It’s Hammer Time

[CardinalBacker]

46 minutes ago, Reagan said:

As I'm still trying to figure this out, I'll give a little insight into what I've learned so far:  In this whole situation something didn't make sense.  Clinton, Bush and Obama was able to take documents, Clinton also took audio recordings, once they left the Oval Office.  Why they are able to do this has to do a lawsuit filed against Clinton, known as the "sock case", concerning this and he won the case.  And the judge stated he won because of  the Presidential Records Act.  It also may have to do if it's classified and unclassified.  Still looking into that one.  Presidents, and only Presidents can declassify what they want.  I think the judge said as much because the President IS the Executive Branch.  Biden took documents which was highly illegal.  VP's can't declassify anything.  Anyway, I believe this is the reason why the Presidential Records Act is never mentioned.  Because they can't.  So, what did they do, they brought up the Espionage Act of 1917.   Oh, BTW, no President or VP as ever been indicted using this act.  As Breitbart has stated: 'that the Espionage Act of 1917, which Trump is accused of violating, was not intended to apply to presidents. If it had been, then every president who took documents with him before the passage of the PRA in 1978 could have been prosecuted for “espionage.” Trump also noted that the indictment failed to deal with the PRA itself, and he claimed that the Mar-a-Lago raid violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures” — seizures that included his personal passport.  So, any actual violation of the Presidential Records Act is a civil situation.  The Espionage At is a federal law.  So, Biden, after saying he knows nothing about what's going on, had to sign the paper moving this from civil to federal.  Again -- Biden lies!  There's much more to be learned here.  More info coming later!   

From the ABA...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

To summarize, it gives the President a broad range of powers to declassify a lot of documents, but not all.  And there's a procedure that has to be followed so that all agencies know which information has been declassified.  A president can't just "think it" and a doc is declassified.  And I think the argument now is that the documents ARE still classified, but Trump COULD have declassified them (maybe), so "no harm, no foul."  That's not a good argument in my opinion.  The President himself even admitted that some of the docs he displayed were classified, and that he could no longer declassify them.  

 

My understanding is that the Presidential Records Act just details how the records belong to and what's supposed to happen to them after a President leaves office.  I think the Espionage Act charges are related to Trump's showing of top secret materials to people who don't have clearances.  And you're right... the law was never intended to apply to Presidents because nobody ever envisioned a former President violating the Presidential Records Act by keeping top secret information, then showing it to reporters and other people without clearance for his own personal benefit... money, influence, or just to "clear his name."

I guess a better question is this.... if Staff Sergeant Reagan had clearance and then left the service, but held onto classified docs, then showed them to a reporter (or anyone else), then denied to the powers that be that he, in fact, still had those documents, hid them out, then got caught red-handed with boxes of classified documents.... what do you think would happen to Staff Sergeant Reagan?  He'd be in federal prison, that's what.  And to say, "oh, he was the President and could have declassified them if he wanted to" is just not a defense to all of those violations.    

 

I guess I'm saying that there's a difference between hanging onto old menus from the time Stevie Wonder played at a White House Dinner and showing our top secret military operations to a reporter from some right-wing hack website.  Do I think that every president left with momentos?  Heck, Bill Clinton's staff stole the "Ws" off of white house keyboards on their way out the door as an affront to George W Bush.  I halfway expected this to be a big to-do about nothing, except it's not.  They're really bad allegations and just dismissing them because of who's spearheading the investigation is not sound thinking.  

 

If it turns out that Trump didn't have Top Secret records in his possession after his attorneys certified that all of the top secret materials had been returned to the National Archivist, then he's got nothing to worry about.  

[UT alum]

7 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I really have no words, none of this is true and any rational person knows this.

You can't point out any policies where Obama rebuilt the economy because there were none.  He was the one that proclaimed high unemployment was here to stay, nothing to do about it, Trump came in and said BS and made him look like the unqualified fool he was while bringing unemployment to record lows, including the lowest unemployment for minorities ever (how racist of him) as well as having us energy independent for the first time ever

If you only received crumbs under Trump, you are a very poor money manager, his tax policies were good for everyone, I see you hold to the democrat playbook on class warfare, gotta hate those rich folks.

Illegal immigration was lower than at any time and there was nothing brutal about it, you must have forgotten that it was Obama that built the cages.

Putin feared Trump because he knew he would act, why do you think he waited until Joe and the idiot were in office to invade Ukraine?  He knew he would have another coward like Clinton that would be afraid to act.

We received the useless vaccine that everyone said we had to have because of the actions Trump took to ramp up production, you know this and if you disagree, show me a timeline of how things occurred to back up your claim, you can't.

As far as the racism and xenophobia, all lies made up by the left, absolutely nothing to it. Biden however, has a track record of racism, you just choose to ignore it because he's a democrat.

Border crossings are a fraction of what they used to be?  Really?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Biden treats the office with respect, what a joke, he has used his time in office to make money with his crackhead son and crooked brothers while selling the American people out.

 

You have shown yourself to be ignorant of current events.

You have your opinion, I have mine. One of us, or maybe both of us are using alternative facts.  Difference is I don’t hold my opinion out as absolute truth. That’s really my only problem with Trumpism. It holds itself out as incapable of error. Beyond arrogance.

[Reagan]

Trump rises in polls following indictment charges!  the other side just doesn't get it.  The American people get that this is a con game.  Plus the more they attack Trump the more he gets free campaign publicity!  

[Reagan]

3 minutes ago, UT alum said:

You have your opinion, I have mine. One of us, or maybe both of us are using alternative facts.  Difference is I don’t hold my opinion out as absolute truth. That’s really my only problem with Trumpism. It holds itself out as incapable of error. Beyond arrogance.

No, not true.  If facts lead to criminal activities, then so be it.  But, 4 years of attacks against Trump like Russia collusion with fake Russian dossiers has all been proven false.  BTW, I have heard that Hillarious Clinton told obama and biden she was going to push the Russian hoax.  So, again, nothings been true so far concerning Trump.  So why should we start believing now that's he's done something wrong?!

[LumRaiderFan]

50 minutes ago, UT alum said:

You have your opinion, I have mine. One of us, or maybe both of us are using alternative facts.  Difference is I don’t hold my opinion out as absolute truth. That’s really my only problem with Trumpism. It holds itself out as incapable of error. Beyond arrogance.

It’s not Trumpism, lol, it’s looking at actual results.  

[Unwoke]

Yep

 

 

[Unwoke]

59 minutes ago, UT alum said:

You have your opinion, I have mine. One of us, or maybe both of us are using alternative facts.  Difference is I don’t hold my opinion out as absolute truth. That’s really my only problem with Trumpism. It holds itself out as incapable of error. Beyond arrogance.

Either you see what’s happening to Trump as being about Trump or you see it being about a weaponized government planning to make any opposition a crime.

Only one of those views is correct. You don’t have to be a Trump fan to clearly see it’s the latter.

This is the beginning.

[BS Wildcats]

22 hours ago, UT alum said:

Bring the evidence. I’ll listen.  Trump’s own mouth is not fabricated. 

Neither is biden’s!  Are you that naive?

[UT alum]

5 hours ago, Reagan said:

No, not true.  If facts lead to criminal activities, then so be it.  But, 4 years of attacks against Trump like Russia collusion with fake Russian dossiers has all been proven false.  BTW, I have heard that Hillarious Clinton told obama and biden she was going to push the Russian hoax.  So, again, nothings been true so far concerning Trump.  So why should we start believing now that's he's done something wrong?!

Uh, it’s true he is guilty of sexual assault and defamation.  The only investigations that have not gone to trial are congressional, not legal. It’s the court system now he had to account to. Not Jim Jordan and Ron Johnson and their ilk.

”I have heard”? What the hey is that worth?

[Unwoke]

6 hours ago, UT alum said:

Uh, it’s true he is guilty of sexual assault and defamation.  The only investigations that have not gone to trial are congressional, not legal. It’s the court system now he had to account to. Not Jim Jordan and Ron Johnson and their ilk.

”I have heard”? What the hey is that worth?

Release the recording of Trump boasting about the spurious secret doc and release the two audio tapes of Biden arranging payments from a Ukrainian official for favors that the FBI has had in its possession, then let the American people judge. 😃

[Unwoke]

13 hours ago, Unwoke said:

Release the recording of Trump boasting about the spurious secret doc and release the two audio tapes of Biden arranging payments from a Ukrainian official for favors that the FBI has had in its possession, then let the American people judge. 😃

Dang! I guess UT is speechless. 🤷‍♂️

[Unwoke]

We’ll said…

Your country has been stolen from you. 

Your government no longer even attempts to represent your interests at home or abroad.

Your elected officials despise you, and they are systematically stripping you of your liberties one by one. 

Your justice system no longer functions, it neither punishes the guilty nor protects the innocent.

Your country's entire economy only exists to enrich globalist corporations and their benefactors.

Your roads are crumbling, your bridges are collapsing, and your public infrastructure is slowly falling apart.

Your country's borders are non-existent and your immigration system only serves to provide fodder for endless spending bills that launder money from public programs to private pockets.

Your education system only exists as a propaganda tool to brainwash your children into becoming the next wave of rainbow shirt wearing government worshippers.

Your military is just an extension of globalist leader's wallets, securing a foothold in each new territory that they desire to drain of resourses.

Your free speech and your freedom of assembly are now just a shadow what they once were, and your right to self-defense is on the verge of being criminalized.

Your right to select and elect your leaders has been subverted to the point where it is no longer clear whether your vote even matters.

Your birthright has been stolen from you, and most people haven't even noticed.
 

- Carpe Donktum

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, Unwoke said:

Dang! I guess UT is speechless. 🤷‍♂️

UT alum believes biden has done no wrong.  He far more “corrupt” than Trump.  TDS has made fools out of a lot of people.

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, BS Wildcats said:

UT alum believes biden has done no wrong.  He far more “corrupt” than Trump.  TDS has made fools out of a lot of people.

Where is the proof of his corruption?

[UT alum]

3 hours ago, Unwoke said:

Dang! I guess UT is speechless. 🤷‍♂️

What FBI recordings? If this happened when he was VP, why didn’t Trump’s justice department mail him??? 

[BS Wildcats]

5 hours ago, UT alum said:

Where is the proof of his corruption?

Straight out his own mouth!  How much more proof do you need?

[Unwoke]

7 hours ago, UT alum said:

What FBI recordings? If this happened when he was VP, why didn’t Trump’s justice department mail him??? 

Trumps DOJ? Lol .  You mean Obama’s DOJ that was spying on Trump a submitting bogus fisa warrants to spy and making up fake Russian dossiers? 
 

Like I said. Release the recording of Trump boasting about the spurious secret doc and release the two audio tapes of Biden arranging payments from a Ukrainian official for favors that the FBI has had in its possession, then let the American people judge. 😃

You know the outcome. Your just playing stupid.

[Unwoke]

On 6/13/2023 at 9:07 AM, CardinalBacker said:

Well, this is going swimmingly.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I can't imagine why attorneys aren't just lining up to take Trump's case (and money) on a slam-dunk acquittal like y'all expect. 

 

Here’s your answer from one of the top constitutional attorneys in the country. Pull your head out of the sand. Read it slowly.

Why Donald Trump Cannot Get a Top-Tier Lawyer

by 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

June 15, 2023 at 5:00 am

• There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining the case is because they fear legal and career reprisals.

• There is a nefarious group that calls itself The 65 Project that has as its goal to intimidate lawyers into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers.

• I wrote an op-ed offering to defend pro bono any lawyers that The 65 Project goes after. So The 65 Project immediately went after me, and contrived a charge based on a case in which I was a constitutional consultant, but designed to send a message to potential Trump lawyers: If you defend Trump or anyone associated with him, we will target you and find something to charge you with. The lawyers to whom I spoke are fully aware of this threat -- and they are taking it seriously.... It may even be worse today....

• Good lawyers... generally welcome challenges, especially in high-profile cases. This case is different: the threats to the lawyers are greater than at any time since McCarthyism. Nor is the comparison to McCarthyism a stretch. I recall during the 1950s how civil liberties lawyers, many of whom despised communism, were cancelled, and attacked if they dared to represent people accused of being communists.

• Our system of justice is based on the John Adams standard: he too was attacked for defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre, but his representation of these accused killers now serves as a symbol of the 6th Amendment right to counsel. That symbol has now been endangered....

• Trump's lawyers have now alleged that one of the prosecutors has suggested to Stanley Woodward, the lawyer for Waltine Nauta, Trump's co-defendant, that his application for judgeship may be negatively affected if he persists in defending Nauta vigorously rather than encouraging him to cooperate against Trump. If that is true – and I have not seen the evidence to support it – then it represents a direct attack on the 6th Amendment.

• Whatever one may think of Trump or the charges against him, all Americans must stand united against efforts to intimidate lawyers and chill them from defending unpopular clients pursuant to the 6th Amendment. Bar associations must look into the threats and actions of The 65 Project and of prosecutors who try... to influence the representation of clients by threats to their careers or other means.

• Hard cases may make bad law but partisan cases endanger constitutional rights. We must do everything to assure that all defendants, including Donald Trump, get the zealous representation to which the Constitution entitled all Americans.

There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining to represent Former President Donald Trump is because they fear legal and career reprisals. We must do everything to assure that all defendants, including Trump, get the zealous representation to which the Constitution entitled all Americans. Pictured: Trump delivers remarks June 13, 2023 in Bedminster, New Jersey. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump has now been arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He was represented by two lawyers, neither of whom he apparently wants to lead his defense at trial. He has been interviewing Florida lawyers, and several top ones have declined. I know, because I have spoken to them. There are disturbing suggestions that among the reasons lawyers are declining the case is because they fear legal and career reprisals.

There is a nefarious group that calls itself 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 that has as its goal to 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 into not representing Trump or anyone associated with him. They have threatened to file bar charges against any such lawyers. When these threats first emerged, I wrote an op-ed offering to defend pro bono any lawyers that The 65 Project goes after. So The 65 Project immediately 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 me, and contrived a charge based on a case in which I was a constitutional consultant, but designed to send a message to potential Trump lawyers: if you defend Trump or anyone associated with him, we will target you and find something to charge you with. The lawyers to whom I spoke are fully aware of this threat -- and they are taking it seriously.

There may be other reasons as well for why lawyers are reluctant to defend Trump. He is not the easiest client, and he has turned against some of his previous lawyers, as some of his previous lawyers have turned against him. This will be a difficult case to defend and an unpopular one with many in the legal profession and in general population.

Good lawyers, however, generally welcome challenges, especially in high-profile cases. This case is different: the threats to the lawyers are greater than at any time since McCarthyism. Nor is the comparison to McCarthyism a stretch. I recall during the 1950s how civil liberties lawyers, many of whom despised communism, were cancelled, and attacked if they dared to represent people accused of being communists. Even civil liberties organizations stayed away from such cases, for fear that it would affect their fundraising and general standing in the community. It may even be worse today, as I can attest from my own personal experiences, having defended Trump against an unconstitutional impeachment in 2020. I was cancelled by my local library, community center and synagogue. Old friends refused to speak to me and threatened others who did. My wife, who disagreed with my decision to defend Trump, was also ostracized. There were physical threats to my safety.

Our system of justice is based on the John Adams standard: he too was attacked for defending the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre, but his representation of these accused killers now serves as a symbol of the 6th Amendment right to counsel. That symbol has now been endangered by The 65 Project and others who are participating in its McCarthyite chilling of lawyers who have been asked to represent Trump and those associated with him.

Trump's lawyers have now alleged that one of the prosecutors has suggested to Stanley Woodard, the lawyer for 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, Trump's co-defendant

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 that his application for judgeship may be 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 if he persists in defending Nauta vigorously rather than encouraging him to cooperate against Trump. If that is true – I have not seen the evidence to support it – then it represents a direct attack on the 6th Amendment.

Whatever one may think of Trump or the charges against him, all Americans must stand united against efforts to intimidate lawyers and chill them from defending unpopular clients pursuant to the 6th Amendment. Bar associations must look into the threats and actions of The 65 Project and of prosecutors who try, by subtle or other means, to influence the representation of clients by threats to their careers or other means.

Hard cases may make bad law, but partisan cases endanger constitutional rights. We must do everything to assure that all defendants, including Donald Trump, get the zealous representation to which the Constitution entitled all Americans.

 

[LumRaiderFan]

On 6/14/2023 at 6:59 AM, UT alum said:

He inherited an economy Obama rebuilt from Bush’s near destruction. More debt piled in his four years than any other. His tax policies gave a banquet to the billionaires, while the rest of us got a few crumbs. His immigration policy was one of brutality. He didn’t to jack to impede Xi or Putin. To Un he was just another Rodman. His environmental policies were a disaster, his leadership through the pandemic was pathetic. He fomented racism and xenophobia through his words and actions.The man is unfit for the office.

Biden’s infrastructure plan alone is more than Trump did in four years to give the working man a chance. Border crossings are a fraction of what they were. Our allies trust us again. He also treats the office with the respect it deserves.

I guess we have a different perspective of respect for the office.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[thetragichippy]

On 6/14/2023 at 3:54 PM, CardinalBacker said:

And there's a procedure that has to be followed so that all agencies know which information has been declassified.  A president can't just "think it" and a doc is declassified. 

This has yet to be proven. The procedures are not laws, so if not followed how are they crimes? If the constitution gives the President the single power to declassify anything with no instructions, why can't he declassify just by taking them home?  Trump will take this all the way to the Supreme Court.......The Supreme Court rules on constitutionality....... 

[CardinalBacker]

31 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

This has yet to be proven. The procedures are not laws, so if not followed how are they crimes? If the constitution gives the President the single power to declassify anything with no instructions, why can't he declassify just by taking them home?  Trump will take this all the way to the Supreme Court.......The Supreme Court rules on constitutionality....... 

Because it doesn't. That's not in the constitution.   There are a series of laws like the Presidential Records Act that are the laws pertaining to document handling... and Trump is accused of being in violation of that/those laws.  And you're right... if constitutionality is challenged, then so be it.  Isn't it funny how a few months ago y'all were all yelling "The Supreme Court can't legislate law!  That's the job of Congress! Roe v Wade was a mistake!"  And today when trumps orange bee-hind is on the line, y'all are like... "so what, Congress made a law... let's just see what the Supreme Court has to say about that!"

By your argument, Joe Biden could just think to himself  "you know, I, ummmm.... classifieds are hard, ya know.... " and POOF.... no more secrets, anywhere, period.  No classifieds, no top secret, no "for your eyes only> Because Joe Biden thought it.  

 

You're smarter than this argument.

[CardinalBacker]

46 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

This has yet to be proven. The procedures are not laws, so if not followed how are they crimes? If the constitution gives the President the single power to declassify anything with no instructions, why can't he declassify just by taking them home?  Trump will take this all the way to the Supreme Court.......The Supreme Court rules on constitutionality....... 

BECAUSE HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO TAKE THEM HOME. 
 

But I'll digress further.

 

1.  Trump was President... he had the authority to declassify lots of docs, but not all.

2.  When he was no longer President, his control over his records was gone.... not just classified... all. 

3.  He left with boxes of records, some of which are classified and of the most serious nature... this violated the Presidential Records Act.

4.  Trump met with a reporter and others, showed classified/top secret info to that person, and stated "yeah, I could have declassified these, but I didn't, and now I can't... but it proves blah blah blah."   This sure sounds like a violation of the Espionage Act to me. 

5.  The Feds get wind that Trump is showing top secret docs to reporters and asks that he return all records to the government per the Presidential Records Act.

6.  Trump says "i'll have my lawyer look at the records and return all of the top secret docs."

7.  Trump hides some of the top secret docs with the help of his valet, then has his attorneys look at the remainder of the docs... The attorneys return some top secret docs, then certify to the feds (based on Trump's misleading of them) that all of the top secrets have been returned.  

8.  The feds know that all of the top secrets have NOT been returned, because the ones that were shown to civilians weren't included in the ones given back by Trump's attorneys.

9.  The feds get a warrant, search Mir a Lago, and find boxes of top secret information scattered about.  

10.  Trump gets indicted for mishandling of the documents, showing them to civilians, lying to federal investigators, etc... and the attorneys that he misled (and potentially find themselves in trouble for lying to the feds) resign.

 

There is so much going wrong in the facts.  Trump wasn't supposed to have any records, much less top secret/classified information.  Period.  

Trump was showing that information to civilians for his own benefit, while confessing that those documents were classified, and he could no longer declassify them. That's hard to defend.

Trump lied to his attorneys and the feds about the existence of the documents that were later recovered at Mir A Lago.  Does anybody remember why Martha Stewart got locked up?  Here's a hint. "In her criminal case, she was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and lying to federal investigators."  Kinda sounds like what Trump is being accused of here, huh?

 

[thetragichippy]

44 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Because it doesn't. That's not in the constitution.   There are a series of laws like the Presidential Records Act that are the laws pertaining to document handling... and Trump is accused of being in violation of that/those laws.  And you're right... if constitutionality is challenged, then so be it.  Isn't it funny how a few months ago y'all were all yelling "The Supreme Court can't legislate law!  That's the job of Congress! Roe v Wade was a mistake!"  And today when trumps orange bee-hind is on the line, y'all are like... "so what, Congress made a law... let's just see what the Supreme Court has to say about that!"

By your argument, Joe Biden could just think to himself  "you know, I, ummmm.... classifieds are hard, ya know.... " and POOF.... no more secrets, anywhere, period.  No classifieds, no top secret, no "for your eyes only> Because Joe Biden thought it.  

 

You're smarter than this argument.

The American bar Association disagrees with you......

Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it. But as an 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 posted Oct. 17 explains, legal guidelines support his contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected, while they are in office.

As the new ABA Legal Fact Check notes, the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court.

 

I am smart enough to research what I talk about

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

The American bar Association disagrees with you......

Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it. But as an 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 posted Oct. 17 explains, legal guidelines support his contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected, while they are in office.

As the new ABA Legal Fact Check notes, the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court.

 

I am smart enough to research what I talk about

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

There's two situations here:

1) I believe a President must declassify documents while in office. I think this is obvious.

2) I think the "how" it can be done is universally thought to be ambiguous.  It is my understanding that Reagan declassified documents, or a document, while giving a speech.  So...

@CardinalBacker

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

The American bar Association disagrees with you......

Most national security legal experts dismissed the former president’s suggestion that he could declassify documents simply by thinking about it. But as an 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 posted Oct. 17 explains, legal guidelines support his contention that presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected, while they are in office.

As the new ABA Legal Fact Check notes, the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court.

 

I am smart enough to research what I talk about

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Honestly, I posted that link in this thread.... I read it, too. 

But the MOST is a pretty big one... because obviously not all of the 34 boxes of docs were classified-but some were, and some were of the highest secrecy. And he didn't declassify them, by his own admission, and there are some documents that even a President can't declassify formally, much less by doing his Swami impression... Does he wear a turban like Johnny Carson when he's declassifying docs in his mind?  And now you're arguing that Trump himself was wrong when he stated that he (Trump) hadn't (and no longer could) declassify the doc he was showing to the reporter? 

Your second thought is pure conjecture...

The fact that he hasn't yet been tried isn't proof of his innocence.  Your argument is "The law says this.... then I did the exact opposite of what the law requires... and even if I get convicted, it doesn't mean what I did is actually wrong because I haven't yet appealed all of the way to the Supreme Court."  Have fun in Leavenworth.