"No such law exists"

[RB 60]

What a stupid analogy, but then we must consider its source. lol



Sorry, Cindy, but most normal people with ethics dislike thieves, liars, crooks, corruption, treason, cheating, and cruelty. You Reichwingers, on the other hand, only see those negatives when you can attach them to a (D).

Doesn't matter what we would have wanted; if the DOJ/National Archives had been able to retrieve all the materials that #TRE45ON illegally possessed, there would have been no indictment. Just like there were no charges against either former VP Pence or Pres. Biden.

Considering the source of the above post is like considering eating carp.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

But refused to return them!

Returning them has nothing to do with the law.

Show me in any law where it says you must return documents after you take them.

It doesn't.

The law says only that you shouldn't take them.

Now if you are going to press charges against Trump in a court of law you kinda have to use the law.

Like I said, if Trump broke the law then so did Biden.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No, not only one thing matters and since i predicted you would be too stupid to understand this post, i will just copy and paste and let you read it again.

Trump hasn't been sentenced yet.

We are talking about a case heading to court.

You can't let one person not be charged for breaking the same law and then turn around and charge another.

Sentencing is a different story.

If you are charging Trump you need to charge Biden also.

 

[Phantasmal]

I doubt it will even get that far after they move for dismissal during pre-trial.

Comedy Gold! This will not age well.

 

[Phantasmal]

Just more stupidity and lies from you again.

There is NO LAW that says that.

The law specifically says all government doc's whether classified or not are the property of the government and not the POTUS and must be turned over to NARA when a POTUS leaves office.

The only exception are the well defined documents listed in the Presidential records act which are his 'personal writings, diaries, or memoires' which he can allow NARA to assess and then gets to keep them, if NARA agrees.

And we know there are no personal writings from Trump.

 

[Phantasmal]

The supreme court already ruled in the Clinton case that a president is allowed to keep any documents they acquired during their presidency.

You really think they are going to make different rulings for different presidents?

Those were personal recordings. It’s why the SC ruled in Clinton’s favor.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Those were personal recordings. It’s why the SC ruled in Clinton’s favor.

Their decisions didn't reference personal recordings.

It said the president had the right to keep personal records they acquired while in office whether they be recordings, pieces of paper or video or anything else.

It didn't specify only recordings. Here is their basic summary saying that NARA has no right to determine what is a presidential record.

The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.

https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

So what the Supreme Court said that if a president declares something a personal record that NARA has zero say in the matter and the president can keep it.

This is why he is being tried under the espionage act, which doesn't even actually apply in this case, instead of the Presidential Records Act because they know they have no case under that.

This whole thing will be dismissed as it's a joke.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

He murders the neighbors pets! He's gone to burn in Hell!

If hell actually existed, he probably would for doing that.

 

[Margot]

Returning them has nothing to do with the law.

Show me in any law where it says you must return documents after you take them.

It doesn't.

The law says only that you shouldn't take them.

Now if you are going to press charges against Trump in a court of law you kinda have to use the law.

Like I said, if Trump broke the law then so did Biden.

Apples and oranges

 

[Margot]

If hell actually existed, he probably would for doing that.

There is a Hell! It's a place where Auschwitz could exist!

 

[NiftyNiblick]

There is a Hell! It's a place where Auschwitz could exist!

The problem with the concept of hell is this:

Eternity is an infinitely long time.

How would it be possible to merit eternal damnation with malfeasance over the course of a short, finite lifetime?

If Adolph Hitler burned 1000 years for every person he had or caused to be killed,
he would eventually be done paying for his hideous crimes.

Hell defies logic, and logic is why I'm an atheist.

 

[QP!]

The supreme court already ruled in the Clinton case that a president is allowed to keep any documents they acquired during their presidency.

You really think they are going to make different rulings for different presidents?

Those were personal recordings. It’s why the SC ruled in Clinton’s favor.

Yup.

Just another continual lie in the string of lies by Tinker.


The "Socks case" was litigation by Tom Fitton demanding to get Bill Clintons memoire recordings that he stored in his socks drawer.

Tom argued since Clinton recorded them while he was POTUS they therefore were work product and thus government records, and not personal, and he wanted access to the under FOIA.

The court ruled that they were not government doc's and they clarified in law that things like Memoires and Diaries and Private writings would not be considered gov't docs and could be kept personally by the POTUS.


There was no notice that the POTUS could declare anything personal. It defined what WAS personal. It also clarified what was NEVER personal,a nd those were gov't doc's, Classified doc's and Top secret doc's.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

And we know there are no personal writings from Trump.

Except for a cocktail napkin with a stripper's phone # on it, written in lipstick. lol

 

[QP!]

Trump hasn't been sentenced yet.

We are talking about a case heading to court.

You can't let one person not be charged for breaking the same law and then turn around and charge another.

Sentencing is a different story.

If you are charging Trump you need to charge Biden also.

More stupidity by you in repeating the same thing over and over.


When a law is broken and PRIOR to charges the ENTIRE HISTORY of US and world law is that people DO get treated differently based on how they engage with police, prosecutors and the Courts.


things like Admissions (admitting guilt) and Cooperation (giving back or informing on others), have ALWAYS been mitigating factors that could see LESSER or NO charges while the person who fought everything would get the maximum charges (book thrown at them).


So you are again just telling a complete lie as there is no history in America or around the world of what you say.

 

[QP!]

Their decisions didn't reference personal recordings.

It said the president had the right to keep personal records they acquired while in office whether they be recordings, pieces of paper or video or anything else.

It didn't specify only recordings. Here is their basic summary saying that NARA has no right to determine what is a presidential record.



https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

So what the Supreme Court said that if a president declares something a personal record that NARA has zero say in the matter and the president can keep it.

This is why he is being tried under the espionage act, which doesn't even actually apply in this case, instead of the Presidential Records Act because they know they have no case under that.

This whole thing will be dismissed as it's a joke.

More lies by you. Nothing in the ruling you cite says "if a president declares something personal records NARA has zero say in the matter and the president can keep it..."

You completely made that up and added it where it does not exist.

Others have quoted to you when you repeat this lie that the PRA, Trump always cites says exactly the opposite, It DEFINES what can be called a personal record, and does not leave that for a POTUS to determine. It also defines what can NEVER be called a personal record (gov't docs, classified docs, top secret doc's) and those must ALWAYS be given back to NARA, the day after the POTUS leaves office.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Except for a cocktail napkin with a stripper's phone # on it, written in lipstick. lol

True Story. For the purpose of the discussion, we'll call my son Joey.

I was walking my beagle at the beach.
This particular dog had an unusual habit.
He liked to walk his entire walk going outbound.

When he was finally tired, he just plopped down wherever we happened to be,
and look up to indicate that it was time to call for a ride home.

I don't know what he'd have done before cell phones
or if there were nobody to call for a ride.

Anyway, we were at the beach and he walked more than three miles
and then stopped right in front of a strip club called Tens [as in perfect 10].

I knew that my son was at the house and called him for a ride.
Two of the dancers were outside in front of the club, having a cigarette and covered with light raincoats
over God knows what.. if anything.

They liked the dog and struck up a conversation.

Then my son arrived [this was several years back, of course].

One of the girls said, "Hey, isn't that Joey's Mustang?"
When the car pulled up to the curb, the other girl said,
"Joey, is this your dog and your dad?"

And yet, despite this, 23 and Me insists that he's really my son.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

More lies by you. Nothing in the ruling you cite says "if a president declares something personal records NARA has zero say in the matter and the president can keep it..."

You completely made that up and added it where it does not exist.

Others have quoted to you when you repeat this lie that the PRA, Trump always cites says exactly the opposite, It DEFINES what can be called a personal record, and does not leave that for a POTUS to determine. It also defines what can NEVER be called a personal record (gov't docs, classified docs, top secret doc's) and those must ALWAYS be given back to NARA, the day after the POTUS leaves office.

I just quot

 

[Tinkerpeach]

More lies by you. Nothing in the ruling you cite says "if a president declares something personal records NARA has zero say in the matter and the president can keep it..."

You completely made that up and added it where it does not exist.

Others have quoted to you when you repeat this lie that the PRA, Trump always cites says exactly the opposite, It DEFINES what can be called a personal record, and does not leave that for a POTUS to determine. It also defines what can NEVER be called a personal record (gov't docs, classified docs, top secret doc's) and those must ALWAYS be given back to NARA, the day after the POTUS leaves office.

I just quoted you the ruling where the Supreme Court said that NARA cannot dictate what a president declares a personal record.

it's right there.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

More stupidity by you in repeating the same thing over and over.


When a law is broken and PRIOR to charges the ENTIRE HISTORY of US and world law is that people DO get treated differently based on how they engage with police, prosecutors and the Courts.


things like Admissions (admitting guilt) and Cooperation (giving back or informing on others), have ALWAYS been mitigating factors that could see LESSER or NO charges while the person who fought everything would get the maximum charges (book thrown at them).


So you are again just telling a complete lie as there is no history in America or around the world of what you say.

No, those are called plea deals after charges have been filed.

Nobody get's escape from actually committing the crime.

So why wasn't Biden charged since he broke the law?

 

[QP!]

I just quoted you the ruling where the Supreme Court said that NARA cannot dictate what a president declares a personal record.

it's right there.

LIES.


You are lying about what it says.


There are CLEAR definitions as to what ARE and ARE NOT presidential records. Diaries and Memoires are NOT.

What the Court is saying there is in response to that idiot Tom Fitton suing to demand that NARA declare Clintons Memoires Presidential records, as work product he created while in office, so he can get them under FOIA.

The Court is saying there 'NARA cannot simply declare Memoires or Diaries as personal records, since by definition they are not and thus we are dismissing this case'.

Be less stupid.