Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history - MORE TAPES!!!

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

There's a time limit, you know.  That is, unless you can claim you didn't know you had them (despite being in plain sight in a place you've gone into hundreds of times).

With all due respect Doc, that isn’t what Goose is arguing. He/she says it’s about obstruction. But what’s being obstructed? Did the government need these documents for an ongoing investigation? Nope! This case is literally ridiculous. Possession of the documents was already remedied…by force. The issue is settled! If anyone should be bringing a case it would be Trump. 

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

With all due respect Doc, that isn’t what Goose is arguing. He/she says it’s about obstruction. But what’s being obstructed? Did the government need these documents for an ongoing investigation? Nope! This case is literally ridiculous. Possession of the documents was already remedied…by force. The issue is settled! If anyone should be bringing a case it would be Trump. 

 

He obstructed their attempts to retrieve them.  Apparently there is a time limit on when they need to be returned (except where noted) and he exceeded it so they raided his home.

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He obstructed their attempts to retrieve them.  Apparently there is a time limit on when they need to be returned (except where noted) and he exceeded it so they raided his home.

Just like Deek won’t answer - nor will you - but why did Trump have his lawyers sign documents stating all documents were returned?

 

Why are you turning yourselves inside out to defend this behavior?

 

Have you noticed - when it comes to the cult - Trump is above the law and innocent AF 100% of the time.

 

You can’t make this up.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He obstructed their attempts to retrieve them.  Apparently there is a time limit on when they need to be returned (except where noted) and he exceeded it so they raided his home.

So if you disagree with the government you’re guilty of the crime of disagreeing with the government? Once again… that’s freaking insane! We better never get there as a country. But alas we may have already crossed that bridge 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So if you disagree with the government you’re guilty of the crime of disagreeing with the government? Once again… that’s freaking insane! We better never get there as a country. But alas we may have already crossed that bridge 

 

Yeah it's a disagreement.  And while admittedly you typically can't disagree with the government, special people get special treatment.  Excuses don't work for most, but for others they do...like saying you didn't know you had classified documents in your garage that you visit every weekend, just 6 months after documents you shouldn't have had were found elsewhere.

[SoCal Deek]

43 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah it's a disagreement.  And while admittedly you typically can't disagree with the government, special people get special treatment.  Excuses don't work for most, but for others they do...like saying you didn't know you had classified documents in your garage that you visit every weekend, just 6 months after documents you shouldn't have had were found elsewhere.

Doc…you ABSOLUTELY can disagree with the government. At least you can in this country. It’s one of things that make this country unique. Our Constitution is not there to protect the government from the citizens. It’s there to protect the citizens from the government! 

[Doc]

40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Doc…you ABSOLUTELY can disagree with the government. At least you can in this country. It’s one of things that make this country unique. Our Constitution is not there to protect the government from the citizens. It’s there to protect the citizens from the government! 

 

I agree with all of that, and I should have said you can only disagree with them to a point.  If they want to get you, they will.

[BillStime]

The most CORRUPT POTUS in our lifetime. And this guy is running for POTUS again?   jfc

 

I'm so glad these Trumpers are willing to piss and schitt all over the graves of our veterans who fought for our country so they can own the libs and sacrifice our republic. Shame on them.

 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

CNN's Reaction to Trump's Latest Legal Issue Is Unintentionally Hilarious

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/07/18/cnns-reaction-to-trumps-latest-legal-issue-is-unintentionally-hilarious-n778432

 

 

[BillStime]

Everyone knew

 

 

[John from Riverside]

On 7/16/2023 at 12:27 PM, SoCal Deek said:

Goose claims the dispute is over obstruction, NOT over the documents themselves. But how is it any way worth arresting your former boss once you already have your documents back? Unless of course the actual intent is to either aid or impress your new boss. Hmmmm? 

I really don’t think you’re getting it
 

You make it sound like Donald Trump gave the documents back

 

He didnt

 

They had to physically go in and get them

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Everyone knew

 

 

They really didn’t have a choice, but now they’re facing the consequences of what they have done
 

Donald Trump’s maga following is loyal and dangerous. The Republicans have put themselves in bed with them and now they’re gonna have to *****.

 

There is no way another candidate beats out Trump for the Republican nomination

 

There is no way Trump wins the presidency unless the Democrats put up a truly poor candidate

On 7/18/2023 at 8:14 PM, BillStime said:

 

I’m not in the conspiracy theories. I really hope that they have proof of this.

[John from Riverside]

On 7/16/2023 at 1:20 PM, BillStime said:

Just like Deek won’t answer - nor will you - but why did Trump have his lawyers sign documents stating all documents were returned?

 

Why are you turning yourselves inside out to defend this behavior?

 

Have you noticed - when it comes to the cult - Trump is above the law and innocent AF 100% of the time.

 

You can’t make this up.

 

 

That has always been a curious point to me why defend someone that’s not worth defending just come up with a better candidate for the presidency. This guy isnt it

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I really don’t think you’re getting it
 

You make it sound like Donald Trump gave the documents back

 

He didnt

 

They had to physically go in and get them

They really didn’t have a choice, but now they’re facing the consequences of what they have done
 

Donald Trump’s maga following is loyal and dangerous. The Republicans have put themselves in bed with them and now they’re gonna have to *****.

 

There is no way another candidate beats out Trump for the Republican nomination

 

There is no way Trump wins the presidency unless the Democrats put up a truly poor candidate

I’m not in the conspiracy theories. I really hope that they have proof of this.

Again, John, really? The point I’m making is that if the dispute is over obstruction then it’s already been resolved when the government went and got them. 

[BillStime]

8 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Donald Trump’s maga following is loyal and dangerous. The Republicans have put themselves in bed with them and now they’re gonna have to *****.

Do these idiots think this is helping with independents? 
 

Coupled with abortion and these far right laws against women, blacks, LGTBQ, and young people - the GQP is fkd.

Donald Trump can’t be trusted ANYWHERE near the WH… 

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

That has always been a curious point to me why defend someone that’s not worth defending just come up with a better candidate for the presidency.

To own the libs - nothing else matters - including our republic. 
 

If facts matter - Conald would never have been elected POTUS.

 

 

 

[John from Riverside]

38 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Again, John, really? The point I’m making is that if the dispute is over obstruction then it’s already been resolved when the government went and got them. 

Think about what you’re saying
 

The FBI literally had to read Donald Trump’s home in order to get the documents. He didn’t give them back they were taken from him. How in the world is that clear up obstruction? When you have to have something taken away from you because you won’t give it back then you didn’t give it back

25 minutes ago, BillStime said:

To own the libs - nothing else matters - including our republic. 
 

If facts matter - Conald would never have been elected POTUS.

 

 

 

Donald Trump getting elected president was surprising to me at the time but I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton so I was kind of well let’s just see I don’t know how somebody who filed for bankruptcy six or seven times is supposed to run a country but who knows?

 

Then he proceeded to show me why he should not have been elected president, but I blame the Democrats for putting up such a horrible ootion

 

I still think that Bernie Sanders would’ve made a better president

[aristocrat]

27 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Think about what you’re saying
 

The FBI literally had to read Donald Trump’s home in order to get the documents. He didn’t give them back they were taken from him. How in the world is that clear up obstruction? When you have to have something taken away from you because you won’t give it back then you didn’t give it back

Donald Trump getting elected president was surprising to me at the time but I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton so I was kind of well let’s just see I don’t know how somebody who filed for bankruptcy six or seven times is supposed to run a country but who knows?

 

Then he proceeded to show me why he should not have been elected president, but I blame the Democrats for putting up such a horrible ootion

 

I still think that Bernie Sanders would’ve made a better president

I would like you to be specific on trump’s bankruptcy please. Which businesses it was and the amount of them. Just so we’re factually correct as the school you work for should deal in specific facts 

 

since you work in higher education didn’t Bernie’s wife bankrupt an entire college? So you support this?

Edited July 28, 2023 by aristocrat

[John from Riverside]

25 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

I would like you to be specific on trump’s bankruptcy please. Which businesses it was and the amount of them. Just so we’re factually correct as the school you work for should deal in specific facts 

 

since you work in higher education didn’t Bernie’s wife bankrupt an entire college? So you support this?

Anyone can get into some financial trouble and have a bankruptcy
 

Multiple ones?

 

By the way, Bernie’s wife is not a politician. I know Republicans have a hard time with us because they keep on going after non-politicians, trying to prove their points.

 

A quick Google search https://philadelphiabankruptcylawyers.com/how-often-has-donald-trump-declared-bankruptcy/ 

Edited July 28, 2023 by John from Riverside

[BillStime]

 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Again, John, really? The point I’m making is that if the dispute is over obstruction then it’s already been resolved when the government went and got them. 

Hoax.  The obstruction (apparently, I haven't read the statute[s]) is criminalized for a reason.  And, under your perverse view of the law, Trump had license and free reign to retain whatever secret he wanted, no matter its sensitivity, so long as the FBI eventually was able to overcome Trump's deceit and eventually track down the subject documents.  The contortions MAGA will make to justify this guy's actions never cease to amaze me. 

[SoCal Deek]

10 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  The obstruction (apparently, I haven't read the statute[s]) is criminalized for a reason.  And, under your perverse view of the law, Trump had license and free reign to retain whatever secret he wanted, no matter its sensitivity, so long as the FBI eventually was able to overcome Trump's deceit and eventually track down the subject documents.  The contortions MAGA will make to justify this guy's actions never cease to amaze me. 

Not even close. The government knew where the documents were. They were not being hidden. They even had discussions with Trump’s legal team about the means to better secure them. In other words, this was a dispute, being discussed between the two parties. The one party resolved the dispute (by force) of the possession of the documents and then AFTER they now have the documents, they then indict the other party for in essence not agreeing with them about the possession issue. Seems to me with possession now a moot point, the party that ought to bring a suit is the party that the documents were taken from. And I’m pretty sure you would do the exact same thing if the government raided your house, while you weren’t home, and took ‘government’ documents that you believe are yours to have…and while not completely analogous….documents such as your drivers license, birth certificates, home title, marriage license…all of which are also government documents. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not even close. The government knew where the documents were. They were not being hidden. They even had discussions with Trump’s legal team about the means to better secure them. In other words, this was a dispute, being discussed between the two parties. The one party resolved the dispute (by force) of the possession of the documents and then AFTER they now have the documents, they then indict the other party for in essence not agreeing with them about the possession issue. Seems to me with possession now a moot point, the party that ought to bring a suit is the party that the documents were taken from. And I’m pretty sure you would do the exact same thing if the government raided your house, while you weren’t home, and took ‘government’ documents that you believe are yours to have…and while not completely analogous….documents such as your drivers license, birth certificates, home title, marriage license…all of which are also government documents. 

Or @SectionC3who never says a discouraging word about government abuse of power or over-reach would take it up the ass like a good obedient subject of the State and say "sir may I have another".

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Or @SectionC3who never says a discouraging word about government abuse of power or over-reach would take it up the ass like a good obedient subject of the State and say "sir may I have another".

Close, he would probably say “well since everything I have actually belongs to The State, I guess it was kind of them to let me keep my property for a while”. 😉

[SectionC3]

21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not even close. The government knew where the documents were. They were not being hidden. They even had discussions with Trump’s legal team about the means to better secure them. In other words, this was a dispute, being discussed between the two parties. The one party resolved the dispute (by force) of the possession of the documents and then AFTER they now have the documents, they then indict the other party for in essence not agreeing with them about the possession issue. Seems to me with possession now a moot point, the party that ought to bring a suit is the party that the documents were taken from. And I’m pretty sure you would do the exact same thing if the government raided your house, while you weren’t home, and took ‘government’ documents that you believe are yours to have…and while not completely analogous….documents such as your drivers license, birth certificates, home title, marriage license…all of which are also government documents. 

Hoax.  Trump

said they were returned.  They weren’t.  I believe in national security.  You don’t.  Sick and sad. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  Trump

said they were returned.  They weren’t.  I believe in national security.  You don’t.  Sick and sad. 

Don’t be a child. I’ve tried to give a reasoned perspective on this legal dispute. You on the other hand simply want to scream into the echo chamber. 
 

There is only one President and there are only a few living ex-Presidents. This dispute is therefore incredibly unique and should have been argued and resolved in the framework of a constitutional clarification (possibly at the Supreme Court level). 

[SectionC3]

33 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Don’t be a child. I’ve tried to give a reasoned perspective on this legal dispute. You on the other hand simply want to scream into the echo chamber. 
 

There is only one President and there are only a few living ex-Presidents. This dispute is therefore incredibly unique and should have been argued and resolved in the framework of a constitutional clarification (possibly at the Supreme Court level). 

What does that gibberish mean?  If you mean that Congress is authorized to make laws by the Constitution, that Trump allegedly breached one of those laws, and that he's got to face the music, then I agree.  And why would we change the rules to get this guy to the Supreme Court on what at this point is a factual issue?  You might know a thing or two about architecture, but your views on this area of the law are uninformed and frankly stupid. 

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

What does that gibberish mean?  If you mean that Congress is authorized to make laws by the Constitution, that Trump allegedly breached one of those laws, and that he's got to face the music, then I agree.  And why would we change the rules to get this guy to the Supreme Court on what at this point is a factual issue?  You might know a thing or two about architecture, but your views on this area of the law are uninformed and frankly stupid. 

Says the immature guy that keeps yelling hoax into the abyss. (And I know way more than a thing or two about architecture 😉). Yes, this is a very high level constitutional-type dispute. These issues do come up from time to time. I’m not sure what you think the Supreme Court’s purpose is, but EVERY case they hear is a dispute in which they’re asked to interpret, or require the amendment of, EXISTING laws. 

[SectionC3]

41 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Says the immature guy that keeps yelling hoax into the abyss. (And I know way more than a thing or two about architecture 😉). Yes, this is a very high level constitutional-type dispute. These issues do come up from time to time. I’m not sure what you think the Supreme Court’s purpose is, but EVERY case they hear is a dispute in which they’re asked to interpret, or require the amendment of, EXISTING laws. 

So, what's the "very high level constitutional-type" dispute?  The dispute is either constitutional, or it's not.  So let's hear what it is. Frankly, you sound like just another MAGA who talks about the constitution but who hasn't actually, you know, read it. 

[The Frankish Reich]

So if the government was demanding some documents that I had, claiming that they were government property, and I believed in good faith that they were actually my personal property ... I would probably hire a lawyer to fight that demand. And guess what? That's what he did. 

And those lawyers didn't say "we're going to court since Mr. Trump has a right to keep his personal property." No. They said, "o.k., here they are." And they verified - putting their own reputations on the line - that everything had been turned over. And then they found out Mr. Trump deceived them. And now we find out (and the chronology is key here) that the day AFTER they were subpoenaed, a Trump assistant (#4 in the superseding indictment) said he wanted surveillance footage of documents being moved around in Mar-a-Lago destroyed.

If you have a good faith claim that you are entitled to keep documents, you raise it at the start. You don't say "here they are" and then hold others back. You assert your rights and let a court decide. If you don't have a good faith belief that they belong to you, you do what Trump is accused of doing.

[SoCal Deek]

38 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

So, what's the "very high level constitutional-type" dispute?  The dispute is either constitutional, or it's not.  So let's hear what it is. Frankly, you sound like just another MAGA who talks about the constitution but who hasn't actually, you know, read it. 

I’ll try and explain …once again. The President has a very unique role in our system of government. He isn’t a Prime Minister. In other words he’s not just another member of Congress, like the Speaker. His powers and authority over the executive branch are unique. While I’m not a constitutional scholar I’m pretty sure that Classified Documents were not contemplated by the authors of the Constitution. Those documents didn’t exist then. So in essence this is a constitutional question as to whether there’s a debatable distinction. The Court would rule as to whether this is clearly spoken to in the Constitution and if not, they’d ask Congress to add clarity through legislation. 

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ll try and explain …once again. The President has a very unique role in our system of government. He isn’t a Prime Minister. In other words he’s not just another member of Congress, like the Speaker. His powers and authority over the executive branch are unique. While I’m not a constitutional scholar I’m pretty sure that Classified Documents were not contemplated by the authors of the Constitution. Those documents didn’t exist then. So in essence this is a constitutional question as to whether there’s a debatable distinction. The Court would rule as to whether this is clearly spoken to in the Constitution and if not, they’d ask Congress to add clarity through legislation. 

I’ll ask again: what is the constitutional question?  It’s nice to drop the phrase.  But you haven’t a clue what language or provision of the constitution is at issue.  Saying it’s a constitutional issue doesn’t make it so.  But that’s MAGA for you. 

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

I’ll ask again: what is the constitutional question?  It’s nice to drop the phrase.  But you haven’t a clue what language or provision of the constitution is at issue.  Saying it’s a constitutional issue doesn’t make it so.  But that’s MAGA for you. 

"Constitutional issues" refer to those that involve a dispute between the branches of government, or in this case the Executive Branch and the former head of the Executive Branch.  Keep in mind, the Supreme Court doesn't only get involved in Constitutional issues, but they do get involved when an interpretation of the Constitution is at the center of a case. In these cases, they are not supposed to make a new law, but instead they tell the other two branches to author a new law (Congress), or administrate the existing laws in a different way (Executive Branch). Since here we have the newly installed Executive Branch arresting the head of the previous Executive Branch, the Court would opine on whether the existing laws are clear enough....which by the recent exposure of Biden, Pence, both Clintons, and Obama we can all see for a fact they are not. 

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

"Constitutional issues" refer to those that involve a dispute between the branches of government, or in this case the Executive Branch and the former head of the Executive Branch.  Keep in mind, the Supreme Court doesn't only get involved in Constitutional issues, but they do get involved when an interpretation of the Constitution is at the center of a case. In these cases, they are not supposed to make a new law, but instead they tell the other two branches to author a new law (Congress), or administrate the existing laws in a different way (Executive Branch). Since here we have the newly installed Executive Branch arresting the head of the previous Executive Branch, the Court would opine on whether the existing laws are clear enough....which by the recent exposure of Biden, Pence, both Clintons, and Obama we can all see for a fact they are not. 

I don’t even know where to start on this nonsense.  Stick to architecture.  Or don’t.  Whatever.  Just don’t do law.  If you can identify the constitutional provision at issue in this bizarre hypothetical, then let me know and maybe it might be worth thinking about discussing further. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t even know where to start on this nonsense.  Stick to architecture.  Or don’t.  Whatever.  Just don’t do law.  If you can identify the constitutional provision at issue in this bizarre hypothetical, then let me know and maybe it might be worth thinking about discussing further. 

If you're an expert on law, then we really are in trouble. 

[ChiGoose]

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

, the Court would opine on whether the existing laws are clear enough....which by the recent exposure of Biden, Pence, both Clintons, and Obama we can all see for a fact they are not. 

The laws around this are very clear. They aren’t perfect, but they are clear. 

[SoCal Deek]

23 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The laws around this are very clear. They aren’t perfect, but they are clear. 

Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No? 

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

If you're an expert on law, then we really are in trouble. 

Nice try.   What’s the constitutional provision at issue in the scenario that you’ve articulated?  

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No? 

It’s selective enforcement, not selected enforcement. Now—maybe—we’re getting somewhere.  So, in your view, what part of the constitution is implicated here? 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No? 

Clarity of the law has nothing to do with where I think you’re fumbling around with going, FYI.  Clarity relates to vagueness.  You’re meandering toward contriving an equal protection issue.  But you still don’t know how to get there or what part of this sacred document that you talk about all the time but apparently haven’t read is relevant to that approach. 

[SoCal Deek]

30 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Nice try.   What’s the constitutional provision at issue in the scenario that you’ve articulated?  

It’s selective enforcement, not selected enforcement. Now—maybe—we’re getting somewhere.  So, in your view, what part of the constitution is implicated here? 

Dude I’m typing with my thumb here! While others complain about the privacy features, I’m more concerned about the abysmal auto correct features! 😉