Liberal Forum

RebelGator » 14 Jun 2023, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 10:45 am

Good thing you chose the Navy, no way you would have survived as an Army First Lieutenant in Vietnam......the Viet Cong wouldn't have been your problem, if you can cipher that, Jethro.

You wouldn't have survived Boot Camp, Cletis!    

I was a very good leader of men.  I still am in contact with ten or twelve of my former enlisted sailors.  They thank me to this day for the way I led them and encouraged them to be even better than they thought they could be.

And I was a kick-*** ship driver!    

sunburn » 14 Jun 2023, 11:33 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 11:33 am

The DOJ's defense for Clinton:
In defending NARA, the Justice Department argued that NARA doesn’t have “a duty to engage in a never-ending search for potential presidential records” that weren’t provided to NARA by the president at the end of his term. Nor, the department asserted, does the Presidential Records Act require NARA to appropriate potential presidential records forcibly.

The government’s position was that Congress had decided that the president and the president alone decides what is a presidential record and what isn’t. He may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watc ... ords-admin

The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records. Id. § 2201(3)(A). The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b).
 

sunburn » 14 Jun 2023, 11:33 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 11:33 am

The DOJ's defense for Clinton:
In defending NARA, the Justice Department argued that NARA doesn’t have “a duty to engage in a never-ending search for potential presidential records” that weren’t provided to NARA by the president at the end of his term. Nor, the department asserted, does the Presidential Records Act require NARA to appropriate potential presidential records forcibly.

The government’s position was that Congress had decided that the president and the president alone decides what is a presidential record and what isn’t. He may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.

-----------------------------------------

The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.----------------

meaning  that nara cannot decide what are presidential records.

the issue is trump having non decertified records.

and once certified documents become decertified they go into the national archives.  and they do not go with the president especially if they are still certified.

 

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 10:12 am

There doesn't need to be one.  Trump is not President.  And, he tries to build his defense using the PRA, but the PRA concerns "Presidential Records" only.  The first 31 counts of Jack Smith's indictment concern "Agency Records", which are NOT the property of the President, and are CERTAINLY not the property of a private citizen who USED TO BE the President.  He had no right to have them.  He had no right to show them to other people.  He had no right to fail to return them when he was asked to do so.

What you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND, ******, is that the RECORDS TRUMP TOOK ARE HIS AND ONLY HIS, argued THE GOVERNMENT and WON with that argument!!

NARA doesn’t have “a duty to engage in a never-ending search for potential presidential records” that weren’t provided to NARA by the president at the end of his term. Nor, the department asserted, does the Presidential Records Act require NARA to appropriate potential presidential records forcibly. The government’s position was that Congress had decided that the president and the president alone decides what is a presidential record and what isn’t. He may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.


Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed: “Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office,” she held, “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.”


 Judge Jackson added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.’ . . . PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.”

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 10:12 am

There doesn't need to be one.  Trump is not President.  And, he tries to build his defense using the PRA, but the PRA concerns "Presidential Records" only.  The first 31 counts of Jack Smith's indictment concern "Agency Records", which are NOT the property of the President, and are CERTAINLY not the property of a private citizen who USED TO BE the President.  He had no right to have them.  He had no right to show them to other people.  He had no right to fail to return them when he was asked to do so.

Oh, and ******, ONLY the President gets to decide what is PERSONAL, and what is AGENCY records, NOT your boy Jackieboy Smith, Merrick Garland, or Joe Biden!!! See the QUOTATION FROM BERMAN'S RULING!!!

GET THAT, YELLOWBELLY COCK SUCKING ******???

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 10:40 am

How can you then claim it's a witch hunt?

Based on the history of making up things against Trump. The fact Clinton, Biden and Pence were all found to have classified documents but only being pursued also tells me something isn’t on the level. 

jerra b » 14 Jun 2023, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 9:33 am

how can US policy be sold?

under the verbal disguise as foreign aid.

the definition of "personal records" from the Presidential Records Act:

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,2 of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President's own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning foreign country support of terrorist acts against the United States do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning the nuclear weapons capabilities of foreign countries do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning projected comparative regional military capabilities of foreign countries versus the United States do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning military attacks by a foreign country do NOT fit that definition.

ten years for each offense.  and there are 27 more just like those four examples.


As a high school classmate of mine just posted on FaceBook:  "Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack indicted the fat orange prick"  

hahahahahahahahahaahaha
 

neueregel » 14 Jun 2023, 12:39 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 12:39 pm

Based on the history of making up things against Trump. The fact Clinton, Biden and Pence were all found to have classified documents but only being pursued also tells me something isn’t on the level.

did any of those other guys show the classified documents to people?  Y/N

did any of those other guys refuse to return them when asked?   Y/N

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 12:46 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 12:46 pm

did any of those other guys show the classified documents to people?  Y/N

did any of those other guys refuse to return them when asked?   Y/N

Hillary did…after stripping the classified markings. As for Biden or Pence…don’t know. 

Hillary destroyed evidence so, no….she didn’t turn everything (anything) back over.

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 12:45 pm

the definition of "personal records" from the Presidential Records Act:

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,2 of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President's own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning foreign country support of terrorist acts against the United States do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning the nuclear weapons capabilities of foreign countries do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning projected comparative regional military capabilities of foreign countries versus the United States do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning military attacks by a foreign country do NOT fit that definition.

ten years for each offense.  and there are 27 more just like those four examples.


As a high school classmate of mine just posted on FaceBook:  "Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack indicted the fat orange prick"  

hahahahahahahahahaahaha
 

It is hilarious to watch a social mind bait and switch facts based separately on different ways to describe the same event of each detail sustained evolving at the same time everything is never same total sum twice when spontaneously occupying space in the moment here.

You demand literal interpretation of the law until you figure in diplomatic immunity for your one sided opinion thinking beyond your time mutually evolving in series parallel time displaced one of a kind reproductions within the whole 8 billion humans occupying space geographically here now.

Who is formulated opinions within a consensus, genetically speaking each is just another ancestor occupying space since conceived by their previous ancestry.

neueregel » 14 Jun 2023, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 12:48 pm

Hillary did…after stripping the classified markings. As for Biden or Pence…don’t know.

I honestly don't recall that, and I don't suppose you have anything other than your brilliant memory to back that up?

neueregel » 14 Jun 2023, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 12:51 pm

Hillary destroyed evidence so, no….she didn’t turn everything (anything) back over.

so you are saying that she was asked to turn over classified documents and, rather than comply, she destroyed them instead?

Beekeeper » 14 Jun 2023, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 12:13 pm

Oh, and ******, ONLY the President gets to decide what is PERSONAL, and what is AGENCY records, NOT your boy Jackieboy Smith, Merrick Garland, or Joe Biden!!! See the QUOTATION FROM BERMAN'S RULING!!!

GET THAT, YELLOWBELLY COCK SUCKING ******???

no. 

not certified documents by other agencies.

they are not his personal property.

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 12:59 pm

I honestly don't recall that, and I don't suppose you have anything other than your brilliant memory to back that up?

https://youtu.be/opPh9uG29cQ

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 1:00 pm

so you are saying that she was asked to turn over classified documents and, rather than comply, she destroyed them instead?

Yes. See above. 
 
 

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 1:00 pm

so you are saying that she was asked to turn over classified documents and, rather than comply, she destroyed them instead?

Wasn't documents on [paper, it was technology storing those elusive doc files on people's devices that were destroyed and obliterated to remove all access to the information.

No evidence not circumstantial case. Hillary had people manufacture circumstantial evidence against Trump since fall of 2015.

neueregel » 14 Jun 2023, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 1:04 pm

Yes. See above.

you have proof of her intent to refuse to comply?

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 11:33 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 11:33 am

You wouldn't have survived Boot Camp, Cletis!    

I was a very good leader of men.  I still am in contact with ten or twelve of my former enlisted sailors.  They thank me to this day for the way I led them and encouraged them to be even better than they thought they could be.

And I was a kick-*** ship driver!  

Can you name one poster you're not at odds with here?