All the "classified documents" garbage was started by Biden

Was it OK for Biden to do this?

  • Yes, because he needed that stuff

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Yes, because fuck the bad Orange Man

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, this is an outrage

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • No, this is some Stalinist crap

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • pineapple

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • I think Doc Dutch needs a straightjacket

    Votes: 3 60.0%

  • I like ancohovies on pizza

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Total voters
    5
Concart said:
The National Archives, you stupid fuck.
Click to expand...

They had no right to.

The president designates what's personal and what goes into NARA records for FOIA, not the other way around.

Now, the incumbent president can say he needs the former president's documents to do his job properly, which was never done before,

and that was the loophole they exploited for this "documents" kerfluffle.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Just more lefty hypocrisy they have proven they won't pay attention to and will ignore the timeline of. While he was playing that card, he told us that there is "no possible way it should be there", etc. he had SCI information right next to his car, for over four years, shoot he had decades and decades of classified info just lying about his house from times where he had no reasonable way to have the information lying about his house as it was illegal to take it from the SCIF that would be the only place he had access to it.

"They were locked in my garage, so it's not like they were out in the street." was his excuse, this was info from the Obama administration, so sitting there for some time with no secret service or anything. Just in the garage, where his drug addled son and pretty much anyone could get to it. Unlike say, the last President's home that actually does have locked doors and secret service guarding it and it wasn't like that info was "out in the street"...

LOL.

Hypocrite much, Brandon?

It went from being "beyond irresponsible" to suddenly, "Well I reported it immediately"... Except you didn't. Some of that stuff was nearly 50 years old, classified information that was sitting in his house from the frickin' 70s.
Click to expand...

Things he shouldn't have had because he was a Senator.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Things he shouldn't have had because he was a Senator.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is illegal for a Senator to remove the information from the SCIF, yet he scattered it about as if it didn't matter to him, just another bookmark... illegally obtained and stored classified info, just sitting about the house. But it was "beyond irresponsible" for a former president to have information that the law gives him a certain amount of time to go through to determine what is personal and what is not, and somehow not "beyond irresponsible" for a Senator to scatter about his house as if it were decorative pieces selected for their appearance.
 
Matt Dillon said:
They had no right to.

The president designates what's personal and what goes into NARA records for FOIA, not the other way around.

Now, the incumbent president can say he needs the former president's documents to do his job properly, which was never done before,

and the loophole they exploited for this "documents" kerfluffle.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. I don't give a fuck about your uneducated opinion. I stated a fact. They asked for records. Trump returned fifteen boxes and kept way more. Then a lawfully issued subpoena was served, and Trump tried to hide those documents. Why are you hiding something that belongs to you? Is Trump stupid? Do you hide your little tin badge from people? How about your stick pony? Or your tiny little cowboy hat?
 
Concart said:
Yes, they did. I don't give a fuck about your uneducated opinion. I stated a fact. They asked for records. Trump returned fifteen boxes and kept way more. Then a lawfully issued subpoena was served, and Trump tried to hide those documents. Why are you hiding something that belongs to you? Is Trump stupid? Do you hide your little tin badge from people? How about your stick pony? Or your tiny little cowboy hat?
Click to expand...

Why do you hide a big black dildo up your ass?

Why ask why? Bud Dry.


Here's the thing, Cuntfart. Trump was well within his rights to not listen to NARA, but the president does have the right to request documents from the former

president, so Biden's administration instigated that (which has never happened before, ever) in order to get the whole documents kerfluffle rolling downhill, on purpose.

Biden didn't need Trump's stuff, he needed to request it like he did in order for Trump having his own stuff to start being illegal.

I doubt Biden even did that personally, certain that his puppetmasters did. Not that he wouldn't if he was still cognizant, he's that crooked, but his cognizant ship sailed years

ago.
 
Last edited:
Concart said:
Dude, why are you obsessed with dildos? What a sick fuck you must be. Maybe you should try a different website. I'm sure there are videos that can get you off.
Click to expand...
dr-cox-giggling.gif



And miss bitchsmacking you with facts? Hah! I find it enjoyable. :D
 
Matt Dillon said:
Onnnk! Your drivel is proven incorrect by the OP link. Idjit.
Click to expand...

No, he is correct, no where in your link does it say President Biden demanded the files, in fact, in eighteen pages, Biden’s name is mentioned once, and only in terms of him delegating any concern to the Justice Dept
 
archives said:
No, he is correct, no where in your link does it say President Biden demanded the files, in fact, in eighteen pages, Biden’s name is mentioned once, and only in terms of him delegating any concern to the Justice Dept
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. He literally posted a document that proves his OP is a lie. And then switches the topic to dildos. He is one weird motherfucker. And stupid.
 
archives said:
No, he is correct, no where in your link does it say President Biden demanded the files, in fact, in eighteen pages, Biden’s name is mentioned once, and only in terms of him delegating any concern to the Justice Dept
Click to expand...

"Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question ,
as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_7.pdf

Who's the incumbent president on May 12, 2022, Anchovies?

FYI, it's the last sentence right above the last paragraph on page 9 of 18. :rolleyes:
 
Matt Dillon said:
"Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question ,
as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_7.pdf

Who's the incumbent president, Anchovies?

FYI, it's the last sentence right above the last paragraph on page 9 of 18. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported "protective asse1tion of executive privilege." See 36 C.F.R. § l 270.44(f)(3). Accordingly, I have consulted with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to inform my "determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege." Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a). "

Aren't you late for your remedial reading class? Or is it the anger management class you are later for?
 
Concart said:
"The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported "protective asse1tion of executive privilege." See 36 C.F.R. § l 270.44(f)(3). Accordingly, I have consulted with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to inform my "determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege." Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a). "

Aren't you late for your remedial reading class? Or is it the anger management class you are later for?
Click to expand...

You need to bone up on comprehension a little bit more. Ofc, at this late stage in the game, it's probably not going to happen for you.

Your snippet of the judge's opinion is irrelevant to the OP claim.

434.jpg
 
Concart said:
"The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported "protective asse1tion of executive privilege." See 36 C.F.R. § l 270.44(f)(3). Accordingly, I have consulted with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to inform my "determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege." Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a). "

Aren't you late for your remedial reading class? Or is it the anger management class you are later for?
Click to expand...

Forget it, once they step in it, they’ll never admit it
 
Concart said:
Especially this guy. He hasn't had an independent thought in...... well probably never.
Click to expand...

Projection! :awesome:

Hey, you ever wonder why I use real documentation instead of propaganda links most of the time, fucktard?

Of course you didn't. Now go post some DailyKos shit and and fuck off! :fu:

Too bad you goobers can't dispute the source, huh? :laugh:
 
Matt Dillon said:
Projection! :awesome:

Hey, you ever wonder why I use real documentation instead of propaganda links most of the time, fucktard?

Of course you didn't. Now go post some DailyKos shit and and fuck off! :fu:
Click to expand...

If you can find one post where I linked to a Daily KOS article, I will leave the site.
 
Concart said:
If you can find one post where I linked to a Daily KOS article, I will leave the site.
Click to expand...

I'll give you you probably haven't. CNN or MSNBC then. :tongout:

I'll use a CNN link from time to time, not for anything serious, though.

"Leaving Site" seems to be a recurring theme with you. What's up with that? :dunno:
 
Matt Dillon said:
It's within the law for the president to keep anything he deems his.
Click to expand...

this is all we need to see from the TS as he is making the most stupid of stupid arguments that you will never see a Trump lawyer argue in court EVER.


the above is absolutely false and nothing in the law supports it. the PRA explicitly says that is not true. the espionage act and others criminalize what Trump did proving it is not true.

But dersp gonna derp and keep on repeating derp stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top