Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules

I already said something will stick. If you start reading our laws and live to be 1000 years old, you would still commit crimes on a regular basis without knowing it. It is not reasonable to believe that this is being done in the interest of national security or justice.

 

I might break the Espionage Act without knowing it if I live long enough?

 

If you should become politically inconvenient for someone in power, you may get the trump-treatment.

 

You mean the same one that Hillary should have been charged with? Thanks for the reminder.

 

Isn’t that what you’re doing also??

 

I just know what I read in the papers

"A lawyer for Donald Trump refused to report to the National Archives that the former president had turned over all Oval Office documents as required out of concern that the claim was a lie."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...sed-report-mar-a-lago-records-oval-office-lie

"During a recorded 2021 meeting at his Bedminster golf club, Donald Trump discussed classified documents he’d retained from his term in office, describing them as “secret” and saying they were “classified,” new reporting from CNN revealed. And now The New York Times adds that he directly stated he did not “declassify” them, and that others in the room with him recognized that this was not good.

Times reporter Maggie Haberman, citing a source familiar with the transcript, reported soon after the news broke that Trump was aware the materials were classified, acknowledged out loud that he had not declassified them, and that the implications of that information were apparent to others in the meeting."
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/n...t-meeting-where-he-discussed-classified-info/

 

Those are two different stories. The first is about how the attorney didn't have personal knowledge if every document had been returned and wasn't comfortable claiming they had. Trump believed they had all been returned so he told them to tell the government that.

The second story is completely different and is referring to a conversation he had with a journalist where he shows him a stack of papers and claims it has sensitive information in it that hadn't been declassified. But no one ever saw the document and there's no record that the government is even dealing with that document in question.

 

But! The attorney says they didn't want to lie, and tRaitor tRump knew he had classified documents. The point is, that's counter to YOUR claims.

 

That's not what the attorney said. He said he was concerned because he didn't KNOW they were all there because he didn't have personal knowledge of it. Not because he knew there were more and Trump was lying.

 

All I know is what I read in the papers.

Trump lawyer in June said classified material had been returned
A lawyer for former U.S. President Donald Trump signed a statement in June that said all classified material held in boxes at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence had been returned to the government

AUG. 8, 2022
The FBI executed the search at Mar-a-Lago, seizing 36 items of evidence, including boxes and containers holding more than 100 classified records
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...terial-had-been-returned-ny-times-2022-08-13/

 

Of course they can prove it.

When the search warrant was served some of the papers were found in Trump's desk in his private office. Do you think someone planted them there? Do you think Trump just didn't know they were there?

Remember this search warrant was only issued AFTER the request had been made and 15 boxes with documents in them were turned over, a subpoena had been issued and more documents had been returned and FINALLY a search warrant issued.

Furthermore they have him on TAPE talking about how he had them, how he could have declassified them while he was President but now that he was no longer President he could not declassify them

THey have have the testimony of ANOTHER person about how he was waving around documents but that this person shouldn't see them because they were classified so he shouldn't get too close.

They have the orange moron dead to rights...only those turning a willful blind eye to the situation cannot see it.

 

OR, now hear me out now, they have hard evidence that Trump is guilty of the 100 charges.

When someone does a mass shooting do you think they charge them with X number of killings because they are just looking for something "to stick" or is it because the person killed X number of people?

 

No, not the same one.

WILLFUL Retention

You have no evidence that there was a willful retention on the part of Hillary.

 

Abject nonsense. I care nothing what La La land Ca does.
The rest of the country doesn't care either.

 

Any party that weaponizes government departments against political foes deserves to be criticized.

Fortunately that hasn’t happened yet.

 

No. I would feel the same if the Obama mansion was raided. Previous presidents have a ton of sensitive info in their heads. This is not about national security or genuine concern for the rule of law.

 

Just look at the distance you had to stretch. If there is no victim, there should be no crime. I feel the same way about Hunter. Nothing he did should be considered a crime.

 

I understand that these results must be omitted from the discussion if one is trying to make a case that Dems are not trying to infringe on our second amendment rights to the maximum extent their level of power allows. I am glad you have the luxury of not caring. My Democrat friends here in CA were shocked when they decided to buy a firearm.

If immunity expires once they leave office, every president should be thrown in prison for the mistakes they made.

 

So don’t enforce these laws for presidents? But enforce other laws for other people, right?

 

I never said they are not infringing.
Hell, most everyone in the country if for some sort of infingement. It's very difficult to own certain arms. Automatic rifles, LAWs, grenade launchers, etc.

You claim is the dem party has a platform to ban all guns. But you keep deflecting to all these of things, including what some State does or does not do.

Show the dem party platform to ban all guns!!

 

That is a solid claim. They know they cannot ban all guns at once, so they are using the "boil the frog" method. The sights on a firearm allows one to predict the direction of the projectile by lining up two points. Thats why it is easy to see the Dems target.

 

I see, this is a 1000 yr process. OK.
Well, they will eventually have to change/amend the constitution.

 

They would if they could. Just look at the last 200 years.

 

The last president to do anything in regards to infringements on arms was trump.

He outlawed bump stocks.
LAWs, grenade launchers, automatic rifles have been infringed for a long time. And most have no problem with those infringements.

I am not worried about some 1000 yr process.

 

Trump is no friend to gun owners. "Take the guns first, due process second!"

Obviously, there is a lot of distance between disarming citizens and allowing ICBMs.

Do you have children?