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
16 Jun 2023 11:41 am
NO **** SHERLOCK!!! WHO does it DIRECT to "take all necessary steps"???jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 11:31 am » wrote: ↑ asshole learn to read-----
the statute provides that “[t]he United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records,” id. § 2202, and it directs the President to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records,” id. § 2203(a).
It DOES NOT direct the NARA to determine what is PRESIDENTIAL and what is PERSONAL. THAT is left TOTALLY UP TO THE PRESIDENT YOU BLATHERING IDIOT!!!
Run along now since your *** IS RED AND BLOODY from me kicking it royally and up around your NECK where you get to smell your own **** for a month!!!
READ THE JUDGES DECISION IN THIS CASE ASSHOLE....
the 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. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)- (b). While the plaintiff casts this lawsuit as a challenge to a decision made by the National Archives, the PRA makes it clear that this is not a decision the Archivist can make, and in this particular case, it is not a decision the Archivist did make because President Clinton's term ended in 2000, and the tapes were not provided to the Archives at that time. To the extent that there was a subsequent classification decision the Archivist purported to make, see supra note 2, or to be more accurate, a decision to decline to revisit the President's classification decision, any injury plaintiff claims it suffered as a result would not be redressable because there is nothing under the statute that the Court can compel the Archivist to do.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
16 Jun 2023 11:46 am
FAIL AGAIN, ASSWIPE!!!jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑ the archivist has the final say
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) During the President's term of office, the President may dispose of those Presidential records of such President that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value if-(1) the President obtains the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal of such Presidential records; and(2) the Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
So WHO designates WHAT IS PRESIDENTIAL and what is PERSONAL RECORDS??? IT AIN'T THE ARCHIVIST, ****!!
LAUGHING MY *** OFF AT YOUR STUPIDITY!!!
READ, ASSHOLE, READ......
the 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. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)- (b). While the plaintiff casts this lawsuit as a challenge to a decision made by the National Archives, the PRA makes it clear that this is not a decision the Archivist can make, and in this particular case, it is not a decision the Archivist did make because President Clinton's term ended in 2000, and the tapes were not provided to the Archives at that time. To the extent that there was a subsequent classification decision the Archivist purported to make, see supra note 2, or to be more accurate, a decision to decline to revisit the President's classification decision, any injury plaintiff claims it suffered as a result would not be redressable because there is nothing under the statute that the Court can compel the Archivist to do.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
16 Jun 2023 11:55 am
dumb ***- it clearly states the archivist decides.Beekeeper » 16 Jun 2023, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑ FAIL AGAIN, ASSWIPE!!!
So WHO designates WHAT IS PRESIDENTIAL and what is PERSONAL RECORDS??? IT AIN'T THE ARCHIVIST, ****!!
LAUGHING MY *** OFF AT YOUR STUPIDITY!!!
READ, ASSHOLE, READ......
----------------------------------------------
he Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
16 Jun 2023 12:01 pm
And of course the "archivist" is NEVER a dim-0-crap partisan hack, right?jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑ the archivist has the final say
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) During the President's term of office, the President may dispose of those Presidential records of such President that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value if-(1) the President obtains the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal of such Presidential records; and(2) the Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
16 Jun 2023 12:09 pm
dispose of those Presidential records. Trump wasn't throwing them away.jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑ the archivist has the final say
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c) During the President's term of office, the President may dispose of those Presidential records of such President that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value if-(1) the President obtains the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal of such Presidential records; and(2) the Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
16 Jun 2023 12:20 pm
-------------------------------(1) the President obtains the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal of such Presidential records; and(2) the Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.Beekeeper » 16 Jun 2023, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑ NO **** SHERLOCK!!! WHO does it DIRECT to "take all necessary steps"???
It DOES NOT direct the NARA to determine what is PRESIDENTIAL and what is PERSONAL. THAT is left TOTALLY UP TO THE PRESIDENT YOU BLATHERING IDIOT!!!
Run along now since your *** IS RED AND BLOODY from me kicking it royally and up around your NECK where you get to smell your own **** for a month!!!
READ THE JUDGES DECISION IN THIS CASE ASSHOLE....
-----------------------------------------
go back to school
16 Jun 2023 12:21 pm
sunburn » 16 Jun 2023, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑ dispose of those Presidential records. Trump wasn't throwing them away.
nope, he is selling the country's secrets to the highest bidder.
16 Jun 2023 12:29 pm
link? proof?jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 12:21 pm » wrote: ↑ nope, he is selling the country's secrets to the highest bidder.
16 Jun 2023 12:29 pm
DISPOSAL, *******, which is FAR DIFFERENT than designating PERSONAL RECORDS from PRESIDENTIAL records that the archivist takes control over!! ANYTHING that the President seeks to "dispose of", must do as you state above.jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑ -------------------------------(1) the President obtains the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal of such Presidential records; and(2) the Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
-----------------------------------------
go back to school
YOU ONLY PROVE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF ANY DOUBT that you are undoubtedly the MOST STUPID PIECE OF **** that ever breathed good air.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
16 Jun 2023 12:34 pm
And what did the COURT RULING STATE AS PLAINLY AS IT COULD BE STATED???jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 11:55 am » wrote: ↑ dumb ***- it clearly states the archivist decides.
----------------------------------------------
he Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
YOU ARE DEAD *** WRONG AND STUPID!!! I have, as have others, concluded that YOUR ABILITY TO READ AND COMPREHEND lines up with your NEGATIVE IQ!!!! See the BOLD PARTS BELOW and then SHUT YOUR NASTY **** ******* MOUTH!!
YOU LOSE!!
And what does Section (e) state??.... Oh wait, I just happen to have that.....the 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. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)- (b). While the plaintiff casts this lawsuit as a challenge to a decision made by the National Archives, the PRA makes it clear that this is not a decision the Archivist can make, and in this particular case, it is not a decision the Archivist did make because President Clinton's term ended in 2000, and the tapes were not provided to the Archives at that time. To the extent that there was a subsequent classification decision the Archivist purported to make, see supra note 2, or to be more accurate, a decision to decline to revisit the President's classification decision, any injury plaintiff claims it suffered as a result would not be redressable because there is nothing under the statute that the Court can compel the Archivist to do.
Now, ****, you have had your tiny little bludgeoned *** turned into GROUND *** AND BLOODY AS IT GETS!!!(e) The Archivist shall request the advice of the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives with respect to any proposed disposal of Presidential records whenever the Archivist considers that-
(1) these particular records may be of special interest to the Congress; or
(2) consultation with the Congress regarding the disposal of these particular records is in the public interest.
Don't you think it's time you ran up that WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER???
YOU CANNOT WIN BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO LEGAL BASIS TO BACK UP YOUR ****!!!
I DO!!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
16 Jun 2023 12:36 pm
face it trump is just one big fat liar.Buffalo » 16 Jun 2023, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑ And of course the "archivist" is NEVER a dim-0-crap partisan hack, right?
first he claimed he decertified everything and then he claims every single document is his personal property.
the only partisan hacks are trump and all his stupid *** supporters.
16 Jun 2023 12:38 pm
AND BY LAW, he is the ONLY ONE who can designate PERSONAL RECORDS that HE HIMSELF CAN KEEP!!jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑ face it trump is just one big fat liar.
first he claimed he decertified everything and then he claims every single document is his personal property.
the only partisan hacks are trump and all his stupid *** supporters.
Sucks for you and your fellow LWNJ NAZIS who's only goal is to "get Trump" and do so NO MATTER WHAT THE LAWS SAY!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
16 Jun 2023 12:40 pm
The Archivist may not disclose any such records, except under direction of the President, until the conclusion of a President's term of office, if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, or such other period provided for under section 2204 of this title.Beekeeper » 16 Jun 2023, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑ And what did the COURT RULING STATE AS PLAINLY AS IT COULD BE STATED???
YOU ARE DEAD *** WRONG AND STUPID!!! I have, as have others, concluded that YOUR ABILITY TO READ AND COMPREHEND lines up with your NEGATIVE IQ!!!! See the BOLD PARTS BELOW and then SHUT YOUR NASTY **** ******* MOUTH!!
YOU LOSE!!
And what does Section (e) state??.... Oh wait, I just happen to have that.....
Now, ****, you have had your tiny little bludgeoned *** turned into GROUND *** AND BLOODY AS IT GETS!!!
Don't you think it's time you ran up that WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER???
YOU CANNOT WIN BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO LEGAL BASIS TO BACK UP YOUR ****!!!
I DO!!!
16 Jun 2023 12:40 pm
----------------------------------Beekeeper » 16 Jun 2023, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑ AND BY LAW, he is the ONLY ONE who can designate PERSONAL RECORDS that HE HIMSELF CAN KEEP!!
Sucks for you and your fellow LWNJ NAZIS who's only goal is to "get Trump" and do so NO MATTER WHAT THE LAWS SAY!!
The Archivist may not disclose any such records, except under direction of the President, until the conclusion of a President's term of office, if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, or such other period provided for under section 2204 of this title.
16 Jun 2023 12:43 pm
Beekeeper » 16 Jun 2023, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑ DISPOSAL, *******, which is FAR DIFFERENT than designating PERSONAL RECORDS from PRESIDENTIAL records that the archivist takes control over!! ANYTHING that the President seeks to "dispose of", must do as you state above.
YOU ONLY PROVE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF ANY DOUBT that you are undoubtedly the MOST STUPID PIECE OF **** that ever breathed good air.
the archivist has the final say.------
he Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
16 Jun 2023 12:47 pm
SO WHAT, ****??? And what "action" did he/she REFUSE to take under Section (e)??jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑ the archivist has the final say.------
he Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.
(e) The Archivist shall request the advice of the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives with respect to any proposed disposal of Presidential records whenever the Archivist considers that-
(1) these particular records may be of special interest to the Congress; or
(2) consultation with the Congress regarding the disposal of these particular records is in the public interest.
!!! TO **** BAD you STILL have NOTHING, huh??GO **** YOURSELF so you can start feeling better about yourself and your utter STUPIDITY!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
16 Jun 2023 12:51 pm
Beekeeper » 16 Jun 2023, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑ SO WHAT, ****??? And what "action" did he/she REFUSE to take under Section (e)??
GO **** YOURSELF so you can start feeling better about yourself and your utter STUPIDITY!!
those are rules, no case is referred to. you are so freaking dumb it is pathetic.
16 Jun 2023 1:01 pm
what? that's the rules for disposal....which you brought up.jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑ those are rules, no case is referred to. you are so freaking dumb it is pathetic.
16 Jun 2023 1:03 pm
No ****, it's the CLINTON "sock drawer' Case that JUDGE AMY BERMAN JACKSON made and APPLIES STILL TO THIS DAY!!! She was an Ovomitolio appointee too!! A LEFT WINGER TO THE MAX!!jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 12:51 pm » wrote: ↑ those are rules, no case is referred to. you are so freaking dumb it is pathetic.
Now GO SUCK YOURSELF OFF or something, *******!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
16 Jun 2023 1:06 pm
sunburn » 16 Jun 2023, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑ what? that's the rules for disposal....which you brought up.
the archivist has to agree that it may be disposed.
Who is online
In total there are 3583 users online :: 7 registered, 12 bots, and 3564 guests
Bots: DuckDuckBot, NING, Firefox/7.0, ADmantX, proximic, Mediapartners-Google, YandexBot, bingbot, Googlebot, curl/7, Baiduspider, Applebot