Nope.Golem said:Sam Lowry said:I've been correcting that lie about 9/11 since the old BFans days, but you knew that. Don't recall hearing the Hugo Chavez one before.Golem said:Osodecentx said:Maybe you changedCanada2017 said:For several years Sam was one of the best contributors on this site .Married A Horn said:
Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.
.
When we disagreed it was still a reasonable , often humorous , exchange of ideas .
But a little over 2 years ago Sam switched into an obvious troll mode.
Finally put the attorney on 'ignore'.
No. Sam went pants pissing terrified over COVID and started fluffing anyone mandating a mask and a jab. It was his democrat conversion experience. He's a coward who thinks cowering in groups is strength.
He also used to claim 911 was an inside job and Hugo Chavez was an alright guy, as I recall, so maybe he's just on and off his meds periodically too.
Oh you definitely said it.
FBI raids Trump's home
160,809 Views |
2081 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Where does it say he recused himself over bias?RMF5630 said:Add that the Judge that signed the warrant recused himself from another Trump case over bias.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:A. I said I dont k now why. Maybe he wanted to show he is above the law. He seems to think pretty highly of himself.Canada2017 said:A. So you think Trump needed money and was trying to SELL 'top secret ' documents ' with the Secret Service literally surrounding him 24/7 like they do with ALL ex presidents ? Trump sure is clever living so well while broke...especially as he has been audited several times by the ( always Trump friendly ) IRS .Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
A. I dont know much about his finances. He has gone bankrupt 7 times. He promised in his campaign to reveal his finances if he were nominated. He didnt really mean it. I dont know why he kept the classified docs at his house. Maybe he is trying to prove a point that he is bigger than the law. I am surprised that you seem to agree with him
B. I never claimed he was a master spy.
C. I dont know of any president that has been told repeatedly to return files ans refuse. The last president claimed the 5th 436 less times than Trump
D. See above.
You are surprised ' I agree with him ' in regards to exactly what ?
To raid the house of an ex president ( and potential political opponent ) utilizing the power of the FBI and DOJ is so flagrantly a misuse of power ( and threat to our very democracy ) I am stunned ANY libertarian would try to accept its occurrence .
B. The vaunted media repeatedly claimed he 'stole' vital documents ....LAUNCH CODES even . Isn't that the actions of a 'master spy ' ? Then kept these secrets in his HOUSE for 18 months ? Doesn't it seem a bit strange the true and honest DOJ would allow 'top secrets' to remain with a 'spy for 18 months ?
C. The 5th has NOTHING to do with the raid on the house of an ex president....none . My attorney has always told me to take the 5th...period. And yes there have been simi I clearly said I dont know. lar disputes with a few presidents over such issues.
D. Don't like Trump...am embarrassed I voted for the ego maniac in 2020. But this raid would never have been ordered by the Biden administration on ANY Democrat ex president for this kind of bull***** . You know it, I know it...hell the world knows it .
Sets a horrible precedent .
B. He is not a master spy. Fox had a report that came out today. His son is out ca mpaigning making jokes about it. He thinks he is above the law.
C. I dont know. Clinton got impeached for lying about a bj. Nixon left office in disgrace.
D. He was given 18 months to comply. He said he would but didnt. His lawyer clearly lied abut having already returned them. Why do you think he should not be treated like any other american? Because he is rich? Because he was once president? Because he is above the law?
Monday There was nothing there!
Tuesday It wasn't important!
Wednesday Trumpm touched it so it belonged to him because his touch auto-declassified it
Thursday It was planted!
Fridays Obama!
Saturday Biden did this!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-who-signed-mar-a-lago-warrant-took-himself-off-trump-e2-80-99s-lawsuit-against-hillary-democrats/ar-AA10x1Fe
Quote:
Bruce Reinhart is a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to the bench in 2018 by the judges of the Southern District of Florida, a body of up to 18 jurists appointed by the president. Last March, when Trump sued Clinton over her claims that he was compromised by Russia, Reinhart drew the case and held onto it for a couple of months before recusing himself without explanation.
"He was actually wonderful," said Peter Tiktin, who is representing Trump in the lawsuit. "I liked him because he was pretty sharp and seemed to be fair to both sides."
At least two other judges have removed themselves from the case, which is pending a defense motion to dismiss, Tiktin said.
What reason?4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
He was randomly assigned.4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
Rawhide said:So you believe Fox News now? Or just the stuff you agree with?Dnicknames said:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-mar-a-lago-search-justified.amp
Fox News Op-Ed: The Trump Search was Justified
Is FoxNews a biased liberal rag? Interesting piece Fox is running on their cover page.
It was meant to be a cheeky post.
I watch Fox - I'm good with their news department. I don't much care for the Fox opinion shows at night. Fox is fine as long as one can discern the news department from the Opinion shows carrying the same FoxNews name.
I want to know what reason rifle thinks the judge was assignedSam Lowry said:He was randomly assigned.4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
Sam Lowry said:He was randomly assigned.4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
If he recused himself before from a Trump case, why now all is good? Even if rotation, doesn't he have to say i already recused myself due to bias, next...
Because the bias doesn't refer to the party, but rather bias about something within a particular case.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:He was randomly assigned.4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
If he recused himself before from a Trump case, why now all is good? Even if rotation, doesn't he have to say i already recused myself due to bias, next...
Holy ****, is this really that hard to comprehend?
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
At least six judges have recused themselves from that case now. There can be reasons other than bias against a party.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:He was randomly assigned.4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
If he recused himself before from a Trump case, why now all is good? Even if rotation, doesn't he have to say i already recused myself due to bias, next...
fubar said:Because the bias doesn't refer to the party, but rather bias about something within a particular case.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:He was randomly assigned.4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
If he recused himself before from a Trump case, why now all is good? Even if rotation, doesn't he have to say i already recused myself due to bias, next...
Holy ****, is this really that hard to comprehend?
So, you see nothing wrong or unusual with a Judge recussing themselves because a Trump bias, but perfectly fine to sign a criminal search warrant against the same person? That seems not open to challenge?
Is that hard to comprehend?
Are you really this dumb? Judges recuse themselves ALL THE TIME for things other than a bias against a party. That you say a judge recused himself in another case because of a bias against Trump doesn't make it so.RMF5630 said:fubar said:Because the bias doesn't refer to the party, but rather bias about something within a particular case.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:He was randomly assigned.4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
If he recused himself before from a Trump case, why now all is good? Even if rotation, doesn't he have to say i already recused myself due to bias, next...
Holy ****, is this really that hard to comprehend?
So, you see nothing wrong or unusual with a Judge recussing themselves because a Trump bias, but perfectly fine to sign a criminal search warrant against the same person? That seems not open to challenge?
Is that hard to comprehend?
Not sure why that is so difficult for you and the lackeys to digest.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
There is absolutely no reason to believe the judge recused himself due to Trump bias. It could have been 100 things. The logic assumptions being used are flawed.
The search warrant of MAL is not even a formal case yet. When there is only a search warrant and no criminal charges, Reinhart's role as a magistrate judge reviewing the search warrant is more administrative in nature.
Reviewing a search warrant is very matter of fact. You look at probable cause then 'yes' or 'no' it. A judge would be more concerned about possible appearances of impartiality or actual bias if it's the case where you're really presiding over, versus simply reviewing a search warrant.
The situations are very different. Perhaps another attorney could explain this morning clearly?
The search warrant of MAL is not even a formal case yet. When there is only a search warrant and no criminal charges, Reinhart's role as a magistrate judge reviewing the search warrant is more administrative in nature.
Reviewing a search warrant is very matter of fact. You look at probable cause then 'yes' or 'no' it. A judge would be more concerned about possible appearances of impartiality or actual bias if it's the case where you're really presiding over, versus simply reviewing a search warrant.
The situations are very different. Perhaps another attorney could explain this morning clearly?
You explained it well.
I'd add that a judge recusing herself/himself is not required to state "why" the recusal, and they very rarely give reason(s).
I'd add that a judge recusing herself/himself is not required to state "why" the recusal, and they very rarely give reason(s).
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
The lapdogs so often bring to mind the great Donald Rumsfeld quote: "First of all, you're beginning with an illogical premise" (in this case, the judge previously recused himself from a Trump case, and that must be because he has a personal bias against Trump) "and proceeding perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion" (therefore, this judge was hand-picked in this matter because he hated Trump and could be relied upon to rule the way the evil DOJers wanted).
You guys are awesome. Sorry to have interrupted the jerking.
You guys are awesome. Sorry to have interrupted the jerking.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
fubar said:Are you really this dumb? Judges recuse themselves ALL THE TIME for things other than a bias against a party. That you say a judge recused himself in another case because of a bias against Trump doesn't make it so.RMF5630 said:fubar said:Because the bias doesn't refer to the party, but rather bias about something within a particular case.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:He was randomly assigned.4th and Inches said:judge was chosen for a reason..riflebear said:
This is good but he's naive thinking the judge just all of a sudden thinks what he did was wrong.BREAKING: Judge Reinhart should flip and blow the whistle on the entire Biden DOJ operation against Trump pic.twitter.com/XEOFx1RVXn
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 23, 2022
If he recused himself before from a Trump case, why now all is good? Even if rotation, doesn't he have to say i already recused myself due to bias, next...
Holy ****, is this really that hard to comprehend?
So, you see nothing wrong or unusual with a Judge recussing themselves because a Trump bias, but perfectly fine to sign a criminal search warrant against the same person? That seems not open to challenge?
Is that hard to comprehend?
Not sure why that is so difficult for you and the lackeys to digest.
No, I am not. But you seem to be. This is Newsweek not exactly a bastion (means stronghold, fortified) of conservative thought.
https://www.newsweek.com/magistrate-judge-bruce-reinhart-mar-lago-search-clinton-case-recusal-1735817
So, I guess questioning it is not dumb. But, not questioning sure seems to qualify Idiot.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
The PRA doesn't address the process by which a former president's records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.
So many good points to review and form an opinion on in this article, highly recommend.
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
The PRA doesn't address the process by which a former president's records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.
So many good points to review and form an opinion on in this article, highly recommend.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
The PRA doesn't address the process by which a former president's records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.
So many good points to review and form an opinion on in this article, highly recommend.
Not allowed to question or you are a Trump supporter. It is not RESIST, but ACCEPT. Your only choice or you are stupid and Trumpite...
well.. i am definitely stupid!RMF5630 said:4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
The PRA doesn't address the process by which a former president's records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.
So many good points to review and form an opinion on in this article, highly recommend.
Not allowed to question or you are a Trump supporter. It is not RESIST, but ACCEPT. Your only choice or you are stupid and Trumpite...
Sam and Oso can vouch.. probably Porter too
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
you're all wet.fubar said:
The lapdogs so often bring to mind the great Donald Rumsfeld quote: "First of all, you're beginning with an illogical premise" (in this case, the judge previously recused himself from a Trump case, and that must be because he has a personal bias against Trump) "and proceeding perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion" (therefore, this judge was hand-picked in this matter because he hated Trump and could be relied upon to rule the way the evil DOJers wanted).
You guys are awesome. Sorry to have interrupted the jerking.
maybe given the repeated history of abuse of power and out right legal fraud and conspiracy against Agent Orange there are some legitimate concerns about the validity and the necessity for the Mar a Lago search -esp. then they don't allow his lawyer to be present., acks everyone to leave the premises, and also acks for the security cameras to be turned off and then proceed to take 7 hours for 30,agents to walk out with 14 boxes that were already to go when they arrived.
What they do for the rest of the time they were on the premises?
PA.
- UL
.... and, as always, TIA.
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
fubar said:
The lapdogs so often bring to mind the great Donald Rumsfeld quote: "First of all, you're beginning with an illogical premise" (in this case, the judge previously recused himself from a Trump case, and that must be because he has a personal bias against Trump) "and proceeding perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion" (therefore, this judge was hand-picked in this matter because he hated Trump and could be relied upon to rule the way the evil DOJers wanted).
You guys are awesome. Sorry to have interrupted the jerking.
What do you call personal impartiality? Another word could be "bias"? You went to Baylor??
I have no idea what you're talking about, which is bad. At least one of us ought to.RMF5630 said:fubar said:
The lapdogs so often bring to mind the great Donald Rumsfeld quote: "First of all, you're beginning with an illogical premise" (in this case, the judge previously recused himself from a Trump case, and that must be because he has a personal bias against Trump) "and proceeding perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion" (therefore, this judge was hand-picked in this matter because he hated Trump and could be relied upon to rule the way the evil DOJers wanted).
You guys are awesome. Sorry to have interrupted the jerking.
What do you call personal impartiality? Another word could be "bias"? You went to Baylor??
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
fubar said:I have no idea what you're talking about, which is bad. At least one of us ought to.RMF5630 said:fubar said:
The lapdogs so often bring to mind the great Donald Rumsfeld quote: "First of all, you're beginning with an illogical premise" (in this case, the judge previously recused himself from a Trump case, and that must be because he has a personal bias against Trump) "and proceeding perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion" (therefore, this judge was hand-picked in this matter because he hated Trump and could be relied upon to rule the way the evil DOJers wanted).
You guys are awesome. Sorry to have interrupted the jerking.
What do you call personal impartiality? Another word could be "bias"? You went to Baylor??
RMF5630 said:fubar said:I have no idea what you're talking about, which is bad. At least one of us ought to.RMF5630 said:fubar said:
The lapdogs so often bring to mind the great Donald Rumsfeld quote: "First of all, you're beginning with an illogical premise" (in this case, the judge previously recused himself from a Trump case, and that must be because he has a personal bias against Trump) "and proceeding perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion" (therefore, this judge was hand-picked in this matter because he hated Trump and could be relied upon to rule the way the evil DOJers wanted).
You guys are awesome. Sorry to have interrupted the jerking.
What do you call personal impartiality? Another word could be "bias"? You went to Baylor??
Mi culpa
they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.Sam Lowry said:They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.4th and Inches said:they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.Sam Lowry said:They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
Have the returned library books saved democracy yet?
Harrison Bergeron said:
Have the returned library books saved democracy yet?
Time to send in Cassidy. Right after she is done cleaning up lunch....
no they didn'tSam Lowry said:They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.4th and Inches said:they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.Sam Lowry said:They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
did you read the article?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.4th and Inches said:no they didn'tSam Lowry said:They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.4th and Inches said:they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.Sam Lowry said:They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
did you read the article?
they said the warrants legal basis of using 18 U.S.C. 793: 18 U.S.C. 2071: and 18 U.S.C. 1519 was in error.Sam Lowry said:Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.4th and Inches said:no they didn'tSam Lowry said:They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.4th and Inches said:they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.Sam Lowry said:They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
did you read the article?
You sure you read it?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
4th and Inches said:they said the warrants legal basis of using 18 U.S.C. 793: 18 U.S.C. 2071: and 18 U.S.C. 1519 was in error.Sam Lowry said:Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.4th and Inches said:no they didn'tSam Lowry said:They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.4th and Inches said:they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.Sam Lowry said:They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
did you read the article?
You sure you read it?
they said the PRA was the only conflict and it should have been handled differently.Sam Lowry said:4th and Inches said:they said the warrants legal basis of using 18 U.S.C. 793: 18 U.S.C. 2071: and 18 U.S.C. 1519 was in error.Sam Lowry said:Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.4th and Inches said:no they didn'tSam Lowry said:They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.4th and Inches said:they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.Sam Lowry said:They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Thoughts?
Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
did you read the article?
You sure you read it?
Have you read the letters back and forth and the letter from white house that kicked this whole thing with archivist offf? They want Jan 6th stuff, plain and sinple. Biden lied.. again.
The basis was bunk and the scope was too wide. They got warrant issues and the got 4th amendment issues.
Even if they had some thing that they found, the basis for fruit of the poisonous tree is there..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
LOLfubar said:I have no idea what you're talking about, which is bad. At least one of us ought to.RMF5630 said:fubar said:
The lapdogs so often bring to mind the great Donald Rumsfeld quote: "First of all, you're beginning with an illogical premise" (in this case, the judge previously recused himself from a Trump case, and that must be because he has a personal bias against Trump) "and proceeding perfectly logically to an illogical conclusion" (therefore, this judge was hand-picked in this matter because he hated Trump and could be relied upon to rule the way the evil DOJers wanted).
You guys are awesome. Sorry to have interrupted the jerking.
What do you call personal impartiality? Another word could be "bias"? You went to Baylor??
Good line......can I borrow it in the future ?