Liberal Forum

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.

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

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/cour ... ents-case/

The Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon rejected a request from former President Donald Trump to allow a special master to review about 100 documents, marked as classified, that the FBI seized from Trump’s home. The ruling came in an unsigned one-sentence order; there were no dissents recorded.The documents at the center of the dispute were among the 11,000 documents seized by the FBI in an Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, Florida. In September, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump’s request to appoint a special master to review the documents and bar the Justice Department from using them as part of a criminal investigation. But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit put part of Cannon’s order on hold – including the portion requiring DOJ to allow the special master to review the classified documents.Trump came to the Supreme Court on Oct. 4, asking the justices to reinstate Cannon’s order and require DOJ to turn over the classified documents for the special master’s review. But on Thursday afternoon the justices turned Trump down. As is often the case with emergency appeals, the justices did not provide any explanation for their ruling.
 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 10:22 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 10:22 pm

the supreme court ruled against trump last month.

it was unanimous,

Link?

In what matter?

Edit - never mind. 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 10:24 pm

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

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.’”
 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 10:29 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 10:29 pm

the supreme court ruled against trump last month.

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

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/cour ... ents-case/

The Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon rejected a request from former President Donald Trump to allow a special master to review about 100 documents, marked as classified, that the FBI seized from Trump’s home. The ruling came in an unsigned one-sentence order; there were no dissents recorded.The documents at the center of the dispute were among the 11,000 documents seized by the FBI in an Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, Florida. In September, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump’s request to appoint a special master to review the documents and bar the Justice Department from using them as part of a criminal investigation. But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit put part of Cannon’s order on hold – including the portion requiring DOJ to allow the special master to review the classified documents.Trump came to the Supreme Court on Oct. 4, asking the justices to reinstate Cannon’s order and require DOJ to turn over the classified documents for the special master’s review. But on Thursday afternoon the justices turned Trump down. As is often the case with emergency appeals, the justices did not provide any explanation for their ruling.

Not relevant to the ultimate authority of the clinton socks decision. The ruling was regarding a procedural issue. 

Cannonpointer » 20 Jun 2023, 11:15 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 11:15 pm

Not relevant to the ultimate authority of the clinton socks decision. The ruling was regarding a procedural issue.

the supreme court is over federal courts.

if the jackson had any real merit they would have handed the documents to trump.
 

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 11:20 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 11:20 pm

the supreme court is over federal courts.

if the jackson had any real merit they would have handed the documents to trump.

I don't know who you mean by "they."

The construction clearly suggests that you mean the SCOTUS would have done so. But the SCOTUS never had any documents to "hand over."

Honestly, your post makes no sense to me. 

Further, if the jackson ruling did NOT have merit, they'd have taken it up, instead of allowing it to become governing precedent. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 20 Jun 2023, 11:23 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 11:23 pm

I don't know who you mean by "they."

The construction clearly suggests that you mean the SCOTUS would have done so. But the SCOTUS never had any documents to "hand over."

Honestly, your post makes no sense to me. 

Further, if the jackson ruling did NOT have merit, they'd have taken it up, instead of allowing it to become governing precedent.

they, the nine judges would have had all the boxes right there and handed them to him.

nra got what they wanted that the clinton tapes were clinton's personal property.

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 11:29 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 11:29 pm

they, the nine judges would have had all the boxes right there and handed them to him.

nra got what they wanted that the clinton tapes were clinton's personal property.

I don't think you understand that the SCOTUS never even heard the clinton socks case. I don't think you understand that the SCOTUS ruling is at a far different place in the case than when it declined to hear the socks case - which had been ruled on. I don't think you understand thatTrump is not being charged under the Presidential Records Act. Instead, an entirely preposterous charge of espionage is being brought. It's like the case against epstein associate ghislane maxwell. She was convicted of trafficking children. 

To no one.

No, REALLY. 

She trafficked children to no one. 

Apparently, trump spilled secrets. To no one. 
 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 20 Jun 2023, 11:39 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 11:39 pm

I don't think you understand that the SCOTUS never even heard the clinton socks case. I don't think you understand that the SCOTUS ruling is at a far different place in the case than when it declined to hear the socks case - which had been ruled on. I don't think you understand thatTrump is not being charged under the Presidential Records Act. Instead, an entirely preposterous charge of espionage is being brought. It's like the case against epstein associate ghiselle maxwell. She was convicted of trafficking children. 

To no one.

No, REALLY. 

She trafficked children to no one. 

Apparently, trump spilled secrets. To no one. 

they both are cases about presidential documents and I am sure  the supreme court heard of the case when a group tried to make nra designate clinton's private tapes as government documents.

the supreme court does not view the documents in trump's boxes as personal property.

jerrab » 21 Jun 2023, 12:01 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 12:01 am

they both are cases about presidential documents and I am sure  the supreme court heard of the case when a group tried to make nra designate clinton's private tapes as government documents.

No, the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, allowing the lower court ruling to stand.

And if you want to grasp at straws to prove a false equivalency, you should point out that both cases were heard indoors and both cases employed attorneys, who wore suits.

jerrab » 21 Jun 2023, 12:01 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 12:01 am

the supreme court does not view the documents in trump's boxes as personal property.

Got any proof of that from the ruling? The supreme court can deem personal property to be evidence - and it can do so without commenting on whether the evidence is probative.
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Jun 2023, 12:06 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 12:06 am

No, the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, allowing the lower court ruling to stand.

And if you want to grasp at straws to prove a false equivalency, you should point out that both cases were heard indoors and both cases employed attorneys, who wore suits.

Got any proof of that from the ruling? The supreme court can deem personal property to be evidence - and it can do so without commenting on whether the evidence is probative.

nra was being sued, nra won.

jerrab » 20 Jun 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2023, 8:05 pm

he kept government documents. tell my why that does not matter.

And when Biden took those docs he wasn't authorized to do so...just like Sandy Berger in the Clinton admin. A slap on the wrist is all that ever happens to the dems.

roadkill » 21 Jun 2023, 1:15 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 1:15 am

And when Biden took those docs he wasn't authorized to do so...just like Sandy Berger in the Clinton admin. A slap on the wrist is all that ever happens to the dems.

vice presidents have their own documents and he could also get permission from the president.
 

jerrab » 21 Jun 2023, 1:36 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 1:36 am

vice presidents have their own documents and he could also get permission from the president.

They weren't his and he didn't get permission. 

He strewed them about in such a way that anyone could access them. 

Two justice systems - one for dem and one for us.

jerrab » 21 Jun 2023, 12:10 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 12:10 am

nra was being sued, nra won.

Not a relevant answer to my post. One wonders why you hit reply. 
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Jun 2023, 1:38 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 1:38 am

Not a relevant answer to my post. One wonders why you hit reply.

it was relevant.

why would the supreme court get involved if someone did not appeal?

Cannonpointer » 21 Jun 2023, 12:06 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 12:06 am

No, the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, allowing the lower court ruling to stand.

And if you want to grasp at straws to prove a false equivalency, you should point out that both cases were heard indoors and both cases employed attorneys, who wore suits.

Got any proof of that from the ruling? The supreme court can deem personal property to be evidence - and it can do so without commenting on whether the evidence is probative.

evidence of a crime. 

which ever trump lost.

jerrab » 21 Jun 2023, 1:36 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 1:36 am

vice presidents have their own documents and he could also get permission from the president.

Did Obama give Biden permission when Joe was a senator?  Check and checkmate.   

jerrab » 21 Jun 2023, 1:44 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 1:44 am

it was relevant.

why would the supreme court get involved if someone did not appeal?

The Supreme Court DECLINED to become involved. The lower court's ruling - which CLEARLY favors trump, if it comments on the case at all, and which CLEARLY cannot help the prosecution - stood. 

I already said this, but I will say it again. I don't think you understand the issues of EITHER case. The only common ground between the two cases - one having been a civil case and the other being criminal; one having been about gaining public access and the other being about denying public access - is that both cases hinge on the issue of presidential authority. Or so Trump's team believes, which is why they invoke the clinton sock drawer case. Whether the finding in the clinton sock drawer case will in FACT be relevant to Trump's case is yet to be litigated. If the finding IS relevant - likely, - it will favor Trump. 
 

jerrab » 21 Jun 2023, 1:49 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023, 1:49 am

evidence of a crime. 

which ever trump lost.

Again, I don't think you are very informed about either case. 

In your view, what is trump accused of losing?