Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

[Orangeburst]

This is a very good summation ... and this is why the Presidential Records Act exists.

Presidential records are not the private property of the President, and they must be relinquished to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) when the President leaves office. That is what the law clearly says.

* Also, if Trump wasn't well aware of the impropriety of retaining the documents in his possession, then why was he moving them around and going to so much effort to keep the FBI from finding them?

1) Trump obviously knew what the law (The Presidential Records Act of 1978) was.
2) Trump knew that he was in violation of this law.
3) Trump went to considerable effort to obstruct the enforcement of this law.
4) Trump's actions reflect a consciousness of guilt, when it comes to breaking this law.

You still going on about the PRA? The PRA isn't even mentioned in the indictments. And we already went thru this. Precedence was established by Judge Jackson in 2012 and 2020.

 

[volgr]

Even if this is correct, it would be wrong. A president is elected to fill a position for a defined period of time. When he's through, he holds no real position ... fortunately in most cases. The records should never belong to the individual; they are the the history, the record of decisions that guided the country during the president's tenure. Those documents and decisions (all of them) should be available for successors as a basis for further direction and decisions. Records belong to the country - not a temporary occupant of the WH. The sooner everyone is reminded that officials in DC "represent" us the better. Trump is wrong about a lot of this, but so are many others. Trump should not be singled out - prosecute all or none; and some realistic rules for classification, storage, and retrieval of records need to be developed. Nobody in government should be a law unto himself. The first basic tenet in the position of president was that he not be a king.

The President ins't a king, he must follow (or pretend to) the Constitution. There is no good answer here. I don't like giving the Executive ultimately authority over classification and personal records either, but as you can see here, leaving it in the hands of a bureaucratic State isn't the answer either. Either way, we either have good trustworthy people in positions of power or we don't and right now, we don't.

 

[volgr]

I do understand separation of powers... but the President must still obey laws which Congress has passed. Nobody is above the law in this country (at least in theory, if not in practice).

So, no, you do not understand separation of powers.

 

[BreatheUT]

So this is an untested legal theory. You know this is a political witch hunt by the administration of a sitting politician when you hear this.

 

[volgr]

You still going on about the PRA? The PRA isn't even mentioned in the indictments. And we already went thru this. Precedence was established by Judge Jackson in 2012 and 2020.

In his world there are 4 branches of gov't, Judicial, Legislative, Executive and then over all of those is the most important branch, Archivist.

 

[volgr]

So this is an untested legal theory. You know this is a political witch hunt by the administration of a sitting politician when you hear this.

And a bad one at that. Yeah, the gov't was weaponized against candidate/President Trump but this time their perversion of law is completely legitimate.

 

[Septic]

So this is an untested legal theory. You know this is a political witch hunt by the administration of a sitting politician when you hear this.

That's the hope.

Good luck.

Lying to the feds and scheming to obstruct has a track record of not ending well.

The cover up is always worse than the crime.

 

[BowlBrother85]

So, no, you do not understand separation of powers.

Once again, are you saying that the President of the United States does not have to obey the laws passed by Congress ... and that he is essentially above the law?

Because there will be some very disappointed Republicans, who are currently sitting on the House Oversight Committee, to hear this. LOL.

Please answer the question this time.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You still going on about the PRA? The PRA isn't even mentioned in the indictments. And we already went thru this. Precedence was established by Judge Jackson in 2012 and 2020.

District Court decisions are not binding precedent on any other District Court or Federal Circuit Court decisions outside of their jurisdiction. Any idiot knows that.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System - National Agricultural Law Center

 

[BowlBrother85]

In his world there are 4 branches of gov't, Judicial, Legislative, Executive and then over all of those is the most important branch, Archivist.

In my world, the President does have an oversight body ... and he does have to obey the law.

 

[Orangeburst]

District Court decisions are not binding precedent on any other District Court or Federal Circuit Court decisions outside of their jurisdiction. Any idiot knows that.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System - National Agricultural Law Center

Well I was wrong..but not like you didn't have to go google it as it is far more nuanced than what you described.
Now we see why the venue was moved out of DC District Court.
And yet you ignored the PRA not even being in the indictment.

 

[volgr]

District Court decisions are not binding precedent on any other District Court or Federal Circuit Court decisions outside of their jurisdiction. Any idiot knows that.

Procedures: Precedent and the U.S. Court System - National Agricultural Law Center

So you are not only wanting to test perverted legal theory against your political enemy but are advocating to do so by a different standard than has already been decided by a previous Court? Bold strategy, Cotton. TDS has fully consumed you. Seek help.

 

[volgr]

In my world, the President does have an oversight body ... and he does have to obey the law.

He does have oversight, impeachment and the polls.

 

[whodeycin85]

That's the hope.

Good luck.

Lying to the feds and scheming to obstruct has a track record of not ending well.

The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Unless your names Clinton

 

[BreatheUT]

That's the hope.

Good luck.

Lying to the feds and scheming to obstruct has a track record of not ending well.

The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Though there is a two-tier justice system I think it will be a case where the central argument is whether or not there was obstruction as you say.

 

[Orangeburst]

Though there is a two-tier justice system I think it will be a case where the central argument is whether or not there was obstruction as you say.

How could there be obstruction to something that may be ruled that he legitimately possessed?

 

[hUTch2002]

Tucker Carlson reveals the 'precise moment' Washington decided to 'send Donald Trump to prison' in third Twitter show - as he claims former president has made a 'blood enemy' of the Federal Government and slams charges

Tucker Carlson claimed on Tuesday night that Donald Trump was indicted because he dared to challenge the U.S. military industry, and question America's role in international conflicts.

He declared that the elite in Washington, D.C., decided to 'take Trump out' because he rejected involvement in foreign wars, and accused the intelligence community of lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

'It's been inevitable since February 16, 2016,' said Carlson, referencing a Republican primary debate held in Greenville, South Carolina.

'That's the day Donald Trump made a blood enemy of the largest and most powerful organization in human history, which would be the federal Government.'

Carlson said Trump was 'doomed' when he condemned the Iraq invasion, and told the South Carolina audience: 'They lied. They knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.'

Carlson added: 'Seven and a half years later, we can point to the precise moment that permanent Washington decided to send Donald Trump to prison.'

Tucker Carlson reveals the 'precise moment' Washington decided to send Donald Trump to prison | Daily Mail Online

Ha! WTF Tucker? That dude just gets crazier and crazier.

 

[BowlBrother85]

He does have oversight, impeachment and the polls.

Hmmm .... I guess that you never took a Civics class?

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10015

^^^ From congress.gov ^^^

"Congress engages in oversight of the executive branch through the review, monitoring, and supervision of the implementation of public policy."

National Archives and Records Administration - Wikipedia

Also, do you realize that The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is an independent federal agency of the United States government within the executive branch itself? They are charged with, among other things, the preservation of presidential directives.

 

[Orangeburst]

 

[BowlBrother85]

So you are not only wanting to test perverted legal theory against your political enemy but are advocating to do so by a different standard than has already been decided by a previous Court? Bold strategy, Cotton. TDS has fully consumed you. Seek help.

That happens all the time. You seem to be downright clueless.

 

[BowlBrother85]

How many times is this going to be posted? LOL.

You can refer back to that case as many times as you want ... it won't change the fact that it is not a binding precedent outside of its jurisdiction.

 

[Orangeburst]

How many times is this going to be posted? LOL.

You can refer back to that case as many times as you want ... it won't change the fact that it is not a binding precedent outside of its jurisdiction.

It means the law is ambiguous..just as Judge Jackson said. So no it doesn't set binding precedence, but also does not meet your standard that he is guilty of possession.

 

[BowlBrother85]

It means the law is ambiguous..just as Judge Jackson said. So no it doesn't set binding precedence, but also does not meet your standard that he is guilty

... but the law, as amended in 2014, is not ambiguous at all. It has been posted here many times. There is no way to misinterpret what it says.

 

[BreatheUT]

How could there be obstruction to something that may be ruled that he legitimately possessed?

There wouldn’t be. I'm just looking from the angle of the pearl clutchers.

 

[OrangeBoro]

That's the hope.

Good luck.

Lying to the feds and scheming to obstruct has a track record of not ending well.

The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Worked well for Hillary