Good luck with that. Your special prosecutor has a long and undistinguished record of being overturned.
-------------------------------------------------Jantje_Smit » 10 Jun 2023, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑ That's right, the timing is a bit suspicious...
But then again, i'ts no really a big surprise...
![]()
https://youtu.be/fvrwF-rczFk
You have to prove Trump INTENDED to harm the United States.jerrab » 11 Jun 2023, 9:24 pm » wrote: ↑ Each of the willful retention counts pertains to a specific classified document found at Mar-A-Lago marked “SECRET” or “TOP SECRET.” Topics addressed in the documents include details about U.S. nuclear weapons, the nuclear capabilities of a foreign country and the military activities or capabilities of other countries.
Their refusal to even hear the case is tantamount to their agreement with the Maine Appeals Court, the Maine Supreme Court, and the Federal Appeals Court who ALL agreed with her. If they had a problem with the lower courts' decisions, they could have said so. They didn't need to even put it on their docket. They did and they refused to overturn the decisions of all those lower courts. You lose.golfboy » 11 Jun 2023, 9:11 pm » wrote: ↑ SCOTUS never even heard the case, so you lied when you claimed they agreed with her.
golfboy » 11 Jun 2023, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑ You have to prove Trump INTENDED to harm the United States.
What proof of that, do you have?
------------------------------------nuckinfutz » 10 Jun 2023, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑ You know that's totally wrong! Trump beats himself every time!
And the only thing you beat is your meat! Hahahahah
------------------------------------The indictment lists 31 specific documents Trump is accused of intentionally withholding from federal officials after they requested the return of all national security records. Twenty-one of the documents are described as Top Secret, nine as secret and one as lacking any classification marking but involving “military contingency planning of the United States.”Throughout the indictment, prosecutors emphasize that Trump was aware of the significance of protecting classified information, highlighting statements he made throughout his presidency about the seriousness of upholding laws related to national security secrets. They also repeatedly showed him to be a hands-on manager of the records in question, personally directing the packing and movement of boxes.nuckinfutz » 10 Jun 2023, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑ You know that's totally wrong! Trump beats himself every time!
And the only thing you beat is your meat! Hahahahah
nuckinfutz » 10 Jun 2023, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑ You know that's totally wrong! Trump beats himself every time!
And the only thing you beat is your meat! Hahahahah
-------------------------------------------------------nuckinfutz » 10 Jun 2023, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑ You know that's totally wrong! Trump beats himself every time!
And the only thing you beat is your meat! Hahahahah
semantics. They decided to let the lower courts' opinions stand. If they had had a problem they wouldn't.golfboy » 11 Jun 2023, 9:11 pm » wrote: ↑ SCOTUS never even heard the case, so you lied when you claimed they agreed with her.
maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 6:25 am » wrote: ↑ semantics. They decided to let the lower courts' opinions stand. If they had had a problem they wouldn't.
not completely accurate. Is a great distraction though. Prove intention among people that only mind possibilities. Brain navigates around what isn't possible without a syllable.golfboy » 11 Jun 2023, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑ You have to prove Trump INTENDED to harm the United States.
What proof of that, do you have?
Hardly.
God, that must REALLY SUCK for you, huh??A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Department of the Navy v. Egan has often been interpreted to support broad presidential authority over national security generally and over access to classified information in particular. Along with United States v. Reynolds, Curtiss-Wright, and a few other cases, Egan is regularly cited in support of strong, even unchecked executive authority and judicial deference to executive claims. It has become a cornerstone of national security law as practiced today.
But he never has shot anyone personally! That we know of. He hires other people to do that.jerrab » 11 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm » wrote: ↑ trump takes full advantage that his supporters support him no matter what.
and he said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it.
Your OPINION which is like your ARSEHOLE. YOURS stinks and is used for black COCKS!!nuckinfutz » 12 Jun 2023, 8:10 am » wrote: ↑ But he never has shot anyone personally! That we know of. He hires other people to do that.
He can't beat the rap he's under now!
Your Ad Homs means you have no argument! LOSER!Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 8:19 am » wrote: ↑ Your OPINION which is like your ARSEHOLE. YOURS stinks and is used for black COCKS!!
Tossing an ad hominem to counter one means what??
Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑ Tossing an ad hominem to counter one means what??
You seem to be a pretty idiotic idiot to do that!!
[img]blob:d608232e-e5ec-4b02-a639-8cdb1a1817a0[/img]jerrab » 11 Jun 2023, 11:00 pm » wrote: ↑ -------------------------------------------------------
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... any-voters
With less than two weeks to go until the Iowa caucus, Donald Trump remains characteristically confident about his chances. In fact, the Republican front-runner is so confident, he says his supporters would stay loyal even if he happened to commit a capital offense."I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."
don't give him any ideas.