R. Baron, who served as director of litigation at the National Archives for 13 years.
The reason why presidents can't keep their White House records dates back to Nixon
Congress changed the law in the 1970s when President Nixon prepared to leave with his documents — and infamous tape recordings.
www.npr.org
Hollywood plot twist would be Biden pardoning Trump despite charges from Georgia phone call, j6 insurrection, stolen classified docs (and wtf else might crop-up) to allow Trump on the ballot.
NPR is wrong, and the previous presidents like Obama have not sent everything directly to the archives.Furthermore:
For the first two centuries of U.S. history, outgoing presidents simply took their documents with them when they left the White House. The materials were considered their personal property.
But for the past four decades, every presidential document — from notebook doodles to top-secret security plans — is supposed to go directly to the National Archives as the material is considered the property of the American people.
So when former President Donald Trump left office on Jan. 20, 2021, all his records should have traveled from the White House to the National Archives, according to Jason R. Baron, who served as director of litigation at the National Archives for 13 years.
The reason why presidents can't keep their White House records dates back to Nixon
Congress changed the law in the 1970s when President Nixon prepared to leave with his documents — and infamous tape recordings.
The Act does not require immediate turnover of all docs and specifies the ex-president may exclude documents even from the new president for 5 years and in certain cases, exclude them from the public for 12 years.
Quite obviously did. I get it. You don't want to admit the dems are lawless.
All the fake news talking points in one spot. I’m impressed.
According to reliable sources who are in the know, the warrant indeed listed specific items the FBI searched for and recovered and thus, the FBI very much had probable cause.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.I take it you did not study Constitutional Law in college, eh?
Restricting access.....hmmm, quite clearly that is an exception then to the US having "complete control," right?
Because the government does not have complete control in the way you suggest if someone else can decide to restrict access. The statute is clear that the US owns the records but the administration of those records is "in accordance with the provisions of this chapter" which grants the president the right to limit and restrict access.
Eventually the privilege times out but that time hasn't happened. The government illegally seized the docs and should immediately return them.
Similar threads
