FBI raids Trumps home

[LeftyGunner]

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.

This is what happens get your legal insight from InfoWars.

I beg you to read that case. Please. It isn’t what Alex Jones told you.

 

[Ingomike]

This is what happens get your legal insight from InfoWars.

I beg you to read that case. Please. It isn’t what Alex Jones told you.

Typical post by communist supporters.

I lay it out clearly and you can’t answer so you cast aspersions on others…

 

[LeftyGunner]

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?

Only if we can get over the herring that classification of the documents is in any way important to the actual facts of the case.

The president doesn’t get to claim federal records anymore than he gets to claim federal real estate...

He took federal property that he wasn’t authorized to have. Need proof? A court allowed the FBI to enter his home, look for, and recover federal property...and then an entirely different court Ruled that (at least some of) the property had to be immediately returned to its rightful owner who was, in their judgement, you guessed it…

…not Trump.

These are facts.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Typical post by communist supporters.

I lay it out clearly and you can’t answer so you cast aspersions on others…

Still haven’t read the case for yourself, though, huh?

 

[Creedmoor]

 

[LeftyGunner]

Typical post by communist supporters.

I lay it out clearly and you can’t answer so you cast aspersions on others…

Starts the post with ad hominem…

…closes it out by accusing others of bad faith by resorting to ad hominem.

First-rate self-awareness there, Mike.

 

[Ingomike]

A court allowed the FBI to enter his home, look for, and recover federal property.

See you don’t even have the details right. Not a court, a magistrate signed the warrant. There are serious constitutional issues there if they can even constitutionally do this as they are not judges.

Can Magistrate Judges Constitutionally Issue Search Warrants?

The Mar-A-Lago warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.

thefederalist.com

 

[Ingomike]

I will post Judge Amy Berman’s quotes so you guys can decide what she said.

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,”

 

[LeftyGunner]

I will post Judge Amy Berman’s quotes so you guys can decide what she said.

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,”

I can’t help but notice you are posting a quote from an article editorializing the decision, not the decision itself.

I wonder why?

Still haven’t read it for yourself, have you?

Context is important, especially in legal writing. Your reliance on cherry-picked quotes (curated by a still unrevealed third party) belies the weakness of your position.

Her 2012 decision, as it applies to that case, stands…that much is true. Whether todays court views that precedent as binding in any way is up to them…and the decisions so far have not been breaking Trumps way, to put it generously.

 

[Ingomike]

I can’t help but notice you are posting a quote from an article editorializing the decision, not the decision itself.

I wonder why?

Still haven’t read it for yourself, have you?

Context is important, especially in legal writing. Your reliance on cherry-picked quotes (curated by a still unrevealed third party) belies the weakness of your position.

Her 2012 decision, as it applies to that case, stands…that much is true. Whether todays court views that precedent as binding in any way is up to them…and the decisions so far have not been breaking Trumps way, to put it generously.

Yep, justice today is heads communists win, tails constitutionalists lose.

Why do you assume you are the only guy that reads decisions?

Good night Kut…

 

[LeftyGunner]

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

What?

I keep seeing people call me a ”kut“, and I gather it to be some kind of insult, but I have no idea what people mean by it. Is it some kind of reference to a book or a movie? Is this the new slang?

I tried google and urban dictionary…still no clue, getting older sucks.

I get that I’m the butt of some kind of joke…anyone mind clearing up for me what‘s so funny about calling me (or at least my posts) a “kut”?

 

[KLB]

What?

I keep seeing people call me a ”kut“, and I gather it to be some kind of insult, but I have no idea what people mean by it. Is it some kind of reference to a book or a movie? Is this the new slang?

I tried google and urban dictionary…still no clue, getting older sucks.

I get that I’m the butt of some kind of joke…anyone mind clearing up for me what‘s so funny about calling me (or at least my posts) a “kut”?

It is a reference to a now banned former member that liked to stir . A number of people got themselves banned arguing with him, because they would lose their minds in the argument. Eventually it was determined that he was merely trolling people to try to get them to get themselves banned.

It is used anytime someone argues a point that most here disagree with. It is meant as a personal insult, and is very much overused.

 

[LeftyGunner]

It is a reference to a now banned former member that liked to stir . A number of people got themselves banned arguing with him, because they would lose their minds in the argument. Eventually it was determined that he was merely trolling people to try to get them to get themselves banned.

It is used anytime someone argues a point that most here disagree with. It is meant as a personal insult, and is very much overused.

Oh, okay. I get it.

Thank you for the sincere reply.

 

[bobzilla]

Kut always played "victim" and thought it was absolutely hilarious to argue the opposite of whatever and bait people into getting banned. The message is long gone but I lost any respect I might have had when he admitted he didn't actually think the way he was arguing, he just liked to make people lose their **** and get banned.

LG, you walk that line an awful lot like he did before he got brazen thinking he was smarter than everyone else and couldn't be banned. The similarities are there but it may just be the natural part of being left thinking.

 

[jamil]

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.

Sounds like we're moving the goal posts because what was promised by the media didn't materialize.

The warrant authorized government officials to seize all “documents
and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in
violation” of three federal statutes—18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, and 1519.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10810

I kinda think there needs to be charges filed to prove this wasn't just a partisan misuse of authority. Whether the former president had the authority to have those documents or not would be for courts to decide. The administration and the press justified this search as investigating crimes. Okay. So they need to put up or shut up. Did he break the law or not?

I suspect this was just to gain access to his personal documents, which they took also, to find information against Trump. Given the timing, maybe a play to help Democrats in the midterms. But regardless, I'm guessing it would pay dividends in 2024 if Trump should win the Republican nomination. No way his tax records won't get leaked to the press.

 

[jamil]

It is a reference to a now banned former member that liked to stir . A number of people got themselves banned arguing with him, because they would lose their minds in the argument. Eventually it was determined that he was merely trolling people to try to get them to get themselves banned.

It is used anytime someone argues a point that most here disagree with. It is meant as a personal insult, and is very much overused.

Oh kut it out.

 

[jamil]

Oh, okay. I get it.

Thank you for the sincere reply.

Any reference to kut is essentially accusing you of trolling. I haven't gotten that impression from you, but i didn't get that from Kut either at first.

 

[bobzilla]

Any reference to kut is essentially accusing you of trolling. I haven't gotten that impression from you, but i didn't get that from Kut either at first.

Yeah, you were a bit blind about it. New love's can be that way.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, you were a bit blind about it. New love's can be that way.

Eh, not blind so much as giving benefit of doubt, despite instinct telling me he's a troll.

All doubt was removed a few years ago when someone PM'd me a link to another site he was on bragging about what he was doing here. Zero room for doubt left after that.

 

[buckwacker]

Eh, not blind so much as giving benefit of doubt, despite instinct telling me he's a troll.

All doubt was removed a few years ago when someone PM'd me a link to another site he was on bragging about what he was doing here. Zero room for doubt left after that.

Did anyone ever share that link here?