Liberal Forum

neueregel » 20 Jun 2023, 8:15 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 8:15 pm

Biden kept documents. Pence kept documents. Hillary had electronic documents but destroyed them. 

Why should I care more about Trump having documents?

biden did give back his documents 

he did not have boxes and boxes.
 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm

biden did give back his documents 

he did not have boxes and boxes.

Yes, he gave them back after taking them illegally. Hillary destroyed her evidence. Why should I care more about Trump that wire of those? 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm

biden did give back his documents 

he did not have boxes and boxes.

Hilly destroyed her phone and its memory.

Why do worship and protect criminals???
 

Sumela » 20 Jun 2023, 9:22 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:22 pm

Hilly destroyed her phone and its memory.

Why do worship and protect criminals???

I don't protect anyone but you protect trump.

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm

biden did give back his documents 

he did not have boxes and boxes.

Obama and Clapper lied about 

spying on Americans.

Why do you protect and worship criminals???
 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 9:23 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:23 pm

I don't protect anyone but you protect trump.

I dont give a **** about Trump...let him rot.

You on the other hand are a FRAUD.  

You always protect DEM criminals.  

Why?  Cuz you are captive to the party.  Weak bro, weak.
 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 9:23 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:23 pm

I don't protect anyone but you protect trump.

You have shown your weakness and lack of integrity.

You need a team.  You must protect that criminal team.  

You are a fraud.

Sumela » 20 Jun 2023, 9:27 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:27 pm

I dont give a **** about Trump...let him rot.

You on the other hand are a FRAUD.  

You always protect DEM criminals.  

Why?  Cuz you are captive to the party.  Weak bro, weak.

nope. you want to dimiss anything trump does by bringing up biden, and that makes whatever trump does is okay. 

Sumela » 20 Jun 2023, 9:29 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:29 pm

You have shown your weakness and lack of integrity.

You need a team.  You must protect that criminal team.  

You are a fraud.

you are the one who protects trump. he is a criminal. and brags about it.

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm

you are the one who protects trump. he is a criminal. and brags about it.

You worship Bammy and Hilly....murderers of millions for oil.

You New Neocons are weird.  Kooks.  
 

Sumela » 20 Jun 2023, 9:35 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:35 pm

You worship Bammy and Hilly....murderers of millions for oil.

You New Neocons are weird.  Kooks.

trump's usual defense.

what about biden? what about hillary?

and trump uses this to get away with everything.
 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 9:47 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 9:47 pm

trump's usual defense.

what about biden? what about hillary?

and trump uses this to get away with everything.

WASH DC is crumbling.  Thats what I love.  

The world is no longer obeying your DEM kings and queens  
 

thelion » 19 Jun 2023, 1:46 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 1:46 pm

tu quoque fail.

****! You run tu quoque fallacies ALL THE DAMNED TIME!
 
 

jerrab » 19 Jun 2023, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 5:49 pm

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

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

You cite no reference. 

If it is older than the presidential records act under which bill clinton was untouchable, it is utterly irrelevant. 
 

maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 5:50 pm

I think Honeyboy has got his laws confused.  The PRA is very precise in its definitions of what are personal and presidential records.  the law does NOT give the president the right to call an apple an orange.

The Clinton Socks Decision would beg to disagree. 
 

jerrab » 19 Jun 2023, 5:51 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 5:51 pm

-----------------------------------------------------a) Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of the President's constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are preserved and maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law.(b) Documentary materials produced or received by the President, the President's staff, or units or individuals in the Executive Office of the President the function of which is to advise or assist the President, shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.(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.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the archivist has ZERO authority to so much as OPINE under the presidential records act. 

Your dispute is not with me - it is with the SCOTUS, which let the the ruling of the district court stand. 

In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’” 

You may be seated.
 

Cannonpointer » 20 Jun 2023, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 10:00 pm

You cite no reference. 

If it is older than the presidential records act under which bill clinton was untouchable, it is utterly irrelevant.

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/pre ... cords.html
g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.(2) The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States. The Archivist is authorized to designate, after consultation with the former President, a director at each depository or facility, who shall be responsible for the care and preservation of such records.

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 10:17 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 10:17 pm

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/pre ... cords.html

I can read the law for the next twenty years, but what governs will not be my opinion of what the law says. What governs is not politifact's view, the views of the atlantic council, or the views of heritage or CATO. Not even the views of rachael maddow govern in this matter.

What governs is the case law - what the COURTS say the law means. 

The clinton sock drawer case was pretty **** not-vague. 

“the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’” 
 

Cannonpointer » 20 Jun 2023, 10:19 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 10:19 pm

I can read the law for the next twenty years, but what governs will not be my opinion of what the law says. What governs is not politifact's view, the views of the atlantic council, or the views of heritage or CATO. Not even the views of rachael maddow govern in this matter.

What governs is the case law - what the COURTS say the law means. 

The clinton sock drawer case was pretty **** not-vague. 

“the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”

the supreme court ruled against trump last month.

it was unanimous,

Cannonpointer » 20 Jun 2023, 10:19 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 10:19 pm

I can read the law for the next twenty years, but what governs will not be my opinion of what the law says. What governs is not politifact's view, the views of the atlantic council, or the views of heritage or CATO. Not even the views of rachael maddow govern in this matter.

What governs is the case law - what the COURTS say the law means. 

The clinton sock drawer case was pretty **** not-vague. 

“the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”

--------------------------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.