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.

So the new target is Fitton. Why?

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?

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?

Nobody assumes she's an idiot. It's a matter of experience. Would you want a heart surgeon whose total experience is performing four appendectomies?

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?

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.

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?

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.

Not if he didn't know it was in his possession. As soon as the items were identified, he returned them.

"willful" means intent. It's really hard to prove intent. It's like prosecuting a hate crime, where you basically have to have someone shouting racial slurs on camera while they are beating someone up.

Trump did that. He admitted that he had classified documents that he could not declassify, on tape while he showed them to people without a clearance. He hid boxes of documents from his own attorneys when they were conducting a search, and it was all caught on camera. He suggested to his own lawyer that they could make documents disappear.

He did this to himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

False analogy. You can't accidentally rob a bank. The law is written as “willfully retains”. That's where Trump screwed up where Biden and Pence did not.

Where Trump screwed up was in not returning the documents that he had, when both Biden and Pence actually asked for NARA/FBI to review their holdings because they actually didn't know they had them in their possession. The gaslighting is strong with you.

How do you know that Biden and Pence didn’t know they had them in their possession? Their word?

To prove willful retention, a prosecutor has to show they knew they had them beyond a res doubt. They would prove that with, for example, a tape of them showing them to people while talking about how the documents are documents are classified.

Burden of proof. How does it work?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-recording-classified-documents-b2354713.html

"Former president Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted a legally dubious claim that he declassified sensitive documents at his Mar-a-Lago property before he left the White House after losing the 2020 presidential election.
But he admitted, on a tape, six months after leaving office, that a document in his possession was “classified”, “highly confidential” and “secret information”. He admitted, on tape, that he could declassify such documents as president, but now that he is out of office, “I can’t.”

That's how it works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

False analogy. You can't accidentally rob a bank. The law is written as “willfully retains”. That's where Trump screwed up where Biden and Pence did not.

Where Trump screwed up was in not returning the documents that he had, when both Biden and Pence actually asked for NARA/FBI to review their holdings because they actually didn't know they had them in their possession. The gaslighting is strong with you.

How do you know that Biden and Pence didn’t know they had them in their possession? Their word?

To prove willful retention, a prosecutor has to show they knew they had them beyond a res doubt. They would prove that with, for example, a tape of them showing them to people while talking about how the documents are documents are classified.

Burden of proof. How does it work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

False analogy. You can't accidentally rob a bank. The law is written as “willfully retains”. That's where Trump screwed up where Biden and Pence did not.

Where Trump screwed up was in not returning the documents that he had, when both Biden and Pence actually asked for NARA/FBI to review their holdings because they actually didn't know they had them in their possession. The gaslighting is strong with you.

How do you know that Biden and Pence didn’t know they had them in their possession? Their word?

To prove willful retention, a prosecutor has to show they knew they had them beyond a res doubt. They would prove that with, for example, a tape of them showing them to people while talking about how the documents are documents are classified.

Anonymous wrote:

The New York Times has an excellent article about how the DOJ has bent over backwards to be lenient and courteous to Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/us/politics/trump-documents-jack-smith.html

For those who can't access it, here are some passages:

"Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution for the department, opted not to request conditions routinely imposed on other defendants seeking to be released from custody, like cash bail, limits on domestic travel or turning in his passport."

"Conspicuously absent from the indictment was a potential charge that had been listed in the affidavit the Justice Department filed to obtain a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago last summer: Section 2071 of the federal criminal code, which prohibits the concealment and mishandling of sensitive government documents.
It was the only crime on the sheet that might have directly affected Mr. Trump’s 2024 presidential bid, requiring that anyone convicted of it “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” "

"By not pressing to limit contact between Mr. Trump and potential witnesses who are also his aides and other employees or advisers and lawyers, the prosecutors were seeking to minimize the potential for any violations of those strictures that might disrupt their efforts to keep the trial focused on the core charges involving national security secrets and obstruction."

It actually pisses me off that that loathsome man is STILL getting kid glove treatment.

The New York Times has an excellent article about how the DOJ has bent over backwards to be lenient and courteous to Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/us/politics/trump-documents-jack-smith.html

For those who can't access it, here are some passages:

"Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution for the department, opted not to request conditions routinely imposed on other defendants seeking to be released from custody, like cash bail, limits on domestic travel or turning in his passport."

"Conspicuously absent from the indictment was a potential charge that had been listed in the affidavit the Justice Department filed to obtain a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago last summer: Section 2071 of the federal criminal code, which prohibits the concealment and mishandling of sensitive government documents.
It was the only crime on the sheet that might have directly affected Mr. Trump’s 2024 presidential bid, requiring that anyone convicted of it “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” "

"By not pressing to limit contact between Mr. Trump and potential witnesses who are also his aides and other employees or advisers and lawyers, the prosecutors were seeking to minimize the potential for any violations of those strictures that might disrupt their efforts to keep the trial focused on the core charges involving national security secrets and obstruction."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you walked into a bank with a bag, set it down, and then picked up another similar bag not knowing it was full of money and walked out, and then later discovered the money was in there and immediately returned it, you would not be charged with bank robbery.

I'm sorry, but LOLOL, you believe that Trump walked in and meant to take these other dozens of boxes - but accidentally picked up all the ones marked classified, containing nuclear info and war plans? And then - what, forgot they were in the bathroom? Then told his lawyer to get rid of them because he figured no one really cared even though DOJ and the Archives kept telling him he had to bring them back?

You are seriously willing to believe ANYTHING in the world that could excuse the inexcusable things that you dumb dictator does - right there in the open!

The point is DOJ was giving Trump the benefit of the doubt that it was a “mistake.” But no, Trump refused, hid the docs, lied, then got others to lie for him. THAT is how he broke the law!!! DOJ tried very hard NOT to charge Trump but Trump thought he was immune to laws. No Cracker Jack Smith is gonna nail his ass to the wall.

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).