I agree with you on the issue of us not having enough evidence to make broad claims. But you’re apparently just taking Trump’s word that he verbally declassified (if it even works that way without any paper trail) any document he brought to Mar-A-Lago and that the government wouldn’t have the right to ask for them back.
First Former President to Have Home Raided by FBI
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
I agree with you on the issue of us not having enough evidence to make broad claims. But you’re apparently just taking Trump’s word that he verbally declassified (if it even works that way without any paper trail) any document he brought to Mar-A-Lago and that the government wouldn’t have the right to ask for them back.
Except it's difficult to get criminal charges on them. https://www.nationalreview.com/2022...-justice-departments-january-6-investigation/
Conservatives before Trump: “The executive branch has too much power!”
Trump signs law making it a felony to mishandle classified info.
*crickets*
Conservatives now: Trump was President so he could do whatever he wanted with those documents.
Trump signs law making it a felony to mishandle classified info.
*crickets*
Conservatives now: Trump was President so he could do whatever he wanted with those documents.
If you read Obama's executive order on classified documents the president pretty much can.
Let me add that most of you libs didn't give a rat's ass that Clinton set up an illegal server with classified info on it.
The ability of the left to ignore facts to further the preferred narrative is quite mind-blowing.
sturg33
I
Smells like the market tested this one to help sell the public on the tyranny and nobody bought it
There are also experts and lawyers stating it wouldn’t work that way to just blanket declassify things verbally without going through the formal process. My point is that we don’t have enough information right now to state anything definitively and shouting conspiracy is very premature.
You'll pardon us but we've seen the dirtiness of the FBI toward Trump firsthand so giving them the benefit of the doubt on this wouldn't be the smart thing to do.
If a racist cop looks to have been beating/harassing minorities in the past would you give him the benefit of the doubt when new accusations of him doing this again come out? Of course you wouldn't.
Last edited:
No, but I wouldn’t confidently tell the world that any claims made about the reported victim of the harassment are unequivocally false and call anybody who dared to question them a sheep.
My problem isn’t that you would have doubts in the validity of the investigation, but rather the fact that you’re all basically declaring your doubts as absolute facts.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Malpractice on their part to do this now rather than late October.
Given that it’s only August and Trump isn’t even on the ballot this fall, forgive me if I’m not willing to hop on board with this rationale.