FBI raids Trumps home

[MCgrease08]

”Nobody else in a position to do anything about it has proven it was a crime”. The mental gymnastics required to get here are beyond me...your reasoning is so circular I don’t even know where to start.

The cognitive dissonance sure is stunning.

 

[Onebad06vtx]

I didn't know Kut was a left handed gunner.

Thats what I was thinking.
I thought he was gone,but now I see he is just in the witness protection program!

 

[Ingomike]

Also, I don't know why LG assumes that Trump would've had the only copies of any documents in his possession, so the FOIA argument probably doesn't apply either.

@LeftyGunner does not believe in the constitutional separation of powers. He does not understand that congress can pass all the laws they want, like “presidential records act“, and they can be on the books for years, but they are unenforceable. Congress cannot order a president to do anything nor limit him in any way. (The courts have ruled this many times.) (For those that have no nuance, this does not mean a president can commit murder.)

Congress cannot specify how, why, or when records are declared personal by a President. Congress cannot specify how, why, or when records are declared declassified by a President. The President is the supreme ultimate authority concerning classified documents.

If anyone does not like what a President does with classified documents they can impeach him or try him for treason, those are the only constitutional options…

 

[Ingomike]

Why would there need to be any charges?

The government wanted its rightful property. It served a warrant to retrieve it. No more action needs to be taken, the issue is resolved as far as the government is concerned...unless Trump has more.

In addition to charges being unnecessary, criminal prosecution would be a political gold mine for Republicans. Hillary set the precedent with her buttery males…if her theft doesn’t warrant charges his shouldn’t either. Insistence to the opposite reeks of partisan hypocrisy, and deserves to be exposed as such.

What constitutional authority does a Secretary of State have to possess classified documents in contravention of congressional law.

Your post reeks of partisan hypocrisy…

 

[Ingomike]

It is pretty clear that Trump took stuff that didn’t belong to him. It is also clear that a pursuit of charges in this matter would be in service of politics, not justice.

Why do you hate the constitution?

 

[Ingomike]

He took a bunch of presidential records that do not belong to him, which is a crime.

Who has authority over the president in executive branch matters?

 

[Ingomike]

According to the Presidential Records Act it was a crime.

Is that in the constitution?

 

[LeftyGunner]

@LeftyGunner does not believe in the constitutional separation of powers. He does not understand that congress can pass all the laws they want, like “presidential records act“, and they can be on the books for years, but they are unenforceable. Congress cannot order a president to do anything nor limit him in any way. (The courts have ruled this many times.) (For those that have no nuance, this does not mean a president can commit murder.)

Congress cannot specify how, why, or when records are declared personal by a President. Congress cannot specify how, why, or when records are declared declassified by a President. The President is the supreme ultimate authority concerning classified documents.

If anyone does not like what a President does with classified documents they can impeach him or try him for treason, those are the only constitutional options…

Your knowledge of my beliefs appears about as solid as your understanding of the constitution.

”Laws don’t apply to the president”.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

 

[LeftyGunner]

What constitutional authority does a Secretary of State have to possess classified documents in contravention of congressional law.

Your post reeks of partisan hypocrisy…

Go and find anywhere I have spoken in support of Clinton.

Try again.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Why do you hate the constitution?

Why won’t you read it?

(Hint: there are more than 10 amendments)

 

[Ingomike]

Your knowledge of my beliefs appears about as solid as your understanding of the constitution.

”Laws don’t apply to the president”.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

Proving my point. I even put it in writing that common laws apply but not laws telling a president how to run their office..

 

[BigRed]

Germany is a ******* ****hole.

 

[Ingomike]

Go and find anywhere I have spoken in support of Clinton.

Try again.

Why don’t you answer the questions? Because you cannot. I will ask again.

Who has authority over the president in executive branch matters?

What constitutional authority does a Secretary of State have to possess classified documents in contravention of congressional law.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Proving my point. I even put it in writing that common laws apply but not laws telling a president how to run their office..

That’s now how the rule of law works…that’s not even how our system works.

Congress doesn’t rule by fiat, they write bills…

…bills don’t have any power until ratified by the executive branch through presidential signature…

…turning them into laws, to which all Americans are equally beholden…

….like the presidential records act.

At least, that’s how the constitution says it should work. You should really try reading it.

 

[Ingomike]

That’s now how the rule of law works…that’s not even how our system works.

Congress doesn’t rule by fiat, they write bills…

…bills don’t have any power until ratified by the executive branch through presidential signature…

…turning them into laws, to which all Americans are equally beholden…

….like the presidential records act.

At least, that’s how the constitution says it should work. You should really try reading it.

Nope! Federal judge Berman ruled on a similar case and clearly indicated just what I told you.

No former president can agree to give up constitutional authority for subsequent administrations. Just like no Congress can give up constitutional authority for future congresses.

No Congress or president can bind future presidents to a law they pass. (Concerning the operation of the office, including the handling of classified documents.)

It is illogical to think that a President can be told by previous administrations and congresses how to handle documents.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Why don’t you answer the questions? Because you cannot. I will ask again.

Who has authority over the president in executive branch matters?

What constitutional authority does a Secretary of State have to possess classified documents in contravention of congressional law.

The law. The law has authority over the president...in every matter, every time. It’s called the rule of law, and it is the only thing underpinning the legitimacy of a constitutional form of government.

The president isn’t a temporary king, he is a public servant holding an office. It is the office that holds the power, not the man.

I‘m not arguing that an SOS does have that authority…but you are arguing for a scenario that would allow for it: SOS is an appointed cabinet position, their authority is derived from presidential consent. If the president has total authority to ignore congress’s will on how he runs his office, he can allow his SOS to handle documents as casually as they want.

You don’t get to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire and let Trump slide. That is textbook hypocrisy.

 

[manifest destiny]

The law. The law has authority over the president...in every matter, every time. It’s called the rule of law, and it is the only thing underpinning the legitimacy of a constitutional form of government.

Joe Biden. Hunter Biden. The Big Guy. Rule of law. One of these things don't belong.

 

[jwamplerusa]

The House creates the budget. Zero any funds for any government employees of ATF, FBI, and maybe others above pay grade X. If they want to play politics, we shouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[Ingomike]

The law. The law has authority over the president...in every matter, every time. It’s called the rule of law, and it is the only thing underpinning the legitimacy of a constitutional form of government.

The president isn’t a temporary king, he is a public servant holding an office. It is the office that holds the power, not the man.

I‘m not arguing that an SOS does have that authority…but you are arguing for a scenario that would allow for it: SOS is an appointed cabinet position, their authority is derived from presidential consent. If the president has total authority to ignore congress’s will on how he runs his office, he can allow his SOS to handle documents as casually as they want.

You don’t get to hold Clinton’s feet to the fire and let Trump slide. That is textbook hypocrisy.

Can we get over the herring that the president is not under the rule of law and limit the discussion to the topic, a former President possessing documents others believe are classified?

Cabinet members are under the the rule of law pertaining to the handling of classified documents.

A president cannot delegate his constitutional authority to others.

A President in office can declassify any documents he wishes, any way he wishes, any time he wishes until the next president is inaugurated. He can do similar in defining documents personal.

Just who has constitutional authority to tell a president how to handle the documents of his administration?

 

[dieselrealtor]

Has Kut returned?