Special counsel blasts judge’s jury instruction request in Trump documents case

[candide]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They like Biden and don't like Trump.

And you like trolling! 😁

[candide]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Trump claimed that the PRA allowed him to keep those documents.  Right or wrong, if this were any other former president, or if Trump wasn't a candidate, or this wasn't an election season, the issue would have been settled in a flurry of court battles with no charges being filed.

 

A conspiracy theory again! 😁

[candide]

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Still, they started with the name and went looking for the charges.

 

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that they empaneled quite a few secret grand juries to find one that would hand down the indictments.  Of course, we'll never know because that's the way grand juries work.  And not so strangely, it appears that all of those grand juries were in Blue areas.  Imagine the bragging rights for the lefties to claim they helped stop Trump and elect Biden.

 

No. Trump started by refusing to give documents back. If he had just given back the documents when asked by NARA, there would likely have been no trial.

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

No. Trump started by refusing to give documents back. If he had just given back the documents when asked by NARA, there would likely have been no trial.

 

This isn't the first time in history that the former president and the NARA disagreed.  Just the first time that a former president was charged with a crime.

 

And how 'bout that timing?  Over 3 years later and right in the middle of election season.  Nothing suspicious there...

 

Edited April 5 by impulse

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They like Biden and don't like Trump.

Your inability to distinguish between the Biden and Trump cases is a cognitive issue on your part.

 

I would take you through the differences, but you would forget everything the next day.

 

Let me ask you a question: why did Trump try to hide the classified documents at Mar-A-Lago?

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

This isn't the first time in history that the former president and the NARA disagreed.  Just the first time that a former president was charged with a crime.

 

And how 'bout that timing?  Over 3 years later and right in the middle of election season.  Nothing suspicious there...

 

NARA asked for the documents back in 2021. A subpeona was issued in 2022.

 

Is that suspicious to you?

 

How long should the government have waited to indict Trump after he violated the subpeona? 5 minutes?

 

How long for grand jury deliberations?

 

What if Trump had been indicted, convicted and in jail now? Would that have been suspicious?

Edited April 5 by Danderman123

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I would take you through the differences, but you would forget everything the next day.

 

I'll break it down.  Trump had a reasonable argument that, as president, he had the right to take documents with him when he left office.  That's the PRA.  Biden, as a former senator, had no such argument, nor a reasonable one as VP.

 

 

[candide]

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

This isn't the first time in history that the former president and the NARA disagreed.  Just the first time that a former president was charged with a crime.

 

And how 'bout that timing?  Over 3 years later and right in the middle of election season.  Nothing suspicious there...

 

Certainly the first time a former President hid PR and lied about it.

 

A conspiracy, once more! 😁

Nothing suspicious bout the timing: NARA was too kind to wait one year before notifying the DOJ + Haven't you noticed Trumps numerous initiatives to delay the trial?

[candide]

8 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'll break it down.  Trump had a reasonable argument that, as president, he had the right to take documents with him when he left office.  That's the PRA.  Biden, as a former senator, had no such argument, nor a reasonable one as VP.

 

 

You are making up stuff again. The PRA doesn't allow a former President to take PR with him when he leaves office.

[frank83628]

the double standards and hypocrisy from you guys is off the charts!

 

[Danderman123]

46 minutes ago, impulse said:

 That's the PRA.  Biden, as a former senator, had no such argument, nor a reasonable one as VP.

 

 

Do you understand that the president and vice-president are treated the same under the PRA?

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, frank83628 said:

the double standards and hypocrisy from you guys is off the charts!

 

Says the bloke on a one way street...............

[Danderman123]

48 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'll break it down.  Trump had a reasonable argument that, as president, he had the right to take documents with him when he left office.  That's the PRA.  

 

 

Is there some part of this you don't understand:

 

"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."

 

Seriously, if you can't understand this, you need to get help.

 

The next time you lie about the PRA, please include the text I posted, so people understand that you are confused.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

This isn't the first time in history that the former president and the NARA disagreed.  Just the first time that a former president was charged with a crime.

 

And how 'bout that timing?  Over 3 years later and right in the middle of election season.  Nothing suspicious there...

 

The indictments were handed down last year.

 

Trump has actively delayed the trials, they could have been over and done with but for his ‘delaying tactics’.

[candide]

29 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

the double standards and hypocrisy from you guys is off the charts!

 

Unlike Trump and Trumpers, "we" don't make up what laws may be.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."

 

Seriously, if you can't understand this, you need to get help.

 

The issue is whether the act of taking the records is sufficient to convert them from presidential records to personal property.  The PRA allows the president to decide what's presidential and what's personal.  But you have to listen to some right wing news outlets to hear that side.  The MSM is carrying Biden's water.  Again.

 

Why is it that lefties think anyone who disagrees with them are somehow defective?  Just can't resist getting mean and going right to personal attack.  And it cost HRC the 2016 election...

 

[candide]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The issue is whether the act of taking the records is sufficient to convert them from presidential records to personal property.  The PRA allows the president to decide what's presidential and what's personal.  But you have to listen to some right wing news outlets to hear that side.  The MSM is carrying Biden's water.  Again.

 

Why is it that lefties think anyone who disagrees with them are somehow defective?  Just can't resist getting mean and going right to personal attack.  And it cost HRC the 2016 election...

 

Wrong again, as explained by NARA.

No wonder only "some right-wing news outlets are making this false claim.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2023/nr23-016

 

"The Presidential Records Act (PRA) defines what constitutes “Presidential records” and what are “personal records.” 44 U.S.C. 2201. Personal records include “diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business.”     

The PRA also requires that all documentary materials “be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” 44 U.S.C. 2203(b). The President does not have discretion to categorize a Presidential record as a personal record."

Edited April 5 by candide

[riclag]

3 hours ago, frank83628 said:

the double standards and hypocrisy from you guys is off the charts!

 

The left is a threat to democracy!

From January 2017 to the present 

TDS has eroded into Coup attempts , Mueller’s Russia Russia investigation, Two Impeachments , both times rejected by the Senate.

Election Interference ,by arresting the leading candidate of the opposition party.

 And now Smith a Dem prosecutor trickster,  setting traps, who doesn’t want the Judge to rule in Court because the PRA could very well sink his chances of getting a favorable outcome. Imop

I was watching Mike Davis ex Supreme  Court Law Clerk &  liberal legal lawyer on The Megan Kelly podcast  recently , discussing the case.

 

 

 

[impulse]

55 minutes ago, candide said:

Wrong again, as explained by NARA.

No wonder only "some right-wing news outlets are making this false claim.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2023/nr23-016

 

"The Presidential Records Act (PRA) defines what constitutes “Presidential records” and what are “personal records.” 44 U.S.C. 2201. Personal records include “diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business.”     

The PRA also requires that all documentary materials “be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” 44 U.S.C. 2203(b). The President does not have discretion to categorize a Presidential record as a personal record."

 

That's one (partisan) opinion.  There are other opinions. 

 

Let's go back to my original statement:

 

Trump claimed that the PRA allowed him to keep those documents.  Right or wrong, if this were any other former president, or if Trump wasn't a candidate, or this wasn't an election season, the issue would have been settled in a flurry of court battles with no charges being filed.

 

Had this been any other former president, there would have been a flurry of subpoenas, replies and negotiation.  Instead, there was a televised  FBI raid on Mar a Lago and criminal charges.  First time in US history a president has been charged...  But hardly the first time a president was caught with secret squirrel stuff in, for example, a sock drawer.

 

Edited April 5 by impulse

[candide]

14 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That's one opinion.  There are other opinions. 

 

Let's go back to my original statement:

 

Trump claimed that the PRA allowed him to keep those documents.  Right or wrong, if this were any other former president, or if Trump wasn't a candidate, or this wasn't an election season, the issue would have been settled in a flurry of court battles with no charges being filed.

 

Had this been any other former president, there would have been a flurry of subpoenas, replies and negotiation.  Instead, there was a televised FBI raid on Mar a Lago and criminal charges.  First time in US history a president has been charged...  But hardly the first time a president was caught with secret squirrel stuff in, for example, a sock drawer.

 

It's not an opinion. It's an official press release by NARA!

Trump can claim whatever B.S. he want, he cannot make up laws. It's the PRA which precisely defines what is a PR., not the President.

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2201

 

I already replied to your other claim. You are like a broken record.

Edited April 5 by candide

[riclag]

The left has been determined to reject

Trumps rights to due process before and after his term and while President, his rights to Executive Privilege under the Constitution.

History repeating itself here.

Smith taking up were his  failed comrades left off years ago. Imop

 

 

 

Edited April 5 by riclag

[impulse]

12 minutes ago, candide said:

It's not an opinion. It's an official press release by NARA!

Trump can claim whatever B.S. he want, he cannot make up laws.

 

And there's never been an opinion by any gub'ment agency that was overturned on appeal?  

 

This one's going to end up before the Supreme Court.  But not before November.  Too bad for the TDS crowd.  Their heads will explode even biggly-er.

 

 

 

[candide]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

And there's never been an opinion by any gub'ment agency that was overturned on appeal?  

 

This one's going to end up before the Supreme Court.  But not before November.  Too bad for the TDS crowd.  Their heads will explode even biggly-er.

 

 

 

Opinion? It's written in the PRA. 😀

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2201

Edited April 5 by candide

[Walker88]

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That's one (partisan) opinion.  There are other opinions. 

 

Let's go back to my original statement:

 

Trump claimed that the PRA allowed him to keep those documents.  Right or wrong, if this were any other former president, or if Trump wasn't a candidate, or this wasn't an election season, the issue would have been settled in a flurry of court battles with no charges being filed.

 

Had this been any other former president, there would have been a flurry of subpoenas, replies and negotiation.  Instead, there was a televised  FBI raid on Mar a Lago and criminal charges.  First time in US history a president has been charged...  But hardly the first time a president was caught with secret squirrel stuff in, for example, a sock drawer.

 

You really miss the point, but don't feel bad; lack of understanding of reality is a common affliction of trumpers.

 

trump had absolutely zero right to the classified documents. None whatsoever. The documents he stole---as I have noted many times---were classified TS, SCI, SAP, Codeword, SITK, HCS and RD. None of those documents are even allowed out of a SCIF, and the office of a wedding planner is hardly a SCIF.

 

Again, to repeat: If trump had declassified anything, there would be a paper trail, signed off by agency chiefs as well as the White House Counsel. There is none. There is no reason he should have HCS docs even when he was President, and as far as RD docs, not even a President can declassify those (nuclear matters, specifics on nuke weapons, nukes in other countries, etc.), because it is assumed no POTUS has the level of knowledge to understand the full ramifications of making those public. That responsibility is left to experts at Dept of Energy.

 

No President has ever had, outside of his Administration, the level of docs trump stole. Not even close. Reagan had personal notes, some of which had some classified intel, but courts ruled in his favor. The same precedent was applied to what was found in Biden and Pence's homes. They had personal notes. trump had fully classified documents.

 

Reagan, Biden and Pence each fully cooperated with authorities to clear and assess what they had. trump lied and claimed he returned everything, when he did not.

 

Anyone---especially elected officials who back trump's lies---should agree to publicly release every document trump stole, if they think he declassified or if they think keeping such things in a country club/weddlng planners' office is okay. We can bind them in Moroccan leather volumes and send collections to putin, Kim Jong-un, the mullahs in Iran and al Qaeda. If Miss Lindsey and the FreeDumb Cockups in the House are not willing to do that, then they should sit back and let Jack Smith do his job.

[Walker88]

28 minutes ago, riclag said:

The left has been determined to reject

Trumps rights to due process before and after his term and while President, his rights to Executive Privilege under the Constitution.

History repeating itself here.

Smith taking up were his  failed comrades left off years ago. Imop

 

 

 

I'm sure you know how to drive a semi, but you know absolutely nothing about Executive Privilege nor classification.

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The PRA allows the president to decide what's presidential and what's personal.  

 

Please cite the language in the PRA that allows the president to make this determination.

 

When you cannot find it, please do the honorable thing and admit it.

[Danderman123]

Here's a spoiler:

 

Judge Cannon's final jury instructions:

 

"Dear Jury, I instruct you to find the defendant not guilty".

Edited April 5 by Danderman123

[mogandave]

It is amusing that everyone is allowed to attack judges and their families, but Trump. 

[ThailandRyan]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

It is amusing that everyone is allowed to attack judges and their families, but Trump. 

Says who. Anyone who has in the past also has a gag order imposed. All Trump is doing is cutting his own throat with his flames....

[ThailandRyan]

13 hours ago, candide said:

No. Trump started by refusing to give documents back. If he had just given back the documents when asked by NARA, there would likely have been no trial.

Yes,Trump did it to himself. Much like spoiled rich people or even season ticket holders do...Don't you know who I am?