Without a doubt Trump makes me squirm when he talks from the hip…. But my god he is so effective as a writer.
There is so much packed into a few sentences here and none of it can be misinterpreted. The message is clear…
The FBI and DOJ are engaged in a double standard against Trump. Others have done far worse and they were never persecuted or prosecuted.
I almost wish he did 99% of his communicating by writing or very scripted speeches.
Ya I wanna choke him. Wish he’d just think before he talked
This was written like a 3rd grader and would be tossed out of any middle school English class with an F. I totally understand why someone with your intellect would enjoy it though.
“I am innocent guysm, because I said so guysm.”
Twitter? Truth Social? Where have you been the past 8 years?
What’s funny is that you truly believe that the machine (whatever that is) is out to “get trump.” You think trump is a victim. Nevermind, trump has convinced you that trump is the victim and you lap up his you know what believing him.
He just openly admitted to stealing the documents in this post. Clear as day. Guilty
Such a dumb comment.
His exact words…being that you’re unable to be honest in any way…were:
“When will you invade the other Presidents’ homes in search of documents, which are voluminous, which they took with them, BUT NOT NEARLY SO OPENLY AND TRANSPARENTLY AS I DID.”
Word for word…he admitted to stealing the documents.
It’s a dumb comment because there is a constitutional question about 1. DECLAS and 2. If former presidents took documents as well and were not prosecuted for it did they set a precedent.
The only dumb part is you. There are zero Constitutional questions about it and no other Presidents stole documents. They were all under the control of the National Archives.
It is remarkable for you to be so dishonest and inherently dumb at the same time. Quite a combination
I find it amazing that you actually don’t see the obvious constitutional questions this brings up.
National Archives. Perfect example. Show me where in the constitution that the constitution requires a president to coordinate with the National Archives on documents and government materials.
Don’t give me Federal Statutes or The Code of Federal Regulations. Just show me in the 4 pages of our Constitution where that’s required.
Would love to hear your legal argument.
First, he’s not President. Secondly, we have more laws than the Constitution…the same Constitution you wanted to destroy, btw, that you now want to ONLY rely upon and pretend nothing else exists
You don’t get to make the rules.
I don’t have to make legal argument. It’s been made. There’s a special council investigating your criminal hero and you get to watch the legal argument play out in real time, in real life.
That’s the thing you have an issue with…reality.
Lol- he was president when he took them just like former presidents were president when they took them. And then they all ceased being presidents but only 1 is being prosecuted.
Holy shit. This statement tells you absolutely everything you need to know about your position.
Warden- the Constitution is the preeminent law in the land. No other law can contradict it. No other law can supersede it.
The only laws Congress is allowed to make are laws that agree with the Constitution. If they are found to violate any enumerated or unenumerated power, that law will be invalidated once it’s brought under scrutiny.
So when you mention the National Archives, the point of view that I hear you expressing is that they, the National Archives, are the institution empowered to handle government documents. But that’s absurd because they’ve only come into existence in 1934. We had government documents prior to that correct?
So when you analyze what a government document is- it would most likely fall into 3 categories minimally, executive, legislative, and judicial government documents…. And each branch would have complete power granted to them by the constitution, to do what they wish with those docs.
And since the constitution gives the executive complete control over the executive branch (plenary power) ergo he can do what he wants with those docs.
So here is where the question one’s into play… after that president ceases to become president does he have to cede his power to the new executive if that executive wants those documents back?
I would argue YES. But there really has never been a new executive demanding documents back from a former executive…. Mostly because the things that they take when they leave office are personal items that don’t really matter once they leave.
So there is an absolute constitutional question here. Multiple actually.
It looks like you are unable to make one actually .
No other Presidents stole documents. All other former Presidents worked directly with the National Archives and any place they were stored was under the control of the National Archives.
If it’s not in the Constitution, but in the CFR, then any superseding or contradictions are in question. You might need to draw a flowchart to understand. You know what else isn’t in the Constitution? Executive Privilege. You know what else isn’t in there…being innocent until proven guilty. You know what else - Judicial Review. You know what else - # of justices on the Supreme Court, anything relating to immigration, executive orders, etc.
The funny thing is you’re arguing with reality. Nothing you type on here makes the slightest difference, that you don’t believe in laws, pretend to pay homage to the Constitution of which you want to destroy, and defend a traitor criminal who’s a 3 time loser.
Luckily, you’re a NJ sleazy salesman who doesn’t make much difference in the world. So, you can argue that laws aren’t real, that you’re a sovereign citizen or whatever…but, just like your questioning of gravity, it doesn’t mean you can fly. Just try it and find out. We’d love to watch
The special master and the DOJ already have. Why would I spend time on it with you…a NJ salesman who believes in Qanon and hasn’t been honest a single day on this board?
That’s the thing…just like disputing the election…you’ve already lost. Your acceptance of that loss means little. Reality moves on without you…but, you can question heliocentric models, gravity, think Trump never lies and is still President and that Qanon is your savior. Have at it. Spread it to your kids, too. We’ll need people working the register at Wal Mart when they grow up, as well. I’m sure they’ll have a name tag waiting for them.
Um wtf?
Trump was out there carrying boxes to Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama’s house! I knew he was a bellboy all along. It is amazing what a little sleigh of hands can accommodate. Let’s see the high treason associated with their materials on record, pls.
This is your highly biased interpretation. Otherwise why even have the prosecutor and the judge right?
If they chose to do that then that’s fine. Under the constitution it’s not a requirement. If it is- show us.
No clue what you mean by this. I will only say that the constitution is the guiding document for all laws that are established after it. If a regulation is created to support a statue (for instance, sentencing guidelines for a penal code) then, upon challenge, it will be struck by the court and be considered null and void.
You should research before you write these things. The Supreme Court ruled on this CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE and deduced that the Separation of Powers outlined in the Constitution empowers Executive Privilege.
The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government. While the Constitution does not expressly confer upon the Executive Branch any such privilege, the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege derives from the constitutional separation of powers and from a necessary and proper concept respecting the carrying out of the duties of the presidency imposed by the Constitution.1
You did it again. Lol. The actual words don’t need to be there you dolt. The courts have ruled in multiple cases, Taylor v Kentucky being one of the many.
Presumption of innocence is implicit and supported by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments which provide certain particular rights to citizens such as right to privacy, right to remain silent, and forbids some government actions such as excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment, etc….
All of these rights and prohibitions IMPLY a presumption of innocence!!!
Why would we protect someone’s privacy or prevent them from cruel punishment!!!
Because they MIGHT BE INNOCENT!!!
Fucking moron.
Too bad a sleezy Enterprise Salesperson + Certified Appraiser + Independent business owner just fucking owned you.
I keep on telling you I don’t want to get personal but when you do shit like this you can go fuck your mother.
No, this is my observation and the allegation of the Department of Justice
As I stated, Executive Privilege is NOT in the Constitution. That’s a provable fact. The Supreme Court ruled executive privilege and congressional oversight are each a CONSEQUENCE of the doctrine of Separation of Powers. Again, however, it is NOT in the Constitution. A legal ruling was made on the subject, just like many OTHER LAWS for which you pretend have no basis by not being explicitly outlined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v Nixon, the same case that led to the Presidential Records Act for which this conversation is built. It is ALSO the crucial case limiting the power of any US President to claim executive privilege, ordering him to provide tape recordings and subpoenaed materials to the court.
How ironic.
So, wait…now you acknowledge we have laws outside of the Constitution. You’re now talking about the courts. Wasn’t this ENTIRE argument built on you stating the Presidential Records Act is not in the Constitution so it is moot? But, wait…now, you’re talking about courts.
Ah, so NOW you’re talking about something being implied and then trying to use logic to interpret and ask why would we allow this or that?
Kind of funny, actually…you ignored that same type of argument when it came to a VP single-handedly calling the Presidential election, or having a President steal nuclear secrets and classified documents and hiding them in his office desk drawer at a golf resort.
But, before…you were talking about the President has unchecked power and we should ignore court decisions relating to it because the Constitution and it if isn’t clearly outlined in the Constitution (the one you want to shred, btw) than it doesn’t count. Now you’re bringing up court decisions and implications…the same stuff you ignored and dismissed before.
Again…the irony.
You self owned, actually, on a grand scale. Though, I’m not surprised you think you won. You have clear patterns.
You ONLY say you want to not get personal and don’t want insults and then, consistently, show you can’t go a day without doing it. Then, you AGAIN deflect, abandon responsibility, and claim you are justified in your hypocrisy because DJ is mean or some other shit.
Clear patterns on display on a daily basis. No integrity. No responsibility. Pure and utter hypocrisy in every single aspect
An hilarious statement.
Just because a law doesn’t state words explicitly or in the order you would hope they be in doesn’t mean that the principle or doctrine isn’t “in the law.”
The SCOTUS countless times has affirmed that executive privilege and presumption of innocence are constitutionally sound legal principles.
You’re attempting now to take us through a semantic tour in order to save face for such a stupid stupid comment yesterday.
Just give it up. You don’t understand jurisprudence very well. It’s ok- we all can’t be above average at everything.
And now you attempt a straw man. I never once said “we don’t have laws outside the constitution.”
I said any laws congress, state legislatures, county and local legislators make have to agree with the constitution.
Again- stop misquoting me because you need a bit of leverage to continue this beating you’re getting.
This is how the law works. A statute is created and even the most well thought out laws always have unintended consequences. It’s the nature of law.
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it not true. Catch up.
As I always demonstrate, I return fire.
You want to call me sleazy and then refer to my profession as though you know me? FOH. I’ve never taken shit from anyone my whole life. Your punk ass is no different.
And if you were standing face to face with me your bitch ass would never speak this way- because you’re a pussy.
