Anonymous wrote:Biden will probably pardon him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Equal justice under the law" doesn't apply if you have an R behind your name.

The equal justice is that he IS being indicted for crimes HE allegedly committed. If he wasn't charged THAT would be two tiered. Are you suggesting a former president is above the law? Because in the old days, that would be a king. We had a revolution over that, remember?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

Can someone explain how this is markedly different than Bill Clinton and the court's ruling under the Presidential Records Act?
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13
(1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. 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.

****

Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant
submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to
assume custody and control over them. Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 15–18.
Defendant considers this to be an “extraordinary request” that is “unfounded, contrary to the
PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.” Id. at 1. The
Court agrees.

Anonymous wrote:"Equal justice under the law" doesn't apply if you have an R behind your name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

Can someone explain how this is markedly different than Bill Clinton and the court's ruling under the Presidential Records Act?
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13
(1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. 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.

****

Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant
submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to
assume custody and control over them. Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 15–18.
Defendant considers this to be an “extraordinary request” that is “unfounded, contrary to the
PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.” Id. at 1. The
Court agrees.

You’re missing the crucial “during his time in office” part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was planning on voting for DeSantis in the 2024 primary, mainly due to age of Trump and Biden. After yesterday's news, I've changed my mind and will protest vote for Teflon Don.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

Can someone explain how this is markedly different than Bill Clinton and the court's ruling under the Presidential Records Act?
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13
(1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. 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.

****

Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant
submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to
assume custody and control over them. Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 15–18.
Defendant considers this to be an “extraordinary request” that is “unfounded, contrary to the
PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.” Id. at 1. The
Court agrees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

Can someone explain how this is markedly different than Bill Clinton and the court's ruling under the Presidential Records Act?
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13
(1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. 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.

****

Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant
submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to
assume custody and control over them. Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 15–18.
Defendant considers this to be an “extraordinary request” that is “unfounded, contrary to the
PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.” Id. at 1. The
Court agrees.

Anonymous wrote:How on earth are they going to get an unbiased jury for Trump, in Florida or anywhere else?

Anonymous wrote:“And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

Anonymous wrote:Was planning on voting for DeSantis in the 2024 primary, mainly due to age of Trump and Biden. After yesterday's news, I've changed my mind and will protest vote for Teflon Don.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess who is the initial judge assigned to Trump's case?

The summons sent to former President Donald Trump and his legal team late Thursday indicates that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will be assigned to oversee his case, at least initially, according to sources briefed on the matter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-appointee-initially-assigned-oversee/story?id=99956910

The judge that arraigns is not usually the one assigned to the actual trial. I wouldn't be too worried yet.