Liberal Forum

Beekeeper » 24 Jun 2023, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 10:01 am

So what??

Trump took and determined that he took PERSONAL RECORDS (or things were mistakenly packed BY SOMEONE ELSE) that were in question.

Do you REALLY think Trump packed ANYTHING?? You're getting moire DESPERATE by the second.

you are so desperate.

no one else is to see top secret files so no one else packed the documents,

Beekeeper » 24 Jun 2023, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 9:58 am

*******. Do you know that this VALIDATES on Jackson's ruling???

A SPECIAL MASTER isn't even given ANY AUTHORITY either under PRA either, ****!!

You REALLY don't understand a damn thing you post, so your best effort it to SHUT THE **** UP since 100% of your **** gets put to shame.

trump lost.

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

What was the Supreme Court decision on Trump documents?

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.Oct 13, 2022

jerrab » 24 Jun 2023, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 10:12 am

you are so desperate.

no one else is to see top secret files so no one else packed the documents,

So you actually believe that Trump packed ALL of those boxes.

No really, that is what you JUST SAID. And you believe that NO ONE had any security clearances to see "classified documents' either???

How EFFING DUMB are you going to get in your NEXT reply??

Beekeeper » 24 Jun 2023, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 9:58 am

*******. Do you know that this VALIDATES on Jackson's ruling???

A SPECIAL MASTER isn't even given ANY AUTHORITY either under PRA either, ****!!

You REALLY don't understand a damn thing you post, so your best effort it to SHUT THE **** UP since 100% of your **** gets put to shame.

trump  could not choose who could go thru the records.

trump lost.

jerrab » 24 Jun 2023, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 10:15 am

trump lost.

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

What was the Supreme Court decision on Trump documents?

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.Oct 13, 2022

So???

There is ZERO PROVISION in the PRA for ANY FORM of review of documents by ANYONE including a "special master" or FBI or CIA or DOJ, or even the NARA!!

Sucks you cant' seem to fathom that this is not a "loss" for ANYONE but a WIN FOR THE LAW AS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS!! And for Jackson's ruling that STATED that no one has oversight authority under the PRA!!

 

jerrab » 24 Jun 2023, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 10:17 am

trump  could not choose who could go thru the records.

trump lost.

And you call that a "Trump loss"???

NO, its a VALIDATION THAT JACKSON RULED CORRECTLY THAT NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE RECORDS to DETERMINE what is "Presidential" and what is "Personal", ASSHOLE!! THAT is AUTHORITY held ONLY BY A PRESIDENT/FORMER PRESIDENT!!

See, you LOST AGAIN, ****!!

 

jerrab » 24 Jun 2023, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 10:17 am

trump  could not choose who could go thru the records.

trump lost.

OH, and Trump didn't appoint ANY "special master", that was appointed BY THE COURT and its NOT a provision allowed under the PRA, ****!!

So the RULING was made BASED ON THE LAW and that NO AUTHORITY IS GIVEN FOR ANY REVIEW BY THE COURTS!!
 

Beekeeper » 24 Jun 2023, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 10:21 am

OH, and Trump didn't appoint ANY "special master", that was appointed BY THE COURT and its NOT a provision allowed under the PRA, ****!!

So the RULING was made BASED ON THE LAW and that NO AUTHORITY IS GIVEN FOR ANY REVIEW BY THE COURTS!!

the nara rule----


The President does not have discretion to categorize a Presidential record as a personal record
 

jerrab » 24 Jun 2023, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 11:03 am

the nara rule----

The President does not have discretion to categorize a Presidential record as a personal record

Really now.

So you can SHOW THAT IN THE LAW, right, ****??

No??

Well imagine that.

You guys can argue the semantics of this **** persecution of Trump over his right as POTUS to retain certain records til the sun comes up in the west but it likely will be decided in court by a stacked against Trump jury or a dim-0-crap apparatchik judge.

If Trump prevails on this issue, his persecution by dim-0-craps and thier deep state apparatchiks will continue...

maineman » 22 Jun 2023, 10:31 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2023, 10:31 pm

It was on the docket and on the agenda for the Judicial Review conference a full month after the inclusion on the docket.  At that meeting, they decided the case had no merit.  Again... you cannot deny the FACT that the trial judge, the appeals court judge, the Maine State Supreme Court, and the Federal Appeals Court ALL agreed that there was no Batson Rule violation, and, after their month-long review, and after their judicial conference, SCOTUS declined to reverse those rulings of ALL those previous courts.

Repetition just makes you look more stupid.

maineman » 22 Jun 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jun 2023, 10:24 pm

so...let's just agree to sit back and let the chips fall where they may.

What is it called, when you repeat the same mistakes and expect a different result?

 

golfboy » 24 Jun 2023, 11:51 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 11:51 am

Repetition just makes you look more stupid.

avoidance just confirms your cowardice... and your reading disability!  

maineman » 24 Jun 2023, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 12:02 pm

avoidance just confirms your cowardice... and your reading disability!

What have I avoided, other than your stupidity?
You really aren't very bright, are you Room Temp?
 

Z09 » 24 Jun 2023, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 12:07 pm

Hey Maineman...
Since you pretend to be about law and order have you watched the testimony in front of Congress about the Biden's?

Quite remarkable the energy the left had over collusion and pee tape rumors.......
And now you have no interest in actual facts and testimony

Color me surprised....

Don't expect consistency from the left.   ALL they care about is power. 
Corruption is fine, as long as the politician has a "D" after his/her name. 

Z09 » 24 Jun 2023, 12:18 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 12:18 pm

The testimony about the Biden's is shocking.
It should be headlines everywhere.

The liberal media has chosen to keep the sheep uninformed and compliant. 
They simply don't cover any "news" that doesn't help the Democrat Party.
 

Z09 » 24 Jun 2023, 12:40 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 12:40 pm

Hunter talja about his Dad and holding a grudge....
A couple days later $5 million rolls in from China...

And this isn't news worthy?

Not if you're a liberal editor. 
 

golfboy » 24 Jun 2023, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 12:11 pm

What have I avoided?

The FACT that the trial judge, the appeals court judge, the Maine State Supreme Court, and the Federal Appeals Court ALL agreed that there was no Batson Rule violation, and, after their month-long review, and after their judicial conference, SCOTUS declined to reverse those rulings of ALL those previous courts.

That FACT is what you have avoided.

 
 

Beekeeper » 24 Jun 2023, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 11:05 am

Really now.

So you can SHOW THAT IN THE LAW, right, ****??

No??

Well imagine that.

--------------------------------What are “personal records” under the Presidential Records Act (PRA)?Under the PRA, "’personal records’ means all documentary materials 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.”   This 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.

Beekeeper » 24 Jun 2023, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2023, 11:05 am

Really now.

So you can SHOW THAT IN THE LAW, right, ****??

No??

Well imagine that.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-re ... 3/nr23-016

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------What are “Presidential records” under the Presidential Records Act (PRA)?"’Presidential records’ means documentary materials created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Prior press statements in response to media queries about Presidential records are available online at https://www.archives.gov/press/press-re ... 2/nr22-001.# # #For press information contact the National Archives Public and Media Communications Staff via email at public.affairs@nara.gov.