There is no crime in paying a porn star. Nor was that issue before the Court to begin with.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Paying porn star - no immunity
Florida records case = immunity
Georgia Interference = ??

---

Is Florida an "Official Act?"

---

Presidents past and present have the right to possess and declassify documents. Senators and Vice Presidents do not. That is, unless you are a feeble old man with a bad memory. Then it is okay.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Paying porn star - no immunity
Florida records case = immunity
Georgia Interference = ??

---

Is Florida an "Official Act?"

---

Presidents past and present have the right to possess and declassify documents. Senators and Vice Presidents do not. That is, unless you are a feeble old man with a bad memory. Then it is okay.

---

He didn't declassify them while president.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Paying porn star - no immunity
Florida records case = immunity
Georgia Interference = ??

---

Is Florida an "Official Act?"

---

Presidents past and present have the right to possess and declassify documents. Senators and Vice Presidents do not. That is, unless you are a feeble old man with a bad memory. Then it is okay.

---

He didn't declassify them while president.

---

He says he did. And once again, Senators and Vice Presidents can't declassify EVER!

Looks like Jack Smith has two pieces of straw left. Will be interesting to see if he proceeds with them.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Paying porn star - no immunity
Florida records case = immunity
Georgia Interference = ??

---

Is Florida an "Official Act?"

---

Presidents past and present have the right to possess and declassify documents. Senators and Vice Presidents do not. That is, unless you are a feeble old man with a bad memory. Then it is okay.

---

He didn't declassify them while president.

---

He says he did. And once again, Senators and Vice Presidents can't declassify EVER!

Looks like Jack Smith has two pieces of straw left. Will be interesting to see if he proceeds with them.

---

Or if he even has the authority to proceed.

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and isn't official and unofficial. That's up to the court.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

I just can't believe those jerkwad justices in the Supreme Court had the gall to basically grant immunity to Obama for killing those Americans with drone strikes.

Appalling. Really appalling.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

Were they actually in his bathroom or were they placed there after the fake cover sheets were produced and applied during the raid?

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.

One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.

Frank Galvin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.

One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.

---

Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.

One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.

---

Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...

---

Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.

One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.

---

Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...

---

Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.

---

We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.

One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.

---

Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...

---

Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.

---

We both know that's not true.

---

I know it is true. They tried for two years to get the documents back before they charged him. You just want to excuse Trump's contempt for the law with tin foil hat stuff.

Clinton Sock Drawer case said that the determination of personal vs official is an exclusive, unreviewable power of POTUS.

Docs case likely done…..

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.

One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.

---

Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...

---

Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.

---

We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?

---

Sort of the same thing...

---

No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.

---

If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.

Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...

---

So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.

---

This is part of the problem. The Archives have always known that former Presidents took various documents with them, and until now it's always been handled quietly when the Archives wanted them for some reason. In this case, some clerk at the Archives saw a chance to blow the matter out of proportion, and of course Trump wanted to play the same game.

The relevant statutes have always been squishy in the details.

whiterock said:

---

Clinton Sock Drawer case said that the determination of personal vs official is an exclusive, unreviewable power of POTUS.

Docs case likely done…..

---

The case was likely done when it got assigned to a complete partisan hack who is completely in the bag for Trump.

In a world where the rule of law is a thing, however, the sock case has zero to do with the documents case. Trump was not charged with keeping presidential material, he was chargesd with keeping classified material. Two completely different statutes. There is no world in which the stuff Trump had was his personal material like the taped conversations between Clinton and an author were arguabley Clinton's personal things.

Just goes to show that where DJT is concerned his supporters will throw all logic out the window,

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.

One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.

---

Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...

---

Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.

---

We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?

---

Sort of the same thing...

---

No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.

---

If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.

Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...

---

So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.

---

No, he should not have taken them in the first place. But no harm, no foul is a something prosecutors go by. More to the point it would not have even gotten to a prosecutor in the first place because the agency would havegotten what it wanted.

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm not sure this ruling says anything.

President has immunity for official acts. (Assumed)
No immunity for unofficial acts (also assumed)

Now we argue what is and didn't official and unofficial.

---

Have you been taking speech lessons from Kamala? That was one fine word salad. A little Bleu Cheese please!

---

I assume college grads can read and comprehend.

---

So you don't consider a President declassifying documents an official act? If not, why not? Seems pretty clear to me.

---

If he did, you are correct. The question becomes how does he declassify? Just thinking it is declassified, no document management? I could even go as far IF he had a written policy that anytime he takes it to the residence it is declassified, at least there is some type of thought and control. But, after the fact in Mar Lago bathroom? Not so much.

---

The criminal act is possessing classified documents. That occured after Trump was president-there is no immunity issue there.

One of the defenses is that the documents were declassified while he was President. I agree with your take on the fact that he clearly did not declassify them while President, but that is an issue based on the classification statutes. Immunity should have nothing to do with the Florida case.

---

Too bad Trump isn't too old and feeble minded to be prosecuted so that "the possession is the crime" wouldn't apply...

---

Trump wouldn't have been prosecuted either if he just gave the documents back.

---

We both know that's not true. The alleged crime was possession, not failing to return borrowed documents, right?

---

Sort of the same thing...

---

No. possession is the crime. Whether or not they are returned at a specific time is irrelevant to the fact that they were illegally possessed.

---

If they were returned, he wouldn't have possession. Sort of a chicken and the egg.

Bottomline is that he has something he shouldn't and didn't give it back in a timely manner. He is guilty of this
one...

---

So possession is fine if they are given back when requested? That's a bit different from possession being the crime.

---

No, he should not have taken them in the first place. But no harm, no foul is a something prosecutors go by. More to the point it would not have even gotten to a prosecutor in the first place because the agency would havegotten what it wanted.

---

If the ability and willingness to return said documents negates the law being broken by being possessed then there is no law against possession, only a law against uncooperative behavior.

---

I guess you nver got a warning for speeding.

Trump practically begged for this case to be brought and then his MAGites get uspet that the case was brought. Snowflakes enough to build a snowman.