Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's Indictment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVmQarG44QE

If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.

Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.

Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets

By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

LOLOLOL

"Trump might not have known these documents were not his personal records, so therefore he's not guilty." Well dude, you just made a case for not re-electing someone so dumb.

Come on folks. All your arguments for why Trump isn't guilty are foundational arguments for why he should never step foot in the Oval office again. You're making it too easy for Dems!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's Indictment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVmQarG44QE

If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.

Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.

Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets

By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.

Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's Indictment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVmQarG44QE

If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.

Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.

Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets

By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.

Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.

WRONG. He did not. Cope harder. You'll learn more about the law and your ignorance will be dispelled as the case proceeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good for him, he can be another in a long line of clowns to serve as Missouri's Attorney General.

No, clown, the PRA does NOT allow the President to decide that records having to do with national defense and security are "personal records."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=44-USC-2035507102-1726767310&term_occur=999&term_src=title:44:chapter:22:section:2203

The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's Indictment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVmQarG44QE

If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.

Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.

Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets

By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.

Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.

Trump even admitted on tape that he shouldn't have them. If HE didn't think he should have them, why do you think he should have them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good for him, he can be another in a long line of clowns to serve as Missouri's Attorney General.

No, clown, the PRA does NOT allow the President to decide that records having to do with national defense and security are "personal records."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=44-USC-2035507102-1726767310&term_occur=999&term_src=title:44:chapter:22:section:2203

The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

+1

Every time these idiots cite the Presidential Records Act, it is a tell, because the indictment never cites the PRA but rather the Espionage Act. This is one of those "no collusion" half truths the GOP is so good at using.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good for him, he can be another in a long line of clowns to serve as Missouri's Attorney General.

No, clown, the PRA does NOT allow the President to decide that records having to do with national defense and security are "personal records."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=44-USC-2035507102-1726767310&term_occur=999&term_src=title:44:chapter:22:section:2203

The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

+1

Every time these idiots cite the Presidential Records Act, it is a tell, because the indictment never cites the PRA but rather the Espionage Act. This is one of those "no collusion" half truths the GOP is so good at using.

But they are wrong even about the wrong law. The point of the PRA is that official documents do NOT belong to the President. The law was passed because Nixon was going to destroy all the official records and the government had to pay him to get them back. Under PRA, NARA controls the status of official Presidential documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's Indictment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVmQarG44QE

If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.

Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.

Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets

By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.

Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.

Actually he was a fired employee. You aren’t allowed to take company property when you leave. Period.

I’ll just leave this right here as an example of the stupidity of leftists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good for him, he can be another in a long line of clowns to serve as Missouri's Attorney General.

No, clown, the PRA does NOT allow the President to decide that records having to do with national defense and security are "personal records."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=44-USC-2035507102-1726767310&term_occur=999&term_src=title:44:chapter:22:section:2203

The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

+1

Every time these idiots cite the Presidential Records Act, it is a tell, because the indictment never cites the PRA but rather the Espionage Act. This is one of those "no collusion" half truths the GOP is so good at using.

None of these un American goons has read the indictment and they’re not going to. They enjoy being uninformed; it’s one of they ways they can continue to poop post and argue irrelevant points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOLOLOL

"Trump might not have known these documents were not his personal records, so therefore he's not guilty." Well dude, you just made a case for not re-electing someone so dumb.

Come on folks. All your arguments for why Trump isn't guilty are foundational arguments for why he should never step foot in the Oval office again. You're making it too easy for Dems!

We wouldn't be here right now if Trump had just given them back when asked. He didn't, so yes, he DID know. He was told, he was asked and his recalcitrance got us to where we are. He was offered to many off-ramps and refused to take them, despite the warning from the FBI, DOJ and his own attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's Indictment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVmQarG44QE

If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.

Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.

Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets

By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.

Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.

Actually he was a fired employee. You aren’t allowed to take company property when you leave. Period.

I’ll just leave this right here as an example of the stupidity of leftists

Ok Trumpette. you do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's Indictment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVmQarG44QE

If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.

Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.

Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets

By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.

Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.

Actually he was a fired employee. You aren’t allowed to take company property when you leave. Period.

I’ll just leave this right here as an example of the stupidity of leftists

Hm. I don't think this is exposing the stupidity you think it's exposing, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep

Nope!

Why do you think Trump and only Trump is immune from the law? Is it because he's lived his whole life as if he is - and so you just believe that's his existential state, his right, instead of a good example of how money and power and moxie will be quite a shield, until not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep

So you want someone to display classified information to the public? Not only would they be arrested, but you all would just move on to the next conspiracy claim. And I mean right now you MAGAs are claiming the FBI is presenting boxes of fake documents as evidence in front of a Trump appointed federal judge. How much longer until you get to space lasers?