D.C. Court of Appeals made a horrible ruling against Trump

a reply to: Lazy88

The fact that he failed to comply with a subpoena but still had his lawyers attest that he did comply with it is pretty strong evidence of him lying.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lazy88

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

The law is actually pretty clear about intent being required.

How does that apply to the executive and what powers does that individual have against information being hidden under the false pretext of “national security” and the agencies that abuse that power.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lazy88

The fact that he failed to comply with a subpoena but still had his lawyers attest that he did comply with it is pretty strong evidence of him lying.

Bases on what evidence?

Were they still engaged in active negotiations while the subpoena was issued. Supposedly Trump wasn’t cooperating at all when in fact the issue was under negotiations. So the subpoena was issued under a false pretext.

So the elected executive can be hamstrung by the agencies they are supposedly elected to oversee by labeling everything classified?

a reply to: Lazy88

What office did Trump hold in 2022?

a reply to: Lazy88

The evidence that hundreds of classified documents were later removed after a search warrant was issued.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: norhoc4

INDICTMENT as to DONALD J. TRUMP

Weak on purpose with exit strategies built in 😀

originally posted by: JadedGhost
I don’t understand though, people here keep claiming there was no insurrection. So why would Trump be trying to claim presidential immunity, if there was no insurrection in the first place?

Read the charges and citations and then resubmit your post and questions. 😀

a reply to: Annee

But he was President "At the Time" 😃

NOT ANOTHER COURT RULING AGAINST HIM!!!!!

Let's see...

A) He didn't do nuffin even though he did something
B) He has horrible attorneys
C) His legal arguments suck
D) All of the above

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

This will have some unintended consequences.

However if they prove that what he did falls outside the scope of his duties as President. Then play ball.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
I don’t understand though, people here keep claiming there was no insurrection. So why would Trump be trying to claim presidential immunity, if there was no insurrection in the first place?

Love your satire approach

To Keep Your Eye On...

JOSEPH R. BIDEN may be arrested before sunset on January 20, 2025, by President Trump's DOJ, for TREASON. Enabling the needless deaths of hundreds of Americans, by keeping the U.S.-Mex border open, is a heinous crime! 😡💣

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Xtrozero

Both Chutkan and the DC Circuit have found Trump's arguments to lack a Constitutional basis. If SCOTUS rules similarly, the Trump has two choices, drop the argument or attempt to convince the jury that he was covered by immunity.

Just went briefly over the document.


What do you think of the judiciary assuming congress' responsibility?

The separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in
Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary to
oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President
for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means
that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the
Congress’s laws. Although certain discretionary actions may
be insulated from judicial review, the structure of the
Constitution mandates that the President is “amenable to the
laws for his conduct” and “cannot at his discretion” violate
them. Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 166. Here, former
President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally
applicable criminal laws, meaning those acts were not properly
within the scope of his lawful discretion; accordingly, Marbury
and its progeny provide him no structural immunity from the
charges in the Indictment.

Page 25

a reply to: JinMI

Where are they assuming Congress' responsibility?

In order to prosecute Trump on anything they can imagine, the government will make up new laws and apply them retroactively. They will ignore old laws and say they don't apply to Trump. They will take cases they couldn't win in criminal courts to civil courts for a lower standard of conviction.

And yet, no one has even been accused of a crime over the proven fake Russian dossier. Or the lies we were told about Covid and the vaccines. Or the myriad crimes committed by the FBI, CIA, DHS or any other alphabet agency.

Is there anyone who believes that government in the United States is not corrupt to the core from top to bottom? Is there any division of any branch of government that has a reputation for honesty and integrity?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Where are they assuming Congress' responsibility?

14th amendment section 5 saying only CONGRESS has the power to get the president.

Also the decision today was on UNLIMITED immunity. a president has LIMITED immunity(according to Supreme court itself in the past) As long as a action is done in office for the american people or to defend them, legally the president is untouchable.
Trumps speech is covered by that. he didnt ask for a insurrection that day,and later on after the cops couldnt settle the crowd called in re enforcements.
Its funny the FBI already said it wasnt a insurrection.

No dem considered Trump a actual President , If the shoe was on the other foot well the Dems would take a knee for BLM and say we won for America !!!!

Or it would not me News at all business as usual god they were dramatic .

originally posted by: Threadbarer

Both Chutkan and the DC Circuit have found Trump's arguments to lack a Constitutional basis. If SCOTUS rules similarly, the Trump has two choices, drop the argument or attempt to convince the jury that he was covered by immunity.

It is DC, so do you think he could get a fair trial or ruling there? Look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A rather radical group that has over 90% of its rulings overturned on review.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Where are they assuming Congress' responsibility?

When they decide to override impeachments.