Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
"DOJ has one big problem with its Trump criminal case, legal expert says"
"DOJ has one big problem with its Trump criminal case, legal expert says"
By roadkill
9 Jun 2023 4:22 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
9 Jun 2023 4:22 pm
Before you watch the video remember...Biden had classified docs EVERYWHERE...and likely still does.
Hillary was subpoenaed to turn over emails, etc. She wiped her illegal server and smashed cell phones to hide her crimes.
Remember when the left cried out about that? Me neither.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pipp4MvN_c0
Hillary was subpoenaed to turn over emails, etc. She wiped her illegal server and smashed cell phones to hide her crimes.
Remember when the left cried out about that? Me neither.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pipp4MvN_c0
"'WE'RE STILL WAITING': Steve Hilton on whereabouts of Biden, Clinton indictments"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNd4YUcIp5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNd4YUcIp5M
“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, 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.
And the judge went on to say the raid at Mar A Lago was illegal: Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them,” Jackson noted. “Defendant considers this to be an ‘extraordinary request’ that is ‘unfounded, contrary to the PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.’
And the judge went on to say the raid at Mar A Lago was illegal: Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them,” Jackson noted. “Defendant considers this to be an ‘extraordinary request’ that is ‘unfounded, contrary to the PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.’
Yea, because you're a now a legal expert too.
Madcow is already floating the idea that this was done so they could offer Trump a deal: Dropping case in exchange for him dropping out of the race.
Liberals are scared **** of Trump because they know they can't beat him.
golfboy » 09 Jun 2023, 6:49 pm » wrote: ↑ “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, 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.
And the judge went on to say the raid at Mar A Lago was illegal: Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them,” Jackson noted. “Defendant considers this to be an ‘extraordinary request’ that is ‘unfounded, contrary to the PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.’
"And the judge went on to say the raid at Mar A Lago was illegal"
Very interesting...thanx.
who gives a **** what Maddow says?golfboy » 09 Jun 2023, 6:54 pm » wrote: ↑ Yea, because you're a now a legal expert too.
Madcow is already floating the idea that this was done so they could offer Trump a deal: Dropping case in exchange for him dropping out of the race.
Liberals are scared **** of Trump because they know they can't beat him.
I read the indictment. YOU didn't. You've never read 44 pages without getting lost in your entire life.
and I will admit that I am not a legal expert...but I DO have one on speed dial who answers the phone with, "Hi Daddio".golfboy » 09 Jun 2023, 6:54 pm » wrote: ↑ Yea, because you're a now a legal expert too.
Madcow is already floating the idea that this was done so they could offer Trump a deal: Dropping case in exchange for him dropping out of the race.
Liberals are scared **** of Trump because they know they can't beat him.
9 Jun 2023 7:10 pm
Did they show Trump's intent to harm America?maineman » 09 Jun 2023, 7:05 pm » wrote: ↑ who gives a **** what Maddow says?
I read the indictment. YOU didn't. You've never read 44 pages without getting lost in your entire life.
9 Jun 2023 7:15 pm
Oh yea, the racist bitch that threw the only black juror off a case of a black defendant.maineman » 09 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm » wrote: ↑ and I will admit that I am not a legal expert...but I DO have one on speed dial who answers the phone with, "Hi Daddio".
9 Jun 2023 7:16 pm
specific intent to harm? no
blatant disregard? without doubt.
But why don't you read it for yourself?
oh wait...never mind... we both know the answer to THAT question!
9 Jun 2023 7:19 pm
Your 6-3 conservative SCOTUS agreed with her... her decision to exclude was based on educational level, not skin color.golfboy » 09 Jun 2023, 7:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh yea, the racist bitch that threw the only black juror off a case of a black defendant.
But you would never know that, because you can't read.
9 Jun 2023 7:23 pm
Good to know you're proud of raising a racist bitch.maineman » 09 Jun 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑ Your 6-3 conservative SCOTUS agreed with her... her decision to exclude was based on educational level, not skin color.
But you would never know that, because you can't read.
9 Jun 2023 7:28 pm
The law requires intent to harm the United States.maineman » 09 Jun 2023, 7:16 pm » wrote: ↑ specific intent to harm? no
blatant disregard? without doubt.
But why don't you read it for yourself?
oh wait...never mind... we both know the answer to THAT question!
Section 1: That (a) whoever, for the the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to the believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to injury of the United States
Good luck proving Trump intended to harm America.
9 Jun 2023 7:31 pm
she is not racist and SCOTUS agreed with her.
you are an illiterate dyslexic brain damaged moron who can't read beyond three sentences without getting drowned in word soup
9 Jun 2023 7:34 pm
9 Jun 2023 7:34 pm
we'll see how Jack and his team do against Team Kraken.golfboy » 09 Jun 2023, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑ The law requires intent to harm the United States.
Section 1: That (a) whoever, for the the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to the believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to injury of the United States
Good luck proving Trump intended to harm America.
9 Jun 2023 7:39 pm
trust me. They didn't bother to hear the case. They dismissed it. And I will NOT spend any time whatsoever finding the link that proves that. My daughter sent it to me in an email months ago. You aren't worth the time to go find it. I mean, I really wouldn't cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire... I KNOW my daughter was vindicated by SCOTUS. you got ****.
9 Jun 2023 7:41 pm
So SCOTUS didn't rule for, or agree with your daughter. They didn't even hear the case.maineman » 09 Jun 2023, 7:39 pm » wrote: ↑ trust me. They didn't bother to hear the case. They dismissed it. And I will NOT spend any time whatsoever finding the link that proves that. My daughter sent it to me in an email months ago. You aren't worth the time to go find it. I mean, I really wouldn't cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire... I KNOW my daughter was vindicated by SCOTUS. you got ****.
Once again, you lied. You're such a pathetic POS.
Who is online
In total there are 1912 users online :: 8 registered, 14 bots, and 1890 guests
Registered users: Deezer Shoove, Vegas, murdock, Skans, roadkill, LowIQTrash, Reverend Al Sharpton, Cannonpointer
Bots: DuckDuckBot, Custo, Yahoo! Slurp, Applebot, proximic, Mediapartners-Google, YandexBot, ADmantX, linkfluence.com, semantic-visions.com, bingbot, BLEXBot, Googlebot, curl/7