Trump Classified Documents Case Dismissed

[SmashMouth]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Interesting...

[LumRaiderFan]

One less witch hunt.

[tvc184]

DOJ unlawfully appointed special counsel against Trump.

DOJ unlawfully used federal law against several hundred J6 defendants with hundreds of cases dismissed.

Things that make you go hmmmm….

I was reading on CNN just now that… Trump claims this is political attacks but can’t produce evidence….

If the DOJ is making that many errors against average citizens, there are some big problems in the DOJ. 

[Reagan]

In her order, Cannon said Smith's appointment violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause and his use of a "permanent indefinite appropriation" violates the Appropriations Clause!!  More illegal activity from the JoeBama regime!!

[Separation Scientist]

SWAT type raid from weaponized DOJ at the break of dawn for Trump. 

Biden keeps boxes of same stored in open garage in plain view ... then NOTHING.  

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

DOJ unlawfully appointed special counsel against Trump.

DOJ unlawfully used federal law against several hundred J6 defendants with hundreds of cases dismissed.

Things that make you go hmmmm….

I was reading on CNN just now that… Trump claims this is political attacks but can’t produce evidence….

If the DOJ is making that many errors against average citizens, there are some big problems in the DOJ. 

Dis someone say "politically motivated lawfare"?

[CardinalBacker]

Meh… some judges go after trump and some give him a pass. 
 

It just proves that the judicial is biased, but biased towards who depends on the Judge. 
 

It’s no more surprising than the convictions in NY. 

[Separation Scientist]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Meh… some judges go after trump and some give him a pass. 

Its not a "meh", its not a traffic ticket issued to a nobody.

It is election interferance at the hightest level. The Presidency of the United States. 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

SWAT type raid from weaponized DOJ at the break of dawn for Trump. 

Biden keeps boxes of same stored in open garage in plain view ... then NOTHING.  

Well, he’s just a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. 

That is a quote from the prosecutor in the exact same kind of case as against Trump, the unauthorized removal of classified information.

 There is a difference however. As president had the authority to remove any documents or clear their classification. As VP, Biden had no such authority.

 This was when Biden was the VP 8 years ago. Was he just a well meaning old guy 8 years ago? How much worse is his “poor memory”?

Political? NO WAY!! 🤣🤣🤣

 

[tvc184]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

 

 

[SmashMouth]

20 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Well, he’s just a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. 

That is a quote from the prosecutor in the exact same kind of case as against Trump, the unauthorized removal of classified information.

 There is a difference however. As president had the authority to remove any documents or clear their classification. As VP, Biden had no such authority.

 This was when Biden was the VP 8 years ago. Was he just a well meaning old guy 8 years ago? How much worse is his “poor memory”?

Political? NO WAY!! 🤣🤣🤣

 

It was definitely political. But to be honest, both committed a crime. DJT didn't declassify those documents properly (or at all), and Biden didn't have the authority to declassify the documents in the first place.

From the American Bar Association:

"In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said."

Either neither or both should have been given their ceremonial "slap on the hand" because, after all, the ruling class follows a different set of riles than we do.

Turns out, they didn't even get that. Go figure.

 

[Reagan]

[CardinalBacker]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Dem Senator from NY convicted on corruption charges today.  IN NEW YORK.  Where they are supposedly biased and weaponized against Republicans.  A lie, apparently.  

Also notice how his Democrat colleagues are calling for Senator Menendez to step down... How very un-Republican of them. 

 

Both sides are corrupt, the Rs just can't see it from their own. 

The dems really are the good guys these days.

[tvc184]

13 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

It was definitely political. But to be honest, both committed a crime. DJT didn't declassify those documents properly (or at all), and Biden didn't have the authority to declassify the documents in the first place.

From the American Bar Association:

"In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said."

Either neither or both should have been given their ceremonial "slap on the hand" because, after all, the ruling class follows a different set of riles than we do.

Turns out, they didn't even get that. Go figure.

 

Okay.

No matter what, they should be treated the same. Not have one unlawfully indicted by an illegally appointed prosecutor and another given a pass due to age.

I don’t think the Times v. CIA says what you think or the ABA is referencing. That case has nothing to do with a president retaining classified information.

 The idea that the president has to follow some kind of consent or law from Congress seems blatantly unconstitutional. The president as commander-in-chief and the head of the Executive Branch has sole authority and discretion over papers. Congress doesn’t grant him that authority, the Constitution does. 

In Times, the newspaper is claiming to want to see classified documents that may or may not exist. Trump made a tweet where he may or may not have referenced a covert CIA program and the Times claimed that for the purpose of FOIA, that was a de facto de-classification.

 That is ludicrous and the Second Circuit agreed. 

As far as Congress giving the president hoops to jump through to himself to do what he wants with papers, that is unconstitutional (in my opinion) in the separation of powers. Congress doesn’t give permission for the president to run the Executive Branch or to be the commander-in-chief. Those are constitutional and cannot be removed or altered by Congress.

 That is a constitutional separation of powers issue. 

An example was during the first Trump impeachment. Some Republicans were verbally calling for the whole thing to be shut down by the Supreme Court.  Even if Trump did what was claimed, it didn’t rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors”. After all, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was to sit as the judge at the Senate trial. 

Chief Justice Roberts responded by making a comment. Neither he nor the Supreme Court could interfere in any manner. It would be unconstitutional under the separation of powers. 

The Constitution says that the House of Representatives has the sole authority to issue an impeachment and does not define high crimes and misdemeanors. Since there is no definition and the House alone can impeach, the House can do as it wishes for whatever reason it wishes.

The Constitution then says that the Senate shall hold a trial and determine the issue. There is nothing for the Supreme Court to determine as it is a constitutional separation of powers.

Due to that separation, there are some things that no branch can control over another. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, for example, Congress cannot vote to overrule that decision. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. If the Speaker of the House won’t bring something up for a vote, the president can’t order the Speaker to do so. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. 

 By the same reasoning, can the president have complete discretion over documents…. if he gets permission from Congress by following their rules? Uhhhh…. no.

For everyone else (as in Times v. CIA), yes they need proof of declassification because THEY don’t have executive authority. They can’t just say, well … the president mentioned it in the hallway. Congress can absolutely set rules on when members of the government can release or determine if the president has declassified something.

So the Times v. CIA settles nothing. Does the “formal procedure” apply to the president? At the very least, the separation of powers on classified documents is yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

Biden has no such authority to fall back on or to be answered by the Supreme Court. 

[tvc184]

10 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Dem Senator from NY convicted on corruption charges today.  IN NEW YORK.  Where they are supposedly biased and weaponized against Republicans.  A lie, apparently.  

Also notice how his Democrat colleagues are calling for Senator Menendez to step down... How very un-Republican of them. 

 

Both sides are corrupt, the Rs just can't see it from their own. 

The dems really are the good guys these days.

You are adding 3 plus 3 and trying for apples and oranges.

Are you suggesting there is a Menendez Derangement Syndrome?

Or perhaps people in NY don’t exactly feel warm and fuzzy about people from New Jersey?

 

[SmashMouth]

5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Okay.

No matter what, they should be treated the same. Not have one unlawfully indicted by an illegally appointed prosecutor and another given a pass due to age.

I don’t think the Times v. CIA says what you think or the ABA is referencing. That case has nothing to do with a president retaining classified information.

 The idea that the president has to follow some kind of consent or law from Congress seems blatantly unconstitutional. The president as commander-in-chief and the head of the Executive Branch has sole authority and discretion over papers. Congress doesn’t grant him that authority, the Constitution does. 

In Times, the newspaper is claiming to want to see classified documents that may or may not exist. Trump made a tweet where he may or may not have referenced a covert CIA program and the Times claimed that for the purpose of FOIA, that was a de facto de-classification.

 That is ludicrous and the Second Circuit agreed. 

As far as Congress giving the president hoops to jump through to himself to do what he wants with papers, that is unconstitutional (in my opinion) in the separation of powers. Congress doesn’t give permission for the president to run the Executive Branch or to be the commander-in-chief. Those are constitutional and cannot be removed or altered by Congress.

 That is a constitutional separation of powers issue. 

An example was during the first Trump impeachment. Some Republicans were verbally calling for the whole thing to be shut down by the Supreme Court.  Even if Trump did what was claimed, it didn’t rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors”. After all, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was to sit as the judge at the Senate trial. 

Chief Justice Roberts responded by making a comment. Neither he nor the Supreme Court could interfere in any manner. It would be unconstitutional under the separation of powers. 

The Constitution says that the House of Representatives has the sole authority to issue an impeachment and does not define high crimes and misdemeanors. Since there is no definition and the House alone can impeach, the House can do as it wishes for whatever reason it wishes.

The Constitution then says that the Senate shall hold a trial and determine the issue. There is nothing for the Supreme Court to determine as it is a constitutional separation of powers.

Due to that separation, there are some things that no branch can control over another. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, for example, Congress cannot vote to overrule that decision. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. If the Speaker of the House won’t bring something up for a vote, the president can’t order the Speaker to do so. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. 

 By the same reasoning, can the president have complete discretion over documents…. if he gets permission from Congress by following their rules? Uhhhh…. no.

For everyone else (as in Times v. CIA), yes they need proof of declassification because THEY don’t have executive authority. They can’t just say, well … the president mentioned it in the hallway. Congress can absolutely set rules on when members of the government can release or determine if the president has declassified something.

So the Times v. CIA settles nothing. Does the “formal procedure” apply to the president? At the very least, the separation of powers on classified documents is yet to be determined by the Supreme Court.

Biden has no such authority to fall back on or to be answered by the Supreme Court. 

I said the same thing you did at the start. They should’ve been treated the same. One of the last things you said also resonates - the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the matter yet. Until that time everything else is a matter of opinion. 

[CardinalBacker]

24 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

I said the same thing you did at the start. They should’ve been treated the same. One of the last things you said also resonates - the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the matter yet. Until that time everything else is a matter of opinion. 

I love the way that no court’s opinion means a thing until the 6-3 Supreme Court weighs in on it. Or at least that’s the way that the Rs feel these days. 
 

“Oh, yeah? That conviction don’t mean _____ until the Supreme Court hears it.”

 

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. We WILL see an activist, leftist court shortly, and y’all aren’t going to like the way that tastes.  
 

#makecourtsimpartial

 

[baddog]

I bet if the Supreme Court decision was all some people had left, they’d change their tune so quick it would make your head spin. So easy to arm chair QB everything while always saying “ that’s not my fault”.

[LumRaiderFan]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I love the way that no court’s opinion means a thing until the 6-3 Supreme Court weighs in on it. Or at least that’s the way that the Rs feel these days. 
 

“Oh, yeah? That conviction don’t mean _____ until the Supreme Court hears it.”

 

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. We WILL see an activist, leftist court shortly, and y’all aren’t going to like the way that tastes.  
 

#makecourtsimpartial

 

You are so far from knowing what Rs feel, and you claim you were one.

Lots or Rs feel the SC gets it wrong most of the time, they’re nothing more than the highest partisan court in the land.

You keep posting the brilliant political analysis though, it’s enjoyable.

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

I said the same thing you did at the start. They should’ve been treated the same. One of the last things you said also resonates - the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the matter yet. Until that time everything else is a matter of opinion. 

Yes they should be treated the same… assuming that they committed the same crime.

I then put forth my belief based on Supreme Court cases, why it is not the same case.

It is true that the Supreme Court has not (to my knowledge) weighed in on this issue. 

You assessment after reading an opinion (great research) was that “both committed a crime”.

Until the Supreme Court rules or rejects an appeal on the separation of powers in this situation, it isn’t known “if” Trump committed a crime (remembering the recent ruling on immunity) but I am not sure how that same case can be made for Biden. He was not the constitutional head of the Executive Branch and the commander-in-chief when he took classified documents. 

[tvc184]

This video popped up on Youtube.

I don’t watch television except some sport but see bits hit the Youtube analogs.

 The only thing about this video is after almost four years in office, Biden now wants drastic changes!! Then Megyn Kelly said, he can’t do that under separation of powers….

I agree Megyn  😎

 

 

 

 

 

[tvc184]

On a side note that I just realized, he wants to limit Supreme Court justices to term limits which requires a constitutional amendment but never suggested term limits for Congress which is by simple vote.