rattlesnake

DNC supporters are in no position to lecture about violence or election denial. The useless Mueller investigation into "Russian collusion" wasted 32 million dollars and two years of valuable time/ressources. Not to mention the impeachment of Trump for alleged "abuse of power" in which he was acquitted.

Did you miss the video I posted earlier in this thread regarding violence?

I've got nothing I can post here, but from what I have seen on my loony plan-trusting conspiracy sites, things are looking pretty good.

Yes, let's see how this isolated audio clip and the 37 charges actually play out.

That's not the impression he gave in his Bedminster speech, he was in top form. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/13/trump-new-jersey-speech-after-arraignment

Again, let's see how this unfolds in Court and if the 37 charges actually hold any water beyond the media hysteria.

I think you and I do not live in the same reality. When Trump makes it back into the White House, please do not scream or break anything.

What are you talking about?

Let's leave my IQ out of this.

I'll let the former Secretary of Defence chief of staff explain it to you: "All previously classified documents have classification markings on them, it shows they used to be classified." https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/trump-associates-stated-plan-to-publicly-release-declassified-documents/

"Your previous claim: "My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA. Still waiting for you to back that up?" I am claiming he was allowed to retain the documents because they are not classified but "contain classified markings" based on what I have read. I also believe the media are portraying things in a way which is purposely unfavourable to Trump. I am giving my strictly personal opinion, inferences and interpretations based on original documents which I have linked above. I know you disagree with me, what I am telling you is that time will tell, and if I am wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

Why are you assuming I have not read the indictment?

Let me make it clearer for you. The question is about the nature of the documents, despite the way the news is portraying it. The national archivists gave sworn testimony to Congress about the Trump documents on May 17 2023: https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1219 The National Archives and the DOJ did not request a return of Classified Documents. They requested a return of documents containing classification markings. These are two entirely different things. Most documents with classification markings are not classified documents. Let's look at testimony of the national archivist office: During testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials were asked specifically about Trump documents and how they knew a complete return of documents had not taken place. The response from the NARA officials is quite enlightening: Source pdf, testimony transcript – pages 43 and 44: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/3.1.23_nara_briefing_transcript.pdf The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” which is very dubious and obtuse wording intended to imply something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists: Source, page 41: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000 There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. When a document is declassified, the markings are not removed. I'm telling you that indictment is going nowhere, despite what the news outlets are repeating over and over again, and we will have to wait for further Court proceedings for confirmation of that.

Violations of the Presidential Records Act are rarely prosecuted indeed. That doesn't mean it can't be done, and Smith certainly would if he thought he had a chance. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explainer-doj-probes-draw-attention-presidential-records-act/story?id=96417220

If Smith could prosecute under the PRA, he would. Let's leave the biased news outlets aside and see what actually happens in Court.

If you were right, Smith would use the PRA to prosecute instead of requalifying the documents to make them fit under the Espionage Act, which wasn't even designed for this type of case. Now all is left to do is see how the proceedings unfold.

My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA. The DoJ and Smith redefined the documents as documents of “national security interest” according to their legal intent. But Congress did not specify that the Espionage Act superseded the PRA when they enacted it. If the Espionage Act means Presidents can’t retain classified documents, then the PRA is meaningless. In a nutshell: Trump was allowed to retain these documents and changing their definition to make them fit under a prior, non-superseding act is legally invalid. They might fine him on minor stuff though, such as obstructing access etc., hence my earlier reference to a slap on the wrist. We will know soon enough anyway.

But in this case the Presidential Records Act supersedes the Espionage Act, which is much older. It will become immediately apparent that the DoJ and Special Counsel Smith redefined the Mar-a-Lago documents so that the Espionage Act applies to them, in an attempt to turn a non-crime into a crime. That case holds no water.

The indictment does not mention the Presidential Records Act, which gives a President access to documents, both classified and unclassified, once he leaves office. It also allows for good-faith negotiation with the National Archives. Yet the indictment assumes that Trump had no right to take classified documents. That assumption is false. "Trump is not charged with violating the Presidential Records Act, which has no enforcement mechanism." "Prosecutors are not relying on the PRA to bring charges against Trump. He is instead charged with retaining national defense information under a different law known as the Espionage Act, a 1917 statute that has been used to prosecute other high-profile cases related to the retention or dissemination of classified information." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-presidential-records-act-indictment-arraignment/

I stand corrected on the terminology, thank you.

Despite what has been repeatedly claimed, the indictment is not about classified documents. Trump is not being charged with the mishandling of classified documents. They are using a 100-year old law, the Espionage Act, and have requalified the documents as "national defence information" in order to make that WWI statute apply to Trump. The reason they are trying to do that is because they know that under the Presidential Records Act, the President did not commit a chargeable offence. I'm telling you, this is going nowhere. We can pick up this conversation once the case is closed. And just FYI, a document "with classified markings" means it is no longer classified, i.e. it has been declassified. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-indictment-unsealed-classified-documents-b2354885.html

Yes I have. I was talking about the Carroll case, as you know: not guilty of rape, "liable for battery and defamation", 5 million and off you go = slap on the wrist.

If I am proven wrong, I will say "I was wrong". I think the serious charges hold no water. Maybe he will get a slap on the wrist like the last time he was indicted.

What will you say if he's acquitted?

"Before, they were busy denying that COVID was/is killing people. Now they're evolved to deny that the COVID vaccines saved many millions of lives... " Both are not mutually exclusive. In fact they go pretty well together.