KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Honest question, as I really don't know.

Does the law make allowances for those that say " I'm sorry, here are the top secret documents I never should have possessed to begin with."

If so Trumps situation is different .

If not there is a double standard being applied.

---

The apology doesn't matter the least bit. It's the cooperation and truthfulness with the authorities that does. Trump did neither, so you have willfulness in his efforts to conceal. That's how you coax authorities to bring the hammer.

sombear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

sombear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

sombear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.

---

In your view, acquittal by DC juries means not slimy and entirely on the up and up? I do not see how anyone can read the report (or even media accounts of it) and think this way.

---

Then you aren't looking hard enough.

The idea that the Trump campaign was unfairly targeted in the Russia investigation is flat out absurd. His campaign manager came to them after working for Victor Yanukovych for God's sake, and what a surprise when Mueller and the Senate investigation discovered that he turned out to be in bed with actual Russian intelligence.

Durham started with a false premise and worked backwards, that the allegations were made up, and he flat out ignored the findings of multiple previous investigations to do it. That's what a weaponized DOJ looks like, and plenty of people including me were predicting it would fail in court just like it did. Call me partisan, whatever else you want, but I was right and the court decisions weigh in my favor.

---

So you're ignoring the Steele dossier, Brookings, and Hillary lawyer stuff, eh? There is a world of difference between criminal conviction (which did not happen) and improper conduct and utter fabrication (which did happen). The core facts are not even dispute.

Sussman admitted planting the story with the FBI. The criminal issue was whether he lied about who he was representing in that meeting. The DC jury chose to disregard the contemporaneous statements by the FBI. That is their right. But it was never in dispute that he planted a false story. It was a Hillary campaign plant from the start.

Similarly, the Steele sources admitted they made the stuff up.

And the FBI admitted not following their own case procedures in numerous instances.

These are admissions, not conspiracy theories.

And your comeback is . . . . Manafort, a longtime, well-known swamp creature?

I criticize Trump about as much as anyone on here, but you are delusional on the Russia BS.

---

Few things:

1) Sussman "planting" a story with the FBI sure sounds a lot like what Giuliani did to Hunter (I wonder if Rudy disclosed who he was doing that for?), which resulted in yesterday's guilty plea. Somehow I missed your complaints about that process.

2) the veracity of Sussman's info actually is in dispute. His interpretation of it may have been wrong, but the data he presented was real. There was a server in Trump Tower seemingly communicating with an entity in Russia, but my understanding of the explanation is that such a thing isn't all that noteworthy. That's also a very small part of the overall allegations and was pretty inconsequential, seeing as the FBI largely dismissed it and didn't even follow up. The other guy Durham charged was a prolific FBI source (in their own words) who had his cover blown to assuage Trump's ego, and of course that one blew up in Durham's face with an acquittal as well.

3) Speaking of admissions, Manafort's right hand man admits that his boss was meeting with someone he knew was a Russian spy to exchange confidential information and discuss campaign strategy. That's what we colloquially call "collusion". We also know Don Jr was explicitly offered help from "Russia and its government for your [his] father", and he accepted it in writing. Your going to completely ignore it and pretend like it never happened because that's the GOP party line, but light of those things and so much more, I will repeat that it is flat out absurd to believe none of that warranted investigation.

---

100% wrong on #2, and the FBI did not know about Manafort until much later. And the investigators believed Manafort was trying to impress former clients, and there was zero evidence Trump or anyone else from inner-circle even new what Manafort was doing. As it turns out, Hillary's campaign had far mor extensive contacts with Russia than Trump's did.

I know nothing about the Guliani issue you raise. He is a nutjob, and I zone any stories about him out. He's a slimeball, but so obviously is Hunter. Not sure about Joe yet.

---

and a false equivalence on #1. The Sussman info was completely made up. The Giuliani info was verified as true.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

sombear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

apropos of nothing … pic.twitter.com/PToFjhV5Bb

— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) June 21, 2023

---

Thank you for proving the double standard exists. Hillary was also a subordinate officer who not only retained but destroyed thousands of classified documents under subpoena, yet she did NOT get prosecuted.

But neither scenario is applicable in the Trump case, as he was POTUS when the documents were removed from the WH, and legal precedence & tradition both afford him defense from criminal prosecution.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

All of that is well and good, problem is that Trump is ex-POTUS. None of this occurred before Jan 20, 2020. If Trump had done what he was supposed to do and turn over all Presidential files to NARA before leaving office, then maybe an argument can be made. Once Biden was inaugurated, Trump no longer had the power flowing through him, it transferred to Biden. Biden probably has more of a leg to stand on that he can't have a security violation as POTUS.

You also seem to be overlooking that none of the charges involve classification of docs.

As well as he was not supposed to have them because they were not his to keep. They are not Personal docs. POTUS can't take a NSC report and make it personal, that doc belongs to NARA when he leaves, not Trump.

Also, this idea that POTUS can just think about a document being declassified is BS.

Trump is screwed several ways. He is going to lose and should cut a deal like Hunter, but I do not think Trump is that clever.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

apropos of nothing … pic.twitter.com/PToFjhV5Bb

— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) June 21, 2023

---

Thank you for proving the double standard exists. Hillary was also a subordinate officer who not only retained but destroyed thousands of classified documents under subpoena, yet she did NOT get prosecuted.

But neither scenario is applicable in the Trump case, as he was POTUS when the documents were removed from the WH, and legal precedence & tradition both afford him defense from criminal prosecution.

---

You're way off on the Hillary facts as the GOP Senate confirmed and has been detailed a weak times in these threads. I also am confident you are wrong on the law. I'll be shocked more than any other time in my legal career if Trump wins on any of these legal theories floating around, including that he had the right to have these docs post-Presidency.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

If by "trivial process irregularities" you mean intentionally lying to investigators, hiding documents from subpoena, asking to have someone hide and/or destroy documents, and actively showing unauthorized people classified documents that weren't declassified (Trump's on tape with that), then we have different interpretations of that phrase.

Trump was in full rogue mode after he left office, and this is one action he took where it's likely going to bite him.

Don't care. They spied on a Presidential campaign and a President, covered up evidence of Trumps innocence while leaking lies to the press, forced a special counsel to try to throw him out of office, interfered in the 2018 and 2020 elections, etc. Durham should've brought charges https://t.co/NY7agnpTdR

— Shem Horne (@Shem_Infinite) June 22, 2023

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Honest question, as I really don't know.

Does the law make allowances for those that say " I'm sorry, here are the top secret documents I never should have possessed to begin with."

If so Trumps situation is different .

If not there is a double standard being applied.

---

The apology doesn't matter the least bit. It's the cooperation and truthfulness with the authorities that does. Trump did neither, so you have willfulness in his efforts to conceal. That's how you coax authorities to bring the hammer.

---

Somehow doubt if either you or I were found to be in possession of top secret documents all would forgiven merely by returning them .

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

apropos of nothing … pic.twitter.com/PToFjhV5Bb

— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) June 21, 2023

---

Thank you for proving the double standard exists. Hillary was also a subordinate officer who not only retained but destroyed thousands of classified documents under subpoena, yet she did NOT get prosecuted.

But neither scenario is applicable in the Trump case, as he was POTUS when the documents were removed from the WH, and legal precedence & tradition both afford him defense from criminal prosecution.

---

You're way off on the Hillary facts as the GOP Senate confirmed and has been detailed a weak times in these threads. I also am confident you are wrong on the law. I'll be shocked more than any other time in my legal career if Trump wins on any of these legal theories floating around, including that he had the right to have these docs post-Presidency.

---

a former SCOTUS law clerk says he has some Possible defense on some things but it doesnt cover everything. There is also a clear arguement that the supeona was not made out to Trump directly so the signed affidavit could be true and accurate at the time it was presented. Lots of little details.

Dont expect Trump to win any of these legal battles because he is Trump and because he keeps hiring the worst lawyers(or he is keeping good lawyers from doing their job)

"Lots of little details"

That's the key to this case.

I have heard a lot from various people, The only sure thing here is that this is a mess, and worse, will set precedent for future Presidents.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Honest question, as I really don't know.

Does the law make allowances for those that say " I'm sorry, here are the top secret documents I never should have possessed to begin with."

If so Trumps situation is different .

If not there is a double standard being applied.

---

The apology doesn't matter the least bit. It's the cooperation and truthfulness with the authorities that does. Trump did neither, so you have willfulness in his efforts to conceal. That's how you coax authorities to bring the hammer.

---

Somehow doubt if either you or I were found to be in possession of top secret documents all would forgiven merely by returning them .

---

Big factor would be if we had access to them before. Trump's real problem is when you start hiding, lying, and refusing to turn them over it looks like you're trying at best to conceal that you have them, and at worst steal them.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Honest question, as I really don't know.

Does the law make allowances for those that say " I'm sorry, here are the top secret documents I never should have possessed to begin with."

If so Trumps situation is different .

If not there is a double standard being applied.

---

The apology doesn't matter the least bit. It's the cooperation and truthfulness with the authorities that does. Trump did neither, so you have willfulness in his efforts to conceal. That's how you coax authorities to bring the hammer.

---

Somehow doubt if either you or I were found to be in possession of top secret documents all would forgiven merely by returning them .

---

Big factor would be if we had access to them before. Trump's real problem is when you start hiding, lying, and refusing to turn them over it looks like you're trying at best to conceal that you have them, and at worst steal them.

---

Not defending Trump.

Just doubt returning the documents provides a clean slate .

4th and Inches said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

apropos of nothing … pic.twitter.com/PToFjhV5Bb

— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) June 21, 2023

---

Thank you for proving the double standard exists. Hillary was also a subordinate officer who not only retained but destroyed thousands of classified documents under subpoena, yet she did NOT get prosecuted.

But neither scenario is applicable in the Trump case, as he was POTUS when the documents were removed from the WH, and legal precedence & tradition both afford him defense from criminal prosecution.

---

You're way off on the Hillary facts as the GOP Senate confirmed and has been detailed a weak times in these threads. I also am confident you are wrong on the law. I'll be shocked more than any other time in my legal career if Trump wins on any of these legal theories floating around, including that he had the right to have these docs post-Presidency.

---

a former SCOTUS law clerk says he has some Possible defense on some things but it doesnt cover everything. There is also a clear arguement that the supeona was not made out to Trump directly so the signed affidavit could be true and accurate at the time it was presented. Lots of little details.

Dont expect Trump to win any of these legal battles because he is Trump and because he keeps hiring the worst lawyers(or he is keeping good lawyers from doing their job)

---

Trump has fired over 20 lawyers, some lifelong friends, since running for Pres in 2016. Almost the same numbers have quit. Who do you think the problem is?

The clerk, is that the guy running for AG in Kansas? Regardless, I respectfully disagree. The legal arguments for dismissal are baseless.

sombear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

sombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

apropos of nothing … pic.twitter.com/PToFjhV5Bb

— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) June 21, 2023

---

Thank you for proving the double standard exists. Hillary was also a subordinate officer who not only retained but destroyed thousands of classified documents under subpoena, yet she did NOT get prosecuted.

But neither scenario is applicable in the Trump case, as he was POTUS when the documents were removed from the WH, and legal precedence & tradition both afford him defense from criminal prosecution.

---

You're way off on the Hillary facts as the GOP Senate confirmed and has been detailed a weak times in these threads. I also am confident you are wrong on the law. I'll be shocked more than any other time in my legal career if Trump wins on any of these legal theories floating around, including that he had the right to have these docs post-Presidency.

---

a former SCOTUS law clerk says he has some Possible defense on some things but it doesnt cover everything. There is also a clear arguement that the supeona was not made out to Trump directly so the signed affidavit could be true and accurate at the time it was presented. Lots of little details.

Dont expect Trump to win any of these legal battles because he is Trump and because he keeps hiring the worst lawyers(or he is keeping good lawyers from doing their job)

---

Trump has fired over 20 lawyers, some lifelong friends, since running for Pres in 2016. Almost the same numbers have quit. Who do you think the problem is?

The clerk, is that the guy running for AG in Kansas? Regardless, I respectfully disagree. The legal arguments for dismissal are baseless.

---

we all know who the problem is.. his policies were good but he was and isnt very presidential. All he had to do was surround himself with conpentent people and he could have been the best president we ever had.. he still had a good presidency in spite of him self sabotaging so much..

Really watching to see I am gonna vote for so I can help primary him..

sombear: 'Trump has fired over 20 lawyers, some lifelong friends, since running for Pres in 2016. Almost the same numbers have quit."

I think it's either superstition or there is a trick to timing.

I seem to recall that when a defendant changes counsel, the judge may grant additional time for the new counsel to get up to speed. If it's not that, Trump likes to change lawyers before the trial starts.

Not saying it makes sense.

Oldbear83 said:

---

sombear: 'Trump has fired over 20 lawyers, some lifelong friends, since running for Pres in 2016. Almost the same numbers have quit."

I think it's either superstition or there is a trick to timing.

I seem to recall that when a defendant changes counsel, the judge may grant additional time for the new counsel to get up to speed. If it's not that, Trump likes to change lawyers before the trial starts.

Not saying it makes sense.

---

Apparently he hasn't been too successful in having lawyers lie to hide documents . That's grounds for firing by the Orange Man

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

sombear: 'Trump has fired over 20 lawyers, some lifelong friends, since running for Pres in 2016. Almost the same numbers have quit."

I think it's either superstition or there is a trick to timing.

I seem to recall that when a defendant changes counsel, the judge may grant additional time for the new counsel to get up to speed. If it's not that, Trump likes to change lawyers before the trial starts.

Not saying it makes sense.

---

Apparently he hasn't been too successful in having lawyers lie to hide documents . That's grounds for firing by the Orange Man

---

Some folks are spiking the ball waaaaaaaay too soon.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

All of that is well and good, problem is that Trump is ex-POTUS. None of this occurred before Jan 20, 2020. If Trump had done what he was supposed to do and turn over all Presidential files to NARA before leaving office, then maybe an argument can be made. Once Biden was inaugurated, Trump no longer had the power flowing through him, it transferred to Biden. Biden probably has more of a leg to stand on that he can't have a security violation as POTUS.

You also seem to be overlooking that none of the charges involve classification of docs.

As well as he was not supposed to have them because they were not his to keep. They are not Personal docs. POTUS can't take a NSC report and make it personal, that doc belongs to NARA when he leaves, not Trump.

Also, this idea that POTUS can just think about a document being declassified is BS.

Trump is screwed several ways. He is going to lose and should cut a deal like Hunter, but I do not think Trump is that clever.

---

He deemed the documents personal records while he was still in office, so your argument that he no longer retained the powers of office is moot.

You also forget statute and court ruling - documents which come into the possession are no longer agency records. They are presidential records. And the designation of those records as personal are not a "loss of documentation" as the agencies retain the permanent copies (as Sam has alluded to the documents on the Clinton server).

Don't let the MSM lead you down the trail of breadcrumbs.....

And, yes, a POTUS can just "think about" declassifying a record and do so. He can hand a classified document to a member of the press on a whim, and it's considered declassified, because the declass decision is an inherent power of the CEO of the Executive Branch. POTUS needs no prior approval. He IS the prior approval from which all executive power is delegated.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

If by "trivial process irregularities" you mean intentionally lying to investigators, hiding documents from subpoena, asking to have someone hide and/or destroy documents, and actively showing unauthorized people classified documents that weren't declassified (Trump's on tape with that), then we have different interpretations of that phrase.

Trump was in full rogue mode after he left office, and this is one action he took where it's likely going to bite him.

---

Everything he's done is covered by powers stated in NARA and by Federal Court ruling. His retention while still in office deemed the documents as personal rather than official records.

you neverTrumpers are getting way out over your skis on this one. USG does not have an open/shut case here. The standard I cite is the baseline of precedence, the predicate for his actions. USG will be arguing to narrow that precedence. It is hardly a slam dunk they will succeed.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Honest question, as I really don't know.

Does the law make allowances for those that say " I'm sorry, here are the top secret documents I never should have possessed to begin with."

If so Trumps situation is different .

If not there is a double standard being applied.

---

The apology doesn't matter the least bit. It's the cooperation and truthfulness with the authorities that does. Trump did neither, so you have willfulness in his efforts to conceal. That's how you coax authorities to bring the hammer.

---

Somehow doubt if either you or I were found to be in possession of top secret documents all would forgiven merely by returning them .

---

we would not, because none of us are (or ever have been) POTUS. Had any of us been so, our legal standing would be quite different.

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

If by "trivial process irregularities" you mean intentionally lying to investigators, hiding documents from subpoena, asking to have someone hide and/or destroy documents, and actively showing unauthorized people classified documents that weren't declassified (Trump's on tape with that), then we have different interpretations of that phrase.

Trump was in full rogue mode after he left office, and this is one action he took where it's likely going to bite him.

---

Everything he's done is covered by powers stated in NARA and by Federal Court ruling. His retention while still in office deemed the documents as personal rather than official records.

you neverTrumpers are getting way out over your skis on this one. USG does not have an open/shut case here. The standard I cite is the baseline of precedence, the predicate for his actions. USG will be arguing to narrow that precedence. It is hardly a slam dunk they will succeed.

---

I don't think you've read the indictment. Trump hid boxes from his own attorney tasked with pulling out documents marked classified, secret, confidential, etc. under federal subpoena, asked him to remove ("pluck") some of those documents he found in what he searched, then had his attorneys sign a subpoena certification that it's all been reviewed and turned over only for the FBI to find out a month or so later about those other boxes leading to the search warrant where they find dozens more.

And you of all people should know that battle plan outlines and intelligence briefings and reports are not "personal" documents.

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Quote:

---

It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process. %A0 %A0

Hillary did WAAAAY worse. %A0 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. %A0 Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. %A0No charges.

I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. %A0 %A0Flip the table over time.

---

"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. %A0She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. %A0Trump's DOJ let her slide

---

Of course it is a defense. %A0 Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.

---

Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.

---

Keep it up. %A0 %A0 You're doing your best to get him re-elected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/

---

This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. %A0Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump. %A0

The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. %A0The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. %A0Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.

---

It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.

---

It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. %A0Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable. %A0

---

LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? %A0 What are you smoking?

---

Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). %A0This isn't one of those times. %A0Even worse, it was an unforced error. %A0Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. %A0 Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. %A0It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. %A0 %A0 %A0If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass. %A0

---

Weak argument. %A0

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter. %A0

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. %A0 That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. %A0 %A0A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. %A0 At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

All of that is well and good, problem is that Trump is ex-POTUS. %A0None of this occurred before Jan 20, 2020. %A0If Trump had done what he was supposed to do and turn over all Presidential files to NARA before leaving office, then maybe an argument can be made. %A0Once Biden was inaugurated, Trump no longer had the power flowing through him, it transferred to Biden. Biden probably has more of a leg to stand on that he can't have a security violation as POTUS.

You also seem to be overlooking that none of the charges involve classification of docs. %A0

As well as he was not supposed to have them because they were not his to keep. %A0They are not Personal docs. %A0POTUS can't take a NSC report and make it personal, that doc belongs to NARA when he leaves, not Trump.

Also, this idea that POTUS can just think about a document being declassified is BS. %A0

Trump is screwed several ways. He is going to lose and should cut a deal like Hunter, but I do not think Trump is that clever.

---

He deemed the documents personal records while he was still in office, so your argument that he no longer retained the powers of office is moot.

You also forget statute and court ruling - documents which come into the possession are no longer agency records. %A0They are presidential records. %A0 And the designation of those records as personal are not a "loss of documentation" as the agencies retain the permanent copies (as Sam has alluded to the documents on the Clinton server).

Don't let the MSM lead you down the trail of breadcrumbs.....

And, yes, a POTUS can just "think about" declassifying a record and do so. %A0 He can hand a classified document to a member of the press on a whim, and it's considered declassified, because the declass decision is an inherent power of the CEO of the Executive Branch. %A0POTUS needs no prior approval. %A0He IS the prior approval from which all executive power is delegated.

---

So, so wrong...

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

A little more than a story... grand Jury thought enough there to indict, this is not just out of the blue...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

A little more than a story... grand Jury thought enough there to indict, this is not just out of the blue...

---

Remember that only the prosecution gets to make the case to the Grand Jury, there is no cross-examination of witnesses or defense presentation.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

A little more than a story... grand Jury thought enough there to indict, this is not just out of the blue...

---

Remember that only the prosecution gets to make the case to the Grand Jury, there is no cross-examination of witnesses or defense presentation.

---

Yes, but there has to be enough to warrant a trial. But for Donald, the Grand Jury system should be eliminated.

Poor Donny, he is such a good boy. Why does everyone hate him? None of this is him, right.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

A little more than a story... grand Jury thought enough there to indict, this is not just out of the blue...

---

Remember that only the prosecution gets to make the case to the Grand Jury, there is no cross-examination of witnesses or defense presentation.

---

Yes, but there has to be enough to warrant a trial. But for Donald, the Grand Jury system should be eliminated.

Poor Donny, he is such a good boy. Why does everyone hate him? None of this is him, right.

---

Nice limbo. Poor grasp of the point, though ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

A little more than a story... grand Jury thought enough there to indict, this is not just out of the blue...

---

Remember that only the prosecution gets to make the case to the Grand Jury, there is no cross-examination of witnesses or defense presentation.

---

Yes, but there has to be enough to warrant a trial. But for Donald, the Grand Jury system should be eliminated.

Poor Donny, he is such a good boy. Why does everyone hate him? None of this is him, right.

---

Nice limbo. Poor grasp of the point, though ...

---

So you think they should just turn the other way, ignore his docs and put aside the Grand Jury findings. Just let him do what he wants, when he wants. To you, he is above the law.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

A little more than a story... grand Jury thought enough there to indict, this is not just out of the blue...

---

Remember that only the prosecution gets to make the case to the Grand Jury, there is no cross-examination of witnesses or defense presentation.

---

Yes, but there has to be enough to warrant a trial. But for Donald, the Grand Jury system should be eliminated.

Poor Donny, he is such a good boy. Why does everyone hate him? None of this is him, right.

---

Nice limbo. Poor grasp of the point, though ...

---

So you think they should just turn the other way, ignore his docs and put aside the Grand Jury findings. Just let him do what he wants, when he wants. To you, he is above the law.

---

See? Your post just proves what I said. Maybe try reading what I actually wrote, don't assume something not said just because you don't want to seriously consider the point.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

You have to have evidence to bring an indictment, so not sure what you're saying here.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

You have to have evidence to bring an indictment, so not sure what you're saying here.

---

No, you have to convince a grand jury to bring an indictment.

Proving your case is something very different.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

You have to have evidence to bring an indictment, so not sure what you're saying here.

---

No, you have to convince a grand jury to bring an indictment.

Proving your case is something very different.

---

Convince requires more than a story...