It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CONFIRMED: As Gateway Pundit Reported — FBI Doctored Mar-a-Lago Photo

page: 20
70
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Jonathan Turley. I would hazard a guess that Twitter algorithm is feeding you what you want and excluding opposing opinions.


A look shows that Turley states it is "a good decision", with no legal mentions as to why it's a good decision. However you have numerous lawyers citing actual legality that note it's a bad decision.

Not just the SM. Although at this point a SM is redundant, but the statements she made in her decision and her over reach are noted as a bad legal take. Also the fact that she ignored completely the information in the DOJ filing that states the current President stated there is no executive privilege on these items. The judge actually stated the President has not weighed in on this. Did she not even review the filing before making her decision, or did someone else help her write her decision? How did she miss that?



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Did they get the docs in the kids bedroom???

Cause you know the magistrate specifically told them to search the kids bedroom?




He might have been releasing top secret documents ya know, cuz that's what democrat's kids do.



I wouldn't mind searching absolutely everything if there really was a case here, but the whole thing is just another obvious democrat party hoax if history and their recent behavior is any indication.




posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453


Then democrats should appeal it.

I'm guessing they won't, but not at all worried if they do, she followed case law and precedent.



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Allowing a former President's claim of executive privilege above the sitting President's decision is certainly not a precedent listed anywhere previously that I can find.



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Allowing a former President's claim of executive privilege above the sitting President's decision is certainly not a precedent listed anywhere previously that I can find.





That isn't even the issue here, are you confused?

The exec priv claim would have been made while Trump was POTUS, joe has nothing to do with it.

Because joe wouldn't have been POTUS at the time.

Duh.



The ability to assert new exec priv claims expires at term end, but the existing orders don't suddenly vaporize.


edit on 6-9-2022 by MidnightWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453

And yet Democrats keep screaming about conspiracies and here you are 😁

Wild tennis ball deflecting 😁



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Allowing a former President's claim of executive privilege above the sitting President's decision is certainly not a precedent listed anywhere previously that I can find.




🤣🤣🤣🤣 All Biden did was say "what am I signing?"



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

While he is President yes.
After he is President, the sitting President gets to make the determination regarding a former President's claim of privilege. Which is noted in the judges decision(that the current President has not weighed in), although she completely ignored that he current President made a determination in May as noted in the letter included in the filing.
edit on 6-9-2022 by frogs453 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453
Hey yo
Is that magistrate dead?
You know like you sourced?

TIA



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

While he is President yes.
After he is President, the sitting President gets to make the determination regarding a former President's claim of privilege. Which is noted in the judges decision(that the current President has not weighed in), although she completely ignored that he current President made a determination in May as noted in the letter included in the filing.


Can ya quote that?

Ya know, for clarity and benefit of new readers here 🤐



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody
Hey uh, did you completely miss all the other sources that did not have any grammatical errors? Since PBS was too radical for you?



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

But Trump has no possessory claim over those documents. They became property of the US government on January 20th, 2021 per the PRA.

So even if he still had executive privilege, which has not been determined by the courts, those documents would be handed over to NARA upon conclusion of the special master's review.

The only things Cannon's decision succeeds in doing is A.) Stalling the case and B.) Establishing that there are in fact five chief executives of the United States instead of just the one outlined in the US Constitution.



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

While he is President yes.
After he is President, the sitting President gets to make the determination regarding a former President's claim of privilege.



Even if that nonsense was true, which it isn't, it would mean that no documents were taken improperly.

joe was not POTUS when Trump departed.

Duh.



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



A former president can try to assert executive privilege to maintain the privacy of certain records, but those claims may be overruled by the current president. That's what happened when Trump tried to block the House select Jan. 6 committee from obtaining records held by the Archives. The Biden White House refused to block it, and the Supreme Court determined Trump could not stop it.




In the 1977 case Nixon v. GSA, the Supreme Court ruled that a former president may not successfully assert executive privilege "against the very executive branch in whose name privilege is invoked," as the National Archives explained in its May 2022 letter to Trump's attorney, which became public this week. In Nixon v. GSA, Nixon challenged a new Presidential Recordings and Materials Act, passed because of Watergate, as a violation of the separation of powers and his own privacy rights. Nixon lost that case.

An earlier case, United States v. Nixon, established that executive privilege is not absolute, and does not shield a president from handing over records in a criminal prosecution. The special prosecutor in charge of the case wanted Nixon's taped discussions with his aides. The Supreme Court determined that Nixon's concerns were outweighed by the needs of the investigation.


Link

You probably won't like that link, so
Here's a link to the pdf of the Nixon case.

U.S v Nixon pdf



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It wasn’t a grammar error liar.
You posted a source that claimed the magistrate “was put to death”.

4 word grammar error much?

It is a filthy lie, isn’t it?
Is the magistrate dead?



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The possessory claims have nothing to do with the exec priv claims, there is no need for a possessory claim for a document where an exec priv claim had been made.



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

No as Xcalibur noted, the documents are the governments property anyway once out of office.



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

But Trump has no possessory claim over those documents. They became property of the US government on January 20th, 2021 per the PRA.

So even if he still had executive privilege, which has not been determined by the courts, those documents would be handed over to NARA upon conclusion of the special master's review.

The only things Cannon's decision succeeds in doing is A.) Stalling the case and B.) Establishing that there are in fact five chief executives of the United States instead of just the one outlined in the US Constitution.

Twitter is wrong about that one


Again



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Dp


edit on 6/9/2022 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2022 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No he's not dead because he had to be provided security from the radical right nut jobs who were threatening his life.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join