Anonymous
06/16/2023 13:47
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.
It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.
If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?
Anonymous
06/16/2023 13:14
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.
Except for a chaos monster who is here to test and destroy
I find it especially weird that Christians, of all people, worship Trump
Conservative Christians in America lost their way more than 100 years ago and it's only gotten worse with time.
I have not been back to church since I saw this on Jan 6:
It just hit me that if Christianity, as practiced by ordinary people, can motivate them to attack our country, then it has failed to deliver on the minimum requirement: to produce better people.
I can deal with worshipping despite the uncertainty of God's existence. What dawned on me that day is that in a test of outcomes, Christianity performed no better than placebo.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
06/16/2023 11:58
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.
Except for a chaos monster who is here to test and destroy
I find it especially weird that Christians, of all people, worship Trump
Conservative Christians in America lost their way more than 100 years ago and it's only gotten worse with time.
Anonymous
06/16/2023 11:58
Subject: Re:Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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.
Exactly. It is exactly that. Trump no more had the right to take top secret agency documents owned by the US government, hide them, lie about them, obstruct attempts to retrieve them, obstruct attempts to investigate where they were, move the to other locations when he knew investigators were coming, get others to lie about them - than he would have had the right to brazenly fly Air Force One to Miami airport, declare it his property and call it Trump Force One.
Anonymous
06/16/2023 11:03
Subject: Re:Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:
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?
+1 Ironically, Scott and the other MAGA lunatics hate vaccines but have inoculated themselves against facts.
Anonymous
06/16/2023 10:29
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.
Except for a chaos monster who is here to test and destroy
I find it especially weird that Christians, of all people, worship Trump
Anonymous
06/16/2023 10:28
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
Because the Democrats do not want to be accused of politicizing this, which we all know the MaInStReAm media will do, repeatedly and loudly.
Meanwhile the GOP can lie with impunity and the MaInStReAm media airs those like they’re wisps of truth from the mouth of angels.
Anonymous
06/16/2023 10:25
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.
It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.
Anonymous
06/16/2023 10:23
Subject: Re:Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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.
Anonymous
06/16/2023 10:18
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.
Anonymous
Anonymous
06/16/2023 10:08
Subject: Re:Lock him up indictment FL
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.
+1