Lock him up! CNN reports Trump to be indicted

Fair enough. But if the jury, including MAGA supporters, does find him guilty, will you concede he is guilty and deserves his punishment or will you still be whining about the prior 5 presidents / candidates and their lack of criminal convictions?

 

Judicial Watch: Clinton Sock Drawer Audio Tape Case Exonerates Pres. Trump | Judicial Watch

Special counsel Jack Smith is currently investigating the 45th president for his handling of classified documents since departing the White House. But Farrell says the ruling in this specific case from 2012 exonerates Trump from any alleged wrongdoing.

“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “

“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.

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.’”

Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

 

But your posting something seems to alway be wrong. Coinkydink?

 

You believe that?

 

Assuming the wackadoodle judge actually stated that in her opinion, she was wrong and should have been appealed.

The author of the article you linked and Chris Farrell don't understand much about precedent and which opinions are binding on other courts. Jackson was a district court judge when she issued that opinion.

"Generally, district court opinions are not binding on other district courts or on courts of appeals. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear, “A single district court
decision . . . has little precedential effect[, and i]t is not binding on . . . other district judges in the same district.” Other circuits agree."

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-c...ralCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

So, sorry to burst your bubble, flgator2, but that opinion is legally about as helpful to Trump as a roll of Charmin. Less, actually...you can use them both for the same thing, but the Charmin is softer.

 

And that's your legal opinion. Just because you always think you're right doesn't mean you are, sorry to burst your bubble gator jack

 

There's a lot of things that I believe in and don't believe in and one thing. I've learned a

 

Former Top Department of Justice Official Blows Up Jack Smith's Case Against President Trump With One Tweet - Notices Key Item on Third Page of the Federal Indictment That Is "Grounds for Granting a Motion" to Dismiss | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger | 165

CNN “reported” on May 31 that federal prosecutors had “obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which former President Donald Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran.” The network claims this destroys Trump’s argument that he declassified everything.

Jeffrey Clark, who served as an assistant attorney general in the Trump administration, says the leak is grounds for having the case tossed. Moreover, it proves Biden’s corrupt DOJ was the source of the leaks rather than Trump’s attorneys.

 

Holl

Trump isn’t charged with NARA violations. The decision is irrelevant.

 

That is legally incorrect. And it is based on an assumption that the government leaked the transcript. Lost of folks have the tape. Including the reporter and likely Trump’s lawyers. And it is probably not a good idea to quote Clark in anything. There are fertile reasons that he is a source for a garbage wrapper like Gateway Pundit

 

ANALYSIS: How Strong Is the Case Against Trump? (theepochtimes.com)

“If this indictment is as weak as it appears to be, from what has been disclosed so far, it may be the most dangerous indictment in political history,” law professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News on Friday.

“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz continued.

“I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor added.

Will see, You would think he would know what he was talking about?

 

Dershowitz Of Epstein fame?

 

Can't defend his actual actions so desperately searching for technicalities by which he can be acquitted (evidence was leaked, he was recorded illegally, he could have declassified).

His conduct was egregious and he deserves to face the consequences for those actions.

 

Did you read the indictment? Because these statements were made before he saw the indictment. After the indictment he recognizes the significance of the tape. Dershowitz Sees A Possible Smoking Gun In Trump Indictment

 

"Trump asked in a speech today if maybe it was the FBI that toppled over that Mar-a-Lago box from which the indictment says a classified document spilled. The photo of the spilled box was taken by his own aide, Walt Nauta, in December 2021...eight months before the FBI search."

 

We continue to see arguments here that spring from this essential construct:

Since the head of the GOP likes to do a lot of criming, any attempt to stop or punish such criming is political. Therefore the head of the GOP should be allowed a free pass for all criming.

 

Why go to such ludicrous lengths to support this POS? These boards are full of RW’s assuring us that DJT is not really the embodiment of the GOP, all that MAGA stuff is just an obnoxious minority. In fact, it’s the libs that are obsessed, not the typical R.

And yet post after post defending this criminal. You can’t get them off that hill with a literal recorded confession by the perp himself.

 

The GOP is not arguing that Trump should not have been indicted. They are raising whataboutisms about Hilary and Biden and the absence of equal justice. Odd argument from Pence, who had classified documents.