Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Thank God R are better than this kind of circus. I have great cinfidence they will rise above petty paybacks and cheerleading sessions of lock them up chants and return the White houe and congress to respectful gov.

---

You can't possibly support this raid.

The ramifications are deadly to any democracy .

---

I dont. I didnt support the lock her up chants led by jail time Stone either or the constant fraudulent claims of a stolen election. I really think the R should pick itself up and become the party that stops wrestling in the mud and saves our country.

I dont hold much hope. Party shills will cry for retribution.

---

Good grief.....certainly you can see the difference between the bleating of internet shrills and the ordering of a raid on an ex presidents HOME by his political enemies ?

This is the worst national event I can remember since the Challenger blew up .

---

9/11
Katrina
The Pandemic
Great Recession
Innumerable mass shootings

---

Corrections accepted .......

9/11, Katrina, The Pandemic , Las Vegas shooting were all worse than the Challenger disaster.


However this use of the KGB to attack the home of a former president is the biggest political threat to our democracy since Watergate .

---

I'll reserve judgment until the facts are known.

---

One fact we do know is The FBI immediately leaked the details of the raid to the NYT.

Definitely not political...

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Quote:

---

The intensifying inquiry suggests that the Justice Department is examining the role of Mr. Trump and other officials in his White House in their handling of sensitive materials during the final stages of his administration.
In recent days, the Justice Department has taken a series of steps showing that its investigation has progressed beyond the preliminary stages. Prosecutors issued a subpoena to the National Archives and Records Administration to obtain the boxes of classified documents, according to the two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.


The authorities have also made interview requests to people who worked in the White House in the final days of Mr. Trump's presidency, according to one of the people.


The investigation is focused on the discovery by the National Archives in January that at the end of Mr. Trump's term he had taken to his home at the Mar-a-Lago resort 15 boxes from the White House that contained government documents, mementos, gifts and letters.

After the boxes were returned to the National Archives, its archivists found documents containing "items marked as classified national security information," the agency told Congress in February. In April, it was reported that federal authorities were in the preliminary stages of investigating the handling of the classified documents.

---

So this article seems to say the 15 boxes had already been returned to the national archives, were there more boxes or something.

If there were more boxes could they not issue an additional subpeona to aquire those boxes, rather than a gestapo style raid, such as they just performed.

From the article above it seems they had complied with returning the 15 boxes. Wheras a Clinton would just destroy the information that was requested. Which they have done in the past.

Seems like a very shady action by the Justice Department.

---

Trump did destroy some documents as well. The subpoena was directed to NARA. They can't be subpoenaed for documents that they don't possess or control.

---

So you are cool with this raid?

Why not raid all past still living and current Presidents then, besides Jimmy Carter.

They all are shady at some level, Clintons are at the highest level of crooked.

Yet, no other president has been raided like this.

---

At least three reasons. First, no one has referred other presidents to the FBI or established probable cause on a public records issue. Second, if other presidents did keep records they shouldn't have, it was probably unintentional. There's evidence of extraordinarily poor record-keeping and routine destruction of documents in the Trump administration, which makes the case more compelling. Third and most important, they're looking for evidence tying him to the Capitol riot.

---

A simple yes would have done.

No way this raid was necessary, they could come up with a "reason" for any president, this is just a fishing expedition. The Justice department has crossed a line that should never have been crossed. Of course they can come up with a "reason".

---

You asked why they don't do it to every president. The simple answer is that they don't have a reason and they generally don't just make one up.

---

To which I disagree, they could come up with a "reason" on any past president if they wished to. This is a focused political attack meant to disqualify Trump from ever running again.

Quote:

---

Such reporting had Marc Elias, the top lawyer for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign who has drawn scrutiny for his role in pushing Trump-Russia collusion claims, pointing to U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071. "The media is missing the really, really big reason why the raid today is a potential blockbuster in American politics," Elias said in a tweet.

---

They are trying to disqualify him for ever running again. So why in hell did they let Hillary run again since she was certainly guilty of the same, under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071.

18 U.S. Code 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

---

Is that a rhetorical question, or do you want me to answer?

---

Naw, there was no question, I just posted the main reason I belive this raid was instigated, they are fishing for a reason to disqualify Trump from running for office again.

---

HuMcK said:

---

Hilarious to hear the "lock her up" crowd *****ing now. Extra irony: Trump is supposedly being investigated for essentially the same records security stuff Hillary got investigated for. Can't wait to hear the tortured logic for why investigating her was necessary and proper, but investigating Trump is treason.

---

canoso said:

---

And this reminds me that when a person or group knows they cannot win on the merits, anything is justified in eliminating political opposition.

Like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, who, to guarantee his reelection simply incarcerated on bogus charges each and every one of those who were running against him in the most election cycle.

What country did you say we're living in?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

C. Jordan said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I am no Donald Trump fan, but maybe it is time to go ahead and have this Second Civil War. This is unacceptable. Enough. The FBI should be disbanded. They are OFFICIALLY an enemy of the people.

---

How is this unacceptable?

Are you saying Trump is above the law?

This was a legally executed search warrant.

And I thought disbanding the police was a Democrat thing.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Thank God R are better than this kind of circus. I have great cinfidence they will rise above petty paybacks and cheerleading sessions of lock them up chants and return the White houe and congress to respectful gov.

---

You can't possibly support this raid.

The ramifications are deadly to any democracy .

---

I dont. I didnt support the lock her up chants led by jail time Stone either or the constant fraudulent claims of a stolen election. I really think the R should pick itself up and become the party that stops wrestling in the mud and saves our country.

I dont hold much hope. Party shills will cry for retribution.

---

Good grief.....certainly you can see the difference between the bleating of internet shrills and the ordering of a raid on an ex presidents HOME by his political enemies ?

This is the worst national event I can remember since the Challenger blew up .

---

9/11
Katrina
The Pandemic
Great Recession
Innumerable mass shootings

---

Corrections accepted .......

9/11, Katrina, The Pandemic , Las Vegas shooting were all worse than the Challenger disaster.


However this use of the KGB to attack the home of a former president is the biggest political threat to our democracy since Watergate .

---

I'll reserve judgment until the facts are known.

---

One fact we do know is The FBI immediately leaked the details of the raid to the NYT.

Definitely not political...

---

A president can reclassify documents from classified to unclassified. Did Trump do this?


Former president Donald Trump routinely ripped up papers while in office and upon leaving the White House, took at least 15 boxes of official records with him to Florida (including documents clearly marked as classified).
Now, as part of a federal investigation, the FBI has conducted a court-approved search of his residence at his Mar-a-Lago Club.
It is not clear what prompted the search, though people familiar with the investigation said it was related to the possible mishandling of classified documents.
Any mishandling could be in violation of a law requiring Trump to preserve his records and phone calls of his official duties as president. If he were to be charged and found guilty of willfully hiding or destroying confidential and classified materials a big if some legal experts say he could be barred from being president again. Other experts disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/09/trump-fbi-search-maralago/

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Saw a former acting Dir of FBI say this morning that if all this is was the records act issue then a simple subpoena should have been done first.

Even CNN’s legal analyst disagrees with the DOJ decision here. Good for him for speaking the truth. pic.twitter.com/TUElZkmOo0

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) August 9, 2022

---

They negotiated for months to get the first batch. But you're right, especially in conjunction with the Cipollone subpoena, this isn't all about the records issue.

---

Note, a legislative investigation of the Executive Branch. That's been called unconstitutional on the board

News of the court-authorized search prompted recriminations from Trump's fellow Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who threatened to investigate the Justice Department if the GOP takes control of the chamber next year.

---

ScruffyD said:

---

This is a distraction from the deep state DOJ to distract us from all of Biden's recent wins:

First major prescription drug legislation in 20 years
Massive investments in chip manufacturing
Trillions in infrastructure
Killed the world's most wanted terrorist
Expanding NATO

We must put an end to the weaponizing of DOJ for political gain.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

C. Jordan said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Hilarious to hear the "lock her up" crowd *****ing now. Extra irony: Trump is supposedly being investigated for essentially the same records security stuff Hillary got investigated for. Can't wait to hear the tortured logic for why investigating her was necessary and proper, but investigating Trump is treason.

---

Because Trump is God Almighty and above the law.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

does that one say if you take some records then you cant run for re-election?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Saw a former acting Dir of FBI say this morning that if all this is was the records act issue then a simple subpoena should have been done first.

Even CNN’s legal analyst disagrees with the DOJ decision here. Good for him for speaking the truth. pic.twitter.com/TUElZkmOo0

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) August 9, 2022

---

They negotiated for months to get the first batch. But you're right, especially in conjunction with the Cipollone subpoena, this isn't all about the records issue.

---

Note, a legislative investigation of the Executive Branch. That's been called unconstitutional on the board

News of the court-authorized search prompted recriminations from Trump's fellow Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who threatened to investigate the Justice Department if the GOP takes control of the chamber next year.

---

I don't thing Court-Authorized carries much weight. In the current political environment, you can get a very biased Court member to authorize just about anything.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

does that one say if you take some records then you cant run for re-election?

Or maybe there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision

---

ScruffyD said:

---

This is a distraction from the deep state DOJ to distract us from all of Biden's recent wins:

First major prescription drug legislation in 20 years
Massive investments in chip manufacturing
Trillions in infrastructure
Killed the world's most wanted terrorist
Expanding NATO

We must put an end to the weaponizing of DOJ for political gain.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

does that one say if you take some records then you cant run for re-election?

Or maybe there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision

---

I have been looking for that for a while now on the internet....I did find this.

[Anne Weismann, a lawyer who represented watchdog groups that have sued Trump over violations of the Presidential Records Act, told CBS News that the former president "clearly violated" the Presidential Records Act in "multiple ways," including by ripping up records.

But "the real problem is there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision," she said. ]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-presidential-records-act-mar-a-lago-fbi-national-archives/

So let me get that straight. There is no enforcement provision in the Act? Then what does the FBI hope to achieve with this other than embarrass Trump?

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

does that one say if you take some records then you cant run for re-election?

Or maybe there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision

---

I have been looking for that for a while now on the internet....I did find this.

[Anne Weismann, a lawyer who represented watchdog groups that have sued Trump over violations of the Presidential Records Act, told CBS News that the former president "clearly violated" the Presidential Records Act in "multiple ways," including by ripping up records.

But "the real problem is there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision," she said. ]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-presidential-records-act-mar-a-lago-fbi-national-archives/

So let me get that straight. There is no enforcement provision in the Act? Then what does the FBI hope to achieve with this other than embarrass Trump?

---

If everything is "perfect" like Trump says, he has nothing to be concerned about.

---

Wangchung said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

does that one say if you take some records then you cant run for re-election?

Or maybe there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision

---

I have been looking for that for a while now on the internet....I did find this.

[Anne Weismann, a lawyer who represented watchdog groups that have sued Trump over violations of the Presidential Records Act, told CBS News that the former president "clearly violated" the Presidential Records Act in "multiple ways," including by ripping up records.

But "the real problem is there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision," she said. ]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-presidential-records-act-mar-a-lago-fbi-national-archives/

So let me get that straight. There is no enforcement provision in the Act? Then what does the FBI hope to achieve with this other than embarrass Trump?

---

If everything is "perfect" like Trump says, he has nothing to be concerned about.

---

Yeah right. You people still call him a Russian agent and now you want us to believe that there is a possibility the people going after him might find him innocent? Even if they did, it wouldn't change the narrative at all. Again, just look at the Russian collusion hoax.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

All bull***** Democrats going to take a bath in November. They may never hold power again. Nor should they.

---

br53 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

All bull***** Democrats going to take a bath in November. They may never hold power again. Nor should they.

---

Never underestimate the ability of the Republicans to really **** this up. McConnell and co can find a way. I hope they dont but I think they can.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Hilarious to hear the "lock her up" crowd *****ing now. Extra irony: Trump is supposedly being investigated for essentially the same records security stuff Hillary got investigated for. Can't wait to hear the tortured logic for why investigating her was necessary and proper, but investigating Trump is treason.

---

Because Trump is God Almighty and above the law.

---

if you say so..

You seem stirred up, you ok?

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

I mean heck, I even said I would be glad for anything that would keep Trump from running again, but this is NOT what I meant when I said anything.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

I mean heck, I even said I would be glad for anything that would keep Trump from running again, but this is NOT what I meant when I said anything.

---

This will do more to make Trump look like a martyr than anything else done so far.

Too many of the people we have in power are no better than the man they hate. They are too blinded by personal issues to move forward in wisdom. The goofed up impeachments should have made this obvious.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

does that one say if you take some records then you cant run for re-election?

---

Probably not. I don't think that's the angle here.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

All bull***** Democrats going to take a bath in November. They may never hold power again. Nor should they.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

All bull***** Democrats going to take a bath in November. They may never hold power again. Nor should they.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What do you all think the Justice Department should do if a former president illegally hoards classified documents?

---

Objection, your Honor. Calls for hypothesizing.

---

Everyone seems to be hypothesizing that Trump is innocent. It's fair to ask what if he isn't.

---

Ok I'll play along...lets look at the law.

[Under 18 U.S.C. 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records "filed or deposited" in "any public office" --- or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Under 18 U.S.C. 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years.]

Of course a Constitutional argument can be made that the President of the USA, as Chief of the Executive Branch of the Federal Gov., has the authority to retain such documents and chose the location they are stored.

But if the Regime really wants, and gets some loyalist Judges to play along, it can probably put Trump away for a few years.

---

We're dealing with a different statute, 44 USC 2201-2209 (Presidential Records Act).

---

does that one say if you take some records then you cant run for re-election?

Or maybe there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision

---

I have been looking for that for a while now on the internet....I did find this.

[Anne Weismann, a lawyer who represented watchdog groups that have sued Trump over violations of the Presidential Records Act, told CBS News that the former president "clearly violated" the Presidential Records Act in "multiple ways," including by ripping up records.

But "the real problem is there's absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the Presidential Record Act and there's no administrative enforcement provision," she said. ]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-presidential-records-act-mar-a-lago-fbi-national-archives/

So let me get that straight. There is no enforcement provision in the Act? Then what does the FBI hope to achieve with this other than embarrass Trump?

---

If everything is "perfect" like Trump says, he has nothing to be concerned about.

---