Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, you were just hoisted by your own petard.

Is an employee who is no longer employed allowed to keep corporate property?

No.

Former President Trump left office. He was not entitled to keep the property of the US public.

He was entitled to keep his own property.

The items in question were not his property.

This isn't hard.

Substitute Biden for Trump. Biden was never President. Was Biden entitled to keep that property?

No but he freely gave it back when it was discovered. The law says “willfully retains”. Where Trump screwed up was fighting the return of material, which is proof of his intent.

He kept it for years. That’s willfully retaining it. In addition, he out and out stole it as he had no legal right as a Senator to have those documents.

Members of Congress have clearance to see classified/hear classified briefings by virtue of their office. Need to know principles apply and they can't just waltz into the FBI or CIA and demand to read everything, but saying he had "no legal right as a Senator" is simply incorrect. Additionally, there are levels of classification and even administrative matters may be classified. Not everything marked SECRET is a national defense secret. It is incredibly unlikely that Biden had any documents anywhere near the level of classification that Trump had in his possession for one simple reason: the intelligence agencies rarely give out paper copies to members of Congress. The White House operates separately with its own level of control (or seemingly lack thereof).

They can’t take them home with them. So now we are admitting, yeah, Biden had them, but Trump is worse?

Inadvertent retention isn't a crime. Which is the ENTIRE point.

By a Senator? Yeah it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

Wealthy billionaire picks up a restaurant check. Oh, such a very important issue to change public opinion about Trump entirely. Gosh we've been wrong about him all along. /s

Translation: I believed this lie and am embarrassed that I did, so I’m going to say something sarcastic to try and deflect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think this judge will make it to the end of this trial? Aileen Cannon has only heard four trials in her life, none of them longer than 3 days.

How can she possibly handle a trial this big and complex, involving classified information?

It's sickening that someone so glaringly unqualified could end up a federal judge.

Okay, but she's made it through law school. Why would you assume she's an idiot?

Lots of idiots make it through law school. And the appeals court called her prior behavior in the case adjacent to this one “lawless.”

Captain Jack there, had his case overturned unanimously by the SC.

Because the Supreme Court completely re-interpreted the law that led to McDonnell being charged in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, you were just hoisted by your own petard.

Is an employee who is no longer employed allowed to keep corporate property?

No.

Former President Trump left office. He was not entitled to keep the property of the US public.

He was entitled to keep his own property.

The items in question were not his property.

This isn't hard.

Substitute Biden for Trump. Biden was never President. Was Biden entitled to keep that property?

No but he freely gave it back when it was discovered. The law says “willfully retains”. Where Trump screwed up was fighting the return of material, which is proof of his intent.

He kept it for years. That’s willfully retaining it. In addition, he out and out stole it as he had no legal right as a Senator to have those documents.

Members of Congress have clearance to see classified/hear classified briefings by virtue of their office. Need to know principles apply and they can't just waltz into the FBI or CIA and demand to read everything, but saying he had "no legal right as a Senator" is simply incorrect. Additionally, there are levels of classification and even administrative matters may be classified. Not everything marked SECRET is a national defense secret. It is incredibly unlikely that Biden had any documents anywhere near the level of classification that Trump had in his possession for one simple reason: the intelligence agencies rarely give out paper copies to members of Congress. The White House operates separately with its own level of control (or seemingly lack thereof).

They can’t take them home with them. So now we are admitting, yeah, Biden had them, but Trump is worse?

Np- have you read this entire thread? Have you read the indictment? There is only so much hand holding we can do for you. You’re gonna have to actually make a little effort.

Should Biden have had classified documents in his garage, yes or no

No. And if you bothered to read anything, you’d know that. You’d also know
No one has argued otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, you were just hoisted by your own petard.

Is an employee who is no longer employed allowed to keep corporate property?

No.

Former President Trump left office. He was not entitled to keep the property of the US public.

He was entitled to keep his own property.

The items in question were not his property.

This isn't hard.

Substitute Biden for Trump. Biden was never President. Was Biden entitled to keep that property?

No but he freely gave it back when it was discovered. The law says “willfully retains”. Where Trump screwed up was fighting the return of material, which is proof of his intent.

He kept it for years. That’s willfully retaining it. In addition, he out and out stole it as he had no legal right as a Senator to have those documents.

Members of Congress have clearance to see classified/hear classified briefings by virtue of their office. Need to know principles apply and they can't just waltz into the FBI or CIA and demand to read everything, but saying he had "no legal right as a Senator" is simply incorrect. Additionally, there are levels of classification and even administrative matters may be classified. Not everything marked SECRET is a national defense secret. It is incredibly unlikely that Biden had any documents anywhere near the level of classification that Trump had in his possession for one simple reason: the intelligence agencies rarely give out paper copies to members of Congress. The White House operates separately with its own level of control (or seemingly lack thereof).

They can’t take them home with them. So now we are admitting, yeah, Biden had them, but Trump is worse?

Inadvertent retention isn't a crime. Which is the ENTIRE point.

By a Senator? Yeah it is.

I’m sure you can cite the statute the .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Actually, you were just hoisted by your own petard.

Is an employee who is no longer employed allowed to keep corporate property?

No.

Former President Trump left office. He was not entitled to keep the property of the US public.

He was entitled to keep his own property.

The items in question were not his property.

This isn't hard.

Substitute Biden for Trump. Biden was never President. Was Biden entitled to keep that property?

No but he freely gave it back when it was discovered. The law says “willfully retains”. Where Trump screwed up was fighting the return of material, which is proof of his intent.

He kept it for years. That’s willfully retaining it. In addition, he out and out stole it as he had no legal right as a Senator to have those documents.

Members of Congress have clearance to see classified/hear classified briefings by virtue of their office. Need to know principles apply and they can't just waltz into the FBI or CIA and demand to read everything, but saying he had "no legal right as a Senator" is simply incorrect. Additionally, there are levels of classification and even administrative matters may be classified. Not everything marked SECRET is a national defense secret. It is incredibly unlikely that Biden had any documents anywhere near the level of classification that Trump had in his possession for one simple reason: the intelligence agencies rarely give out paper copies to members of Congress. The White House operates separately with its own level of control (or seemingly lack thereof).

They can’t take them home with them. So now we are admitting, yeah, Biden had them, but Trump is worse?

Inadvertent retention isn't a crime. Which is the ENTIRE point.

By a Senator? Yeah it is.

Show where Biden INTENTIONALLY had any documents, withheld them, and obstructed their return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

And that is exactly what the New Times reported. Trump made a big point of saying “food for everyone” and then left without paying for any food. The refutation that he left so soon after the promise that no one had ordered food yet is not a refutation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

And that is exactly what the New Times reported. Trump made a big point of saying “food for everyone” and then left without paying for any food. The refutation that he left so soon after the promise that no one had ordered food yet is not a refutation.

Why are you arguing with these people? Trump could have taken a dump on a plate and they would have eaten it up. They want to be conned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

A "fact check" should be able to actually explain how many orders other than Trump's own team were paid for. I'm not seeing it.

That's a failed fact check. Trump didn't pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

A "fact check" should be able to actually explain how many orders other than Trump's own team were paid for. I'm not seeing it.

That's a failed fact check. Trump didn't pay.

+1 That was my point. The first report said Trump said food was on him and didn’t pay for anyone’s food. The “fact check” said Trump said food was on him but left before anyone besides him and his minions ordered anything. The result is the same.
- Potahto PP

[Anonymous]

Trump has been the center of attention since the 1980s. The man is a generational phenomenon. This just makes him bigger and stronger than ever. Best case scenario is he goes to jail for his legend to blast through the roof .. but he won’t. His Supreme Court will toss any conviction. He has endless fund raising for appeals and campaigning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

A "fact check" should be able to actually explain how many orders other than Trump's own team were paid for. I'm not seeing it.

That's a failed fact check. Trump didn't pay.

+1 That was my point. The first report said Trump said food was on him and didn’t pay for anyone’s food. The “fact check” said Trump said food was on him but left before anyone besides him and his minions ordered anything. The result is the same.
- Potahto PP

.
I assumed he would have paid for any outstanding checks for the people that already ordered.

He basically said “next round is on me”, walked out before anyone could order and didn’t leave a credit card with authorization.

Big talk cheap walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Trump has been the center of attention since the 1980s. The man is a generational phenomenon. This just makes him bigger and stronger than ever. Best case scenario is he goes to jail for his legend to blast through the roof .. but he won’t. His Supreme Court will toss any conviction. He has endless fund raising for appeals and campaigning.

Endless, no. His fundraising ability has been decreasing steadily and will continue to do so as the indictments continue. His fan base is eroding and they're tired of paying.

But I agree he's been quite the grifter phenom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

And that is exactly what the New Times reported. Trump made a big point of saying “food for everyone” and then left without paying for any food. The refutation that he left so soon after the promise that no one had ordered food yet is not a refutation.

Why are you arguing with these people? Trump could have taken a dump on a plate and they would have eaten it up. They want to be conned.

Ain’t this the sad truth!