Anonymous wrote:This is the day we will read about in history books as the day we became a banana republic.

I do remember when France became a banana republic when it prosecuted Sarkozy for corruption and bribery, and when Israel became a banana republic when it prosecuted Ehud Olmert for corruption, and when Italy became a banana republic when it prosecuted Silvio Berlusconi for corruption, bribery and prostitution, and when South Korea became a banana republican when it prosecuted Park Geun-hye for corruption, and Taiwan became a banana republican when it prosecuted Chen Shui-bian for bribery.

Anonymous wrote:This is the day we will read about in history books as the day we became a banana republic.

I guess that's a step up from what we were before today.

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:Trump still has the criminal charges coming in Georgia too. At least he has something to do in his retirement. Be a criminal defendant.

“We’ll get him on something, somewhere!”

“Because he flouted laws and rules at every turn.”

So did Hillary per Comey. She just didn't mean to

Yes, Comey knows you have to prove intent to convict at a trial. Why don’t you?

Know what else you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the person who Trump showed the document to actually saw its contents. The fact that it’s nowhere in the indictment speaks volumes. Remember they are trying to prove espionage act and that he deliberately meant to compromise national security.

He's not charged with dissemination so they do not have to prove that.

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

No, no they cannot. Those records have to go to NARA. The president has the right to "access" them, not retain them. And in any case these were not even presidential records.

Untrue

"Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President." 44 USC 2203(g)(1).

Please cite the part of the act where there are criminal penalties

In fact, the Presidential Records Act has NO criminal penalty because the Congress and Carter had no intention of criminalizing document retention matters.

None of the charges have anything to do with the PRA, numbnut. Read the indictment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player to be named later identified

Chris Kise, registered agent for Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Have fun getting a security clearance with that one on your resume.

So when he doesn't get a clearance, then Trump has to find a new lawyer and we're a few months down the road. He's trying to delay and hiring a reputable, but unclearable attorney is a great start

Trump is the one with the legal right to a speedy trial. You should ask yourself why prosecution is in such a hurry.

Both parties have the right to a speedy trial.

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:Trump still has the criminal charges coming in Georgia too. At least he has something to do in his retirement. Be a criminal defendant.

“We’ll get him on something, somewhere!”

“Because he flouted laws and rules at every turn.”

So did Hillary per Comey. She just didn't mean to

Yes, Comey knows you have to prove intent to convict at a trial. Why don’t you?

Know what else you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the person who Trump showed the document to actually saw its contents. The fact that it’s nowhere in the indictment speaks volumes. Remember they are trying to prove espionage act and that he deliberately meant to compromise national security.

He's not charged with dissemination so they do not have to prove that.

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

Classified documents are not Presidential papers.

Uh, not really. They could be. But records that belong to agencies, like war plans or intel reports, are not presidential records.

Fact - the commander in chief is THEIR BOSS. You are incorrect

Not after he leaves and he doesn’t get to take their stuff with him when he goes.

Jack Smith and Jay Bratt were in the courtroom.

The DOJ wants to imbue these proceedings with as much gravitas as they can, to reinforce how serious this case is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player to be named later identified

Chris Kise, registered agent for Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Have fun getting a security clearance with that one on your resume.

So when he doesn't get a clearance, then Trump has to find a new lawyer and we're a few months down the road. He's trying to delay and hiring a reputable, but unclearable attorney is a great start

Trump is the one with the legal right to a speedy trial. You should ask yourself why prosecution is in such a hurry.

I'm actually wondering why Trump doesn't want a speedy trial so he can clear his name. Why is that?

This is the day we will read about in history books as the day we became a banana republic.

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:Trump still has the criminal charges coming in Georgia too. At least he has something to do in his retirement. Be a criminal defendant.

“We’ll get him on something, somewhere!”

“Because he flouted laws and rules at every turn.”

So did Hillary per Comey. She just didn't mean to

Yes, Comey knows you have to prove intent to convict at a trial. Why don’t you?

Know what else you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the person who Trump showed the document to actually saw its contents. The fact that it’s nowhere in the indictment speaks volumes. Remember they are trying to prove espionage act and that he deliberately meant to compromise national security.

He's not charged with dissemination so they do not have to prove that.

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

For the same reason Jack the Hack was overturned in the SC. He knows he will be overturned - the goal is political destruction. Unfortunately for them, they are just making Trump stronger. Why? Because this is no longer about Trump. People are concerned about political corruption, unequal application of justice, etc. Trump is the representation of this Republic staying a Republic./

The man is literally on tape admitting his crimes. What planet are you on?

Play the tape in court. I might change my mind. Be sure you play the part where he goes on to share the document and discuss its contents.

No you won’t, Cletus. You’ll come up with some other whatabout.

Try me. I’m simply looking for something besides a transcript exclusive to CNN if you plan to put a man in jail for the rest of his life. He has the presumption of innocence in this country. Play the tape.

The transcript is not "exclusive to CNN." Where did you hear that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player to be named later identified

Chris Kise, registered agent for Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Have fun getting a security clearance with that one on your resume.

So when he doesn't get a clearance, then Trump has to find a new lawyer and we're a few months down the road. He's trying to delay and hiring a reputable, but unclearable attorney is a great start

Trump is the one with the legal right to a speedy trial. You should ask yourself why prosecution is in such a hurry.

A hurry? Biden's DoJ has had three years

They have filed charges and are trying to hurry along a trial NOW. Why?

They are? Cite?

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:Trump still has the criminal charges coming in Georgia too. At least he has something to do in his retirement. Be a criminal defendant.

“We’ll get him on something, somewhere!”

“Because he flouted laws and rules at every turn.”

So did Hillary per Comey. She just didn't mean to

Yes, Comey knows you have to prove intent to convict at a trial. Why don’t you?

Know what else you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the person who Trump showed the document to actually saw its contents. The fact that it’s nowhere in the indictment speaks volumes. Remember they are trying to prove espionage act and that he deliberately meant to compromise national security.

He's not charged with dissemination so they do not have to prove that.

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

Obstruction.

Overturning it, ANY ruling in Trump's favor would set a very very dangerous precedent and would deeply undermine national security. It would be irresponsible and foolish and any judge making such a ruling has no business being a judge.

SCOTUS won't touch this. The 11th Circuit showed the conservative legal movement is not invested in protecting Trump personally, particularly when it interferes with the national security state. Cannon, however, is iikely to do a lot of damage.

Dear LORD. You are describing the weaponization of the legal system for political reasons

Yes, SCOTUS has definitely weaponized the legal system for conservative political purposes. But those purposes are not protecting Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player to be named later identified

Chris Kise, registered agent for Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Have fun getting a security clearance with that one on your resume.

So when he doesn't get a clearance, then Trump has to find a new lawyer and we're a few months down the road. He's trying to delay and hiring a reputable, but unclearable attorney is a great start

Trump is the one with the legal right to a speedy trial. You should ask yourself why prosecution is in such a hurry.

A hurry? Biden's DoJ has had three years

They have filed charges and are trying to hurry along a trial NOW. Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player to be named later identified

Chris Kise, registered agent for Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Have fun getting a security clearance with that one on your resume.

So when he doesn't get a clearance, then Trump has to find a new lawyer and we're a few months down the road. He's trying to delay and hiring a reputable, but unclearable attorney is a great start

Trump is the one with the legal right to a speedy trial. You should ask yourself why prosecution is in such a hurry.

A hurry? Biden's DoJ has had three years

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:Trump still has the criminal charges coming in Georgia too. At least he has something to do in his retirement. Be a criminal defendant.

“We’ll get him on something, somewhere!”

“Because he flouted laws and rules at every turn.”

So did Hillary per Comey. She just didn't mean to

Yes, Comey knows you have to prove intent to convict at a trial. Why don’t you?

Know what else you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the person who Trump showed the document to actually saw its contents. The fact that it’s nowhere in the indictment speaks volumes. Remember they are trying to prove espionage act and that he deliberately meant to compromise national security.

He's not charged with dissemination so they do not have to prove that.

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

No, no they cannot. Those records have to go to NARA. The president has the right to "access" them, not retain them. And in any case these were not even presidential records.

Untrue

"Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President." 44 USC 2203(g)(1).

Please cite the part of the act where there are criminal penalties

In fact, the Presidential Records Act has NO criminal penalty because the Congress and Carter had no intention of criminalizing document retention matters.