nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Care to cite a particular case that supports this or ANY assertion you have made?
First Former President to Have Home Raided by FBI
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
Care to cite a particular case that supports this or ANY assertion you have made?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Then there was me who was leading the lock her up chants, but what do I know. Clearly I don't have the critical thinking skills.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Fair enough. We'll see. It is worth noting that Clinton's audio tapes were never official documents and that moreover the federal government was not seeking the audio tapes and was not a party to that case. But I give you credit for citing a precent with some relevance to the discussion.
Those nuclear documents might get into foreign hands.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
First there's an indictment, then there's a trial, them if guilty he goes to prison depending on the sentence. Anything else you news cleared up?
sturg33
I
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Did you drink bleach? Now you are upset the process ismr moving fast enough. He isnt under arrest because he is a former President and being handled with kid gloves no matter how much you want to portray him as persecuted. If you had these same documents they wouldnt even ask for them back before you were in a cage.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Well all you need to do is quote me one posts, by anyone here, that was ever at anytime as convinced Trump was going to prison with anywhere close to the conviction which little thethe believes his election hoaxes.
Maybe you would like to argue with thethe and Garmel who have been arguing that just because Trump hasn't been convicted of a crime doesnt mean he is innocent.
Maybe you would like to argue with thethe and Garmel who have been arguing that just because Trump hasn't been convicted of a crime doesnt mean he is innocent.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Soooooo you are trying to mock me but using the exact opposite of what I have said. I will be honest, I dont know how to argue with that. If you want to argue with me you you have to at least take a contrary opinion as me.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.businessinsider.com/jus...mar-lago-search-fails-multiple-reasons-2022-8
Looking forward to Trumps lawyers explanation about how FBI agents found in hours what the Trump lawyers swore they couldnt find in weeks. I wonder how far back those security cameras go. It's always the coverup that gets them, not the original crime.
There's also reports the DoJ wont induct Trump until after the midterms, if at all, to not effect the election. No doubt Republicans will demand an investigation to see why the DoJ is meddling in interfering in an election ala Hunter Biden according to their logic.
Looking forward to Trumps lawyers explanation about how FBI agents found in hours what the Trump lawyers swore they couldnt find in weeks. I wonder how far back those security cameras go. It's always the coverup that gets them, not the original crime.
There's also reports the DoJ wont induct Trump until after the midterms, if at all, to not effect the election. No doubt Republicans will demand an investigation to see why the DoJ is meddling in interfering in an election ala Hunter Biden according to their logic.
Last edited:
https://justthenews.com/politics-po...-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact
More good stuff from this historic case with Judge Jackson explaining her decision. In the last article I put up wasn't in her own words but this one is.
"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.
Here's a part I didn't know.
"Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted."
More good stuff from this historic case with Judge Jackson explaining her decision. In the last article I put up wasn't in her own words but this one is.
"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.
Here's a part I didn't know.
"Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted."
Last edited: