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:

Anonymous wrote:I really think many of you are missing the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.

Joking aside, they aren't missing the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.

People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/salon

Reality Winner is neither here nor there, because she didn’t have presidential power to declassify.

Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.

You people have some weird mythology in your heads about "the President can declassify." There's a process for declassifying documents, even for the President. The process is NOT the President waving his hands and gesturing broadly, saying "I declassify this stuff' or simply willing it to be declassified with his mind. And if the process isn't followed, there is no way of knowing what is or isn't declassified and it would be chaos. If the downgrading and declassification process isn't followed or there is no evidence it was followed then it remains classified.

You are incorrect.

Nope. There is a legal process for declassification. Please provide a link that shows a president can think it or will it, and it becomes so.

Per Constitutional lawyers:

A former president has the legal right to access any and all of the documents created during his presidency, classified or otherwise. The second before a President leaves office, by his very actions alone in taking documents he can be said to have declassified them.

“Therefore, the former president cannot be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for this reason and more,” said Levin, who served as chief of state to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration.”

In addition, Trumps’ lawyers had been in active negotiations regarding the documents, starting only a year after Trump left office. Like with Obama, this kind of back-and-forth is the norm and can go on for years. And the National Archives is already in possession of the vast majority of documents created during the Trump administration, and the ones at issue are a very relative few, so yes, he has cooperated. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the president is “the executive branch and he’s the commander in chief.” So Trump is not guilty of violating the Espionage Act, which was invoked in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant. In addition, there are no criminal penalties associated with the Presidential Records Act; that has been cited by the FBI.

Now let’s talk Espionage Act and Clinton: Clinton had classified documents on an unsecured email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York/. Clinton wasn’t president, so she didn’t even have the protections presidents do.

“That violates the Espionage Act,” Levin said of failing to properly secure the documents, some highly classified, from foreign adversaries”.

Mark Levin is the source of this take? You may as well quote Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.

Can you please tell me what disqualifies Levin in your mind? Not educated enough? Not enough experience?

He isn't de facto disqualified, but he is arguing this case through a lens of supporting Trump rather than through a lens of what the law says, and what the case law supports.

DP... Mark Levin is a completely unhinged far right kook in my book. He's an outright racist and xenophobe, he's done crazy things in the realm of slavery-denial by claiming the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution wasn't about slavery or white supremacy. https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/mark-levin-absurdly-claims-three-fifths-compromise-constitution-had-nothing-do-slavery

He repeatedly referred to Obama voters as "islamo-nazis" and claimed Obama and the Supreme Court were conspiring to bring Stalinism to the United States. He routinely screams at any caller to his show who proves him wrong, states facts contrary to his narrative calling them "pukes" or "morons" or "drones," shouting them down and then hanging up on them rather than hearing and debating facts or different, legitimate viewpoints.

Levin is a climate denier of the worst kind, with absolutely idiotic takes on it - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/31/1694892/-Mark-Levin-just-made-possibly-the-most-hilarious-climate-denial-argument-ever

He peddles tons of debunked conspiracy theories, for example he bizarrely claims that Iraq WMDs were actually found, but that George W. Bush and Karl Rove used the White House to cover it up for "political reasons" even though the non-existent WMDs were the basis for the Iraq war. https://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/meet_the_iraq_war_truthers_bush_was_right_on_wmds_but_the_truth_was_covered_up_by_bush/

One could go on and on and on with all of the absolutely wrong and completely unhinged things that Mark Levin has said (or more likely screamed) into his spittle-covered radio microphone over the years.

Not credible. Whatever respectable prior career he had is completely diminished by everything he's done on the radio over the last 20+ years.

That's your opinion. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and scholar.

Any you quote.....Salon?

And Sidney Powell used to be a US attorney. She's still a wacko and conspiracy theorist.

Levin is not Powell. We are talking Levin. Quoting Salon is just as wacky as quoting Powell.

Wow really? I must have been asleep when Salon was involved in wild conspiracy theories involving companies acting on the behest of a dead Venezuelan dictator stole an election using foreign satellites and then staging a coup as a result of it.

Just as wacky? No. Not even remotely as wacky as Powell.

I also don't recall anyone from Salon going around shrieking "MORON! PUKE!" at people they disagreed with in an attempt to shut them down.

On a scale of wacky, those three would be:

Least wacky <---------------- ---------------------->Most wacky
Salon Mark Levin Sidney Powell

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:

Anonymous wrote:I really think many of you are missing the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.

Joking aside, they aren't missing the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.

People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.

Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.

You people have some weird mythology in your heads about "the President can declassify." There's a process for declassifying documents, even for the President. The process is NOT the President waving his hands and gesturing broadly, saying "I declassify this stuff' or simply willing it to be declassified with his mind. And if the process isn't followed, there is no way of knowing what is or isn't declassified and it would be chaos. If the downgrading and declassification process isn't followed or there is no evidence it was followed then it remains classified.

You are incorrect.

Nope. There is a legal process for declassification. Please provide a link that shows a president can think it or will it, and it becomes so.

Per Constitutional lawyers:

A former president has the legal right to access any and all of the documents created during his presidency, classified or otherwise. The second before a President leaves office, by his very actions alone in taking documents he can be said to have declassified them.

“Therefore, the former president cannot be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for this reason and more,” said Levin, who served as chief of state to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration.”

In addition, Trumps’ lawyers had been in active negotiations regarding the documents, starting only a year after Trump left office. Like with Obama, this kind of back-and-forth is the norm and can go on for years. And the National Archives is already in possession of the vast majority of documents created during the Trump administration, and the ones at issue are a very relative few, so yes, he has cooperated. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the president is “the executive branch and he’s the commander in chief.” So Trump is not guilty of violating the Espionage Act, which was invoked in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant. In addition, there are no criminal penalties associated with the Presidential Records Act; that has been cited by the FBI.

Now let’s talk Espionage Act and Clinton: Clinton had classified documents on an unsecured email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York/. Clinton wasn’t president, so she didn’t even have the protections presidents do.

“That violates the Espionage Act,” Levin said of failing to properly secure the documents, some highly classified, from foreign adversaries”.

Mark Levin is the source of this take? You may as well quote Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.

Can you please tell me what disqualifies Levin in your mind? Not educated enough? Not enough experience?

He isn't de facto disqualified, but he is arguing this case through a lens of supporting Trump rather than through a lens of what the law says, and what the case law supports.

DP... Mark Levin is a completely unhinged far right kook in my book. He's an outright racist and xenophobe, he's done crazy things in the realm of slavery-denial by claiming the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution wasn't about slavery or white supremacy. https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/mark-levin-absurdly-claims-three-fifths-compromise-constitution-had-nothing-do-slavery

He repeatedly referred to Obama voters as "islamo-nazis" and claimed Obama and the Supreme Court were conspiring to bring Stalinism to the United States. He routinely screams at any caller to his show who proves him wrong, states facts contrary to his narrative calling them "pukes" or "morons" or "drones," shouting them down and then hanging up on them rather than hearing and debating facts or different, legitimate viewpoints.

Levin is a climate denier of the worst kind, with absolutely idiotic takes on it - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/31/1694892/-Mark-Levin-just-made-possibly-the-most-hilarious-climate-denial-argument-ever

He peddles tons of debunked conspiracy theories, for example he bizarrely claims that Iraq WMDs were actually found, but that George W. Bush and Karl Rove used the White House to cover it up for "political reasons" even though the non-existent WMDs were the basis for the Iraq war. https://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/meet_the_iraq_war_truthers_bush_was_right_on_wmds_but_the_truth_was_covered_up_by_bush/

One could go on and on and on with all of the absolutely wrong and completely unhinged things that Mark Levin has said (or more likely screamed) into his spittle-covered radio microphone over the years.

Not credible. Whatever respectable prior career he had is completely diminished by everything he's done on the radio over the last 20+ years.

That's your opinion. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and scholar.

Any you quote.....Salon?

"Constitutional lawyer and scholar" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NO he isn't. He's a radio host and has been for 20 years. He hasn't published any academic pieces on constitutional law in legal journals or law reviews. He hasn't argued a constitutional case in his life. Yes, he has a law degree, served as an attorney in private sector and as a second-tier bureaucrat in the Reagan administration but has zero qualifications as "constitutional lawyer and scholar" other than whatever self-professed grandiose delusions he may have. But I guess he has you baffled into believing his schtick because he wrote some books and included a few bookmarked quotes from Hobbes or de Tocqueville or whoever.

This is your expert?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/martha-maccallum-tries-to-correct-confused-mark-levin-during-unhinged-rant-about-trump-classified-documents/

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a Constitutional lawyer, president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington D.C., a top-rated nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host and a best selling non-fiction author. Also, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration.

So... complete crap. Thanks for the confirmation.

Levin on Trump: "While he's been president there hasn't even been a hint of scandal. Not a hint!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.

He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.

It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.

Actually, his attorneys are busily quitting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.

He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.

It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.

He and his attorneys have filed other papers related to this and in none of them, has he claimed he declassified. In fact, he is on tape admitting he hasn't and hadn't. Why is this hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.

He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.

It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.

Anonymous wrote:What's NOT in the indictment: evidence that Trump destroyed and/or altered any documents. Evidence that Trump passed any documents to foreign spies or countries. This indictment was written for a jury they hope will be majority/all democrats.

If there's any doubt in anyone's minds as to how political this indictment is (goal: destroy 2024 election), read the following articles. Even the ABA stated this:

"The fact check looks at the legal landscape for handling classified information and other government secrets, including those under the Atomic Energy Act. The new posting notes that a president clearly has broad legal authority, in most cases, to classify and declassify documents. And it also points out that while prevailing law requires federal officials to follow certain procedures in declassifying documents to establish specificity and memorialization for future handling, whether a president must abide by those formal requirements has yet to be tested in court."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-fbi-commentary-idINKCN0ZM1TG

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/legal-fact-check-document-declassification/

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

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:I really think many of you are missing the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.

Joking aside, they aren't missing the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.

People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.

Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.

You people have some weird mythology in your heads about "the President can declassify." There's a process for declassifying documents, even for the President. The process is NOT the President waving his hands and gesturing broadly, saying "I declassify this stuff' or simply willing it to be declassified with his mind. And if the process isn't followed, there is no way of knowing what is or isn't declassified and it would be chaos. If the downgrading and declassification process isn't followed or there is no evidence it was followed then it remains classified.

You are incorrect.

Nope. There is a legal process for declassification. Please provide a link that shows a president can think it or will it, and it becomes so.

Per Constitutional lawyers:

A former president has the legal right to access any and all of the documents created during his presidency, classified or otherwise. The second before a President leaves office, by his very actions alone in taking documents he can be said to have declassified them.

“Therefore, the former president cannot be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for this reason and more,” said Levin, who served as chief of state to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration.”

In addition, Trumps’ lawyers had been in active negotiations regarding the documents, starting only a year after Trump left office. Like with Obama, this kind of back-and-forth is the norm and can go on for years. And the National Archives is already in possession of the vast majority of documents created during the Trump administration, and the ones at issue are a very relative few, so yes, he has cooperated. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the president is “the executive branch and he’s the commander in chief.” So Trump is not guilty of violating the Espionage Act, which was invoked in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant. In addition, there are no criminal penalties associated with the Presidential Records Act; that has been cited by the FBI.

Now let’s talk Espionage Act and Clinton: Clinton had classified documents on an unsecured email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York/. Clinton wasn’t president, so she didn’t even have the protections presidents do.

“That violates the Espionage Act,” Levin said of failing to properly secure the documents, some highly classified, from foreign adversaries”.

Mark Levin is the source of this take? You may as well quote Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.

Can you please tell me what disqualifies Levin in your mind? Not educated enough? Not enough experience?

He isn't de facto disqualified, but he is arguing this case through a lens of supporting Trump rather than through a lens of what the law says, and what the case law supports.

DP... Mark Levin is a completely unhinged far right kook in my book. He's an outright racist and xenophobe, he's done crazy things in the realm of slavery-denial by claiming the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution wasn't about slavery or white supremacy. https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/mark-levin-absurdly-claims-three-fifths-compromise-constitution-had-nothing-do-slavery

He repeatedly referred to Obama voters as "islamo-nazis" and claimed Obama and the Supreme Court were conspiring to bring Stalinism to the United States. He routinely screams at any caller to his show who proves him wrong, states facts contrary to his narrative calling them "pukes" or "morons" or "drones," shouting them down and then hanging up on them rather than hearing and debating facts or different, legitimate viewpoints.

Levin is a climate denier of the worst kind, with absolutely idiotic takes on it - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/31/1694892/-Mark-Levin-just-made-possibly-the-most-hilarious-climate-denial-argument-ever

He peddles tons of debunked conspiracy theories, for example he bizarrely claims that Iraq WMDs were actually found, but that George W. Bush and Karl Rove used the White House to cover it up for "political reasons" even though the non-existent WMDs were the basis for the Iraq war. https://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/meet_the_iraq_war_truthers_bush_was_right_on_wmds_but_the_truth_was_covered_up_by_bush/

One could go on and on and on with all of the absolutely wrong and completely unhinged things that Mark Levin has said (or more likely screamed) into his spittle-covered radio microphone over the years.

Not credible. Whatever respectable prior career he had is completely diminished by everything he's done on the radio over the last 20+ years.

That's your opinion. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and scholar.

Any you quote.....Salon?

"Constitutional lawyer and scholar" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NO he isn't. He's a radio host and has been for 20 years. He hasn't published any academic pieces on constitutional law in legal journals or law reviews. He hasn't argued a constitutional case in his life. Yes, he has a law degree, served as an attorney in private sector and as a second-tier bureaucrat in the Reagan administration but has zero qualifications as "constitutional lawyer and scholar" other than whatever self-professed grandiose delusions he may have. But I guess he has you baffled into believing his schtick because he wrote some books and included a few bookmarked quotes from Hobbes or de Tocqueville or whoever.

This is your expert?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/martha-maccallum-tries-to-correct-confused-mark-levin-during-unhinged-rant-about-trump-classified-documents/

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a Constitutional lawyer, president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington D.C., a top-rated nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host and a best selling non-fiction author. Also, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration.

So... complete crap. Thanks for the confirmation.

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:I really think many of you are missing the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.

Joking aside, they aren't missing the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.

People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.

Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.

You people have some weird mythology in your heads about "the President can declassify." There's a process for declassifying documents, even for the President. The process is NOT the President waving his hands and gesturing broadly, saying "I declassify this stuff' or simply willing it to be declassified with his mind. And if the process isn't followed, there is no way of knowing what is or isn't declassified and it would be chaos. If the downgrading and declassification process isn't followed or there is no evidence it was followed then it remains classified.

You are incorrect.

Nope. There is a legal process for declassification. Please provide a link that shows a president can think it or will it, and it becomes so.

Per Constitutional lawyers:

A former president has the legal right to access any and all of the documents created during his presidency, classified or otherwise. The second before a President leaves office, by his very actions alone in taking documents he can be said to have declassified them.

“Therefore, the former president cannot be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for this reason and more,” said Levin, who served as chief of state to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration.”

In addition, Trumps’ lawyers had been in active negotiations regarding the documents, starting only a year after Trump left office. Like with Obama, this kind of back-and-forth is the norm and can go on for years. And the National Archives is already in possession of the vast majority of documents created during the Trump administration, and the ones at issue are a very relative few, so yes, he has cooperated. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the president is “the executive branch and he’s the commander in chief.” So Trump is not guilty of violating the Espionage Act, which was invoked in the affidavit to obtain a search warrant. In addition, there are no criminal penalties associated with the Presidential Records Act; that has been cited by the FBI.

Now let’s talk Espionage Act and Clinton: Clinton had classified documents on an unsecured email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York/. Clinton wasn’t president, so she didn’t even have the protections presidents do.

“That violates the Espionage Act,” Levin said of failing to properly secure the documents, some highly classified, from foreign adversaries”.

Mark Levin is the source of this take? You may as well quote Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon.

Can you please tell me what disqualifies Levin in your mind? Not educated enough? Not enough experience?

He isn't de facto disqualified, but he is arguing this case through a lens of supporting Trump rather than through a lens of what the law says, and what the case law supports.

DP... Mark Levin is a completely unhinged far right kook in my book. He's an outright racist and xenophobe, he's done crazy things in the realm of slavery-denial by claiming the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution wasn't about slavery or white supremacy. https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/mark-levin-absurdly-claims-three-fifths-compromise-constitution-had-nothing-do-slavery

He repeatedly referred to Obama voters as "islamo-nazis" and claimed Obama and the Supreme Court were conspiring to bring Stalinism to the United States. He routinely screams at any caller to his show who proves him wrong, states facts contrary to his narrative calling them "pukes" or "morons" or "drones," shouting them down and then hanging up on them rather than hearing and debating facts or different, legitimate viewpoints.

Levin is a climate denier of the worst kind, with absolutely idiotic takes on it - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/31/1694892/-Mark-Levin-just-made-possibly-the-most-hilarious-climate-denial-argument-ever

He peddles tons of debunked conspiracy theories, for example he bizarrely claims that Iraq WMDs were actually found, but that George W. Bush and Karl Rove used the White House to cover it up for "political reasons" even though the non-existent WMDs were the basis for the Iraq war. https://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/meet_the_iraq_war_truthers_bush_was_right_on_wmds_but_the_truth_was_covered_up_by_bush/

One could go on and on and on with all of the absolutely wrong and completely unhinged things that Mark Levin has said (or more likely screamed) into his spittle-covered radio microphone over the years.

Not credible. Whatever respectable prior career he had is completely diminished by everything he's done on the radio over the last 20+ years.

That's your opinion. Levin is a constitutional lawyer and scholar.

Any you quote.....Salon?

"Constitutional lawyer and scholar" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NO he isn't. He's a radio host and has been for 20 years. He hasn't published any academic pieces on constitutional law in legal journals or law reviews. He hasn't argued a constitutional case in his life. Yes, he has a law degree, served as an attorney in private sector and as a second-tier bureaucrat in the Reagan administration but has zero qualifications as "constitutional lawyer and scholar" other than whatever self-professed grandiose delusions he may have. But I guess he has you baffled into believing his schtick because he wrote some books and included a few bookmarked quotes from Hobbes or de Tocqueville or whoever.

This is your expert?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/martha-maccallum-tries-to-correct-confused-mark-levin-during-unhinged-rant-about-trump-classified-documents/

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is a Constitutional lawyer, president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington D.C., a top-rated nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host and a best selling non-fiction author. Also, the former Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan Administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.

He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.

It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.

Anonymous wrote:What's NOT in the indictment: evidence that Trump destroyed and/or altered any documents. Evidence that Trump passed any documents to foreign spies or countries. This indictment was written for a jury they hope will be majority/all democrats.

If there's any doubt in anyone's minds as to how political this indictment is (goal: destroy 2024 election), read the following articles. Even the ABA stated this:

"The fact check looks at the legal landscape for handling classified information and other government secrets, including those under the Atomic Energy Act. The new posting notes that a president clearly has broad legal authority, in most cases, to classify and declassify documents. And it also points out that while prevailing law requires federal officials to follow certain procedures in declassifying documents to establish specificity and memorialization for future handling, whether a president must abide by those formal requirements has yet to be tested in court."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-fbi-commentary-idINKCN0ZM1TG

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/legal-fact-check-document-declassification/

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to point out that since there is no evidence he declassified any documents, he would actually need to take the stand to assert that as a defense. Since the espionage act does not rely on classification, that would be a very, very bad idea for any criminal defendant in this situation. He may have more hubris than a dump truck can carry, but for his sake, I sincerely hope he listens to his counsel on what testifying in his own defense will do to his chances of a successful appeal. The declassification argument is complete and utter bullshit in practice, and I wish some of the PPs would make the effort to learn about their own legal system. What you’re suggesting will be a disaster for him legally.

He hasn't asserted it in ANY of the court pleadings to date. Too late.

It’s not too late. He hasn’t presented a defense yet. His attorneys have been arguing over access to seized material.