Eric Trump reveals HE told Donald FBI raided Mar-a-Lago: Ex-President's son claims agents 'ransacked

Like an episode of "Stranger Things".

 

This explains her failing health.

 

You specifically referred to the person as an "FBI informant". Informants are typically groomed.

 

Saved by the bell.

 

So, you concede this was a person working on behalf of the FBI?

 

She's old, but still deserves representation.

 

Under NORMAL, functional jurisprudence, what you say is correct. But this is a ground-breaking, unprecedented undertaking which Attorney General Garland has caused, one which has never even been imagined before in the history of the United States . Therefore, everything should be made fully open and freely available right now for unaltered, unrestrained, public examination! If not, what's Garland afraid of...? The truth?

 

Which has what to do with Fox News again.
lol

 

Uhm no. 1901-1909 Theodore R. Taft was elected in 1908.

 

That is not the point you were trying to make, in your post, that Trump would be in control of granting all FOAI requests, "for so many years..."


Bluesguy said: ↑
For the first years under the PRA the former President has say so over FOIA request. After so many years that begins to be lifted until after a couple of decades except for still classified information which would require a clearance.

[End]

What your post at top, about the PRA, says is that records specifically generated during the Trump presidency-- not all government records-- are sealed for five years. After that, unless they have been classified as confidential, they are all available for FOAI requests. The only power that is given to a former president, is that for the seven years following the initial five year pause, the former president is granted up to 6 specific restrictions to public access, to records from his Administration.

How does this this, in any way, justify Trump's keeping sensitive government documents, in his basement, or some other improperly secured location?

 

Huh? Faux Snooze has nothing to do with a professional being capable of doing their job in spite of a political opinion. I didn't mention or allude to it. Weird post, dude./

 

WH Taft?

 

Thank you. I was nice to him, wasn't I?

 

Rather than tell you that you're possbly wrong to make a number of the assumptions and assertions that you have, I'll simply suggest that because there is so much ambiguity, so much difference of opinion, and so much controversy surrounding this whole ****-storm that A. G. Garland has unleashed on the country, it will ultimately be brought in a unique, new case before the U. S. Supreme Court. Then, and probably only then, will we know what is correct or incorrect regarding anything in this situation that Trump is thought by some to have done. Fair enough?

 

I'd say that a case about a guy seeking review of a security decision hardly means that a President has an unfettered right to declassify. It simply doesn't say that. A President must still comply with statutory restrictions on that supposed right, and that case doesn't controvert that in any way.

BTW, Trump caused this, not Garland. It was Trump who stole and lied here. He should've just given the documents back when called on it.

 

Even if all of that is true, it doesn’t mean the warrant was invalid.

 

Or that it was OK that the Orange Thief stole the documents and refused to return them

 

But in the words of Hillary Clinton, "What difference does it make now!?!", by the time it gets there. People want to dismiss what Hillary did with top secret documents because -- well because it happened so long ago and she wasn't the POTUS (as if only top secret documents in the possession of the latter matter). If that's the standard we should be following then Trump should be given the same shake.

 

Either way you choose to interpret that statement, it's true....

 

Omg Garland did something I don't like so he better cough up documents before I get out of my armchair.

Said no sane person.

 

You were saying?

I would hate to think you would be trying to comprehend and actual legal document that I depended on

 

Omg Lol.
Double, meet entendre.

 

That wasn't what that meant.
Try harder to comprehend conversations before you interject yourself

 

There is no process for the president to declassify documents. But you can certainly provide the links that prove me wrong.
But you won't, because you can't

 

The DOJ did make it public. In the application for unsealing that was filed last week.

 

That would be because you don't have the ability to comprehend the SCOTUS ruling, the Constitution, or the fact that a president can declassify any document at will simply by stating it.
Seems you will be waiting for a long time.