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

You mean like this

The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...resident-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

Or maybe this

 

The TRUTH?? Who's "truth" The truth has long ago become a casualty in all this.

And FACTS are slow in emerging......but they will.... but they won't be believed ........becasue they are not as sexy or exciting as the many conspirator theories that are floating around.

 

Oh, God. *LOL*

Don't quit your day job, Atticus Finch.

Yes, you know much more than DOJ lawyers and a federal judge. And more than the Orange Rectum's lawyers, too, who haven't even made this argument!

As I predicted, most amusing.

 

Well, I don't disagree with any if that except the last. Prosecutors don't like to lose.

Of course, the line Prosecutors doen in the trenches who will be doing the actial legal work won't be consulted. It'll be liberal eggheads in the Justice Department who just "know" he's guilty, as do the liberals here.

What do you think about them seeking a fine only? Those are much easier to obtain, and Trump has a history I think of agreeing to fines.

 

The public has no right to interfere in a criminal investigation. Garland should, in this case as in any case, make sure that the laws, the whole laws and nothing but the laws should be applied. We don't want justice by the mobs.

 

How would he lose? Remember the Sussman jury? In fact, I think the Sussman acquittal might have convinced the DOJ that they could get away with this. There may have been a time when a hyper partisan DC Jury still might have delivered a fair verdict, but that time is long gone. The reality now is that any trials held with a DC jury pool now is going to deliver acquittals for Democrats and long sentences for Republicans, and Trump is the biggest fish of them all. That's why I think they are going to indict, because they know they can take it to court and win, regardless of the charges or evidence.

 

Farcical! The receipt should have been signed before the documents were taken!!!???

 

Where's that awesome "due process" argument, Bigbird?

Is it "uh, I can't tell what they're looking for!"? Yeah, that's a winner.

 

Not applicable here; this is not about a traffic lights violator being arrested.

 

Tell that to the ACLU.

 

I don't know about the other ones; but apparently Trump has. I gather from your sentence that you think so too.

 

A federal judge? You mean the magistrate? He hasn't found Trump guilty of anything.

Signing off on a search warrant ain't a trial.

At least three ways: first, the presiding judge could -- and might -- grant a motion under rule 29:

After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Then it doesn't matter what the DC jury thinks. And if the motion is denied, it can be appealed to the DC circuit Court of appeals. That's where Justic Kavanaugh presided. Then the whole conviction can be appealed. To the Supreme court. Guess who's up there?

The second way is if the venue is changed to Florida.

The third way is if JUST ONE juror in DC says: "Trump says he declassified this stuff. Even the NY Times says he has the power to do so. Did he? And did he do it wrong? MSNBC commentators say yes, but they hate him, and all these experts who testified are disagreeing. And so what if he DID do it wrong? Is that enough to sustain a conviction? Or did he have to KNOW he did it wrong? And what was he doing with the stuff? Kept it locked in a closet? Or was he going to sell it to Putin? That seems pretty far fetched to me ... you know how many people would have to be in on that deal? And what if he was making common cause with Putin to help defeat ISIS? I only need one reasonable doubt to acquit. And I have several. "

Yes, the prosecutor could lose this case.

 

This is rather an informative site containing this:

Are there formal procedures for declassifying information?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/14/us/politics/trump-classified-documents.html

 

Every president takes home lots of boxes of documents. Except the Clintons. They took furniture, Paintings, and gifts to the WH which they had to bring back.

 

They went for something they could sell on Ebay without drawing much attention to themselves.

 

No he doesn't-- but he doesn't need to, in order to prevent anyone from seeing them, because nobody gets to see them, through FOIA, at least, for the first 5 years. Obviously, other people in government (w/ the appropriate security clearance, depending on the document), get to see them. It is not clear to me what point you think serves your argument. If you had believed that the former president has complete control over, not only which of his Admin's records don't get seen by the public but, also over which of his records do get seen, and by who, you are utterly mistaken.

He could, of course, have declassified documents, before leaving office, but that would have no real effect on things, other than after the 5 year mark, these things (if they are no longer classed as confidential) would then be open to FOIA requests. Or he could, while still president, classify things, to prevent them being seen, beyond the 5 year mark (to try to save some of the six "stoppages," he is permitted, under the PRA); however, the moment the new president is sworn in, he could undo any of the former Prez's classification changes.

I hope that's helped clarify this, for you. Does that eliminate the PRA from your argument? If not, you will need to explain the significance of this legislation to the situation at hand, because I see no relation whatsoever.

 

That is your interpretation of the SCOTUS rule; there are others.

 

You just keep regurgitating those cute little CNN insider claims and your Trumpy hurt my feelings post.
The rest of us can take it from here.

 

Not for a president.
Thanks for verifying

 

The rumor has it that the "mole" was Jared Kushner.

 

Sorry, no, Its not my interpretation. Its common knowledge and has been for all presidents.

The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...resident-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

 

Ya know, truly, the Rule of Law is under serious threat from Humpty Trumpty and his Men. Search Warrants are issued by the hundreds every day I imagine in the USA and yet of all of them, there is a clamour ONLY to see the Affidavit upon which this one was based.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08...ffidavit-that-justified-fbi-search-/101332560

When the fuq will people understand that Humpty is just a Joe Blow these days and he gets no special treatment. If this Affidavit is to be revealed, then ipso facto the Affidavit upon which every warrant is based must be revealed.

Fair dinkum, Ima coming to the USA where it seems all one has to do to be above the Law is become a loud mouthed arrogant narcissist politician who believes and who has made others around him believe that he too big to touch.

Wake up Team USA. Humpty does not schit ice cream or fart perfume.

 

I think what we need here is a statute -- not a regulation or a memo or an opinion of Jim Acosta or Jerry Nadler, or a common understanding among historians -- specifying exactly what the contours and limits to the declassification protocols are.

If they don't exist, or if there is honest disagreement about them, or if Trump didn't really know what they were, he's going to walk on this.

 

That's the right to give anyone access to classified information. It says nothing about declassifying documents.

 

You wouldn't like the USA. We only put people in prison after they have been convicted in a court of law.

But we'd certainly be delighted to have you.