I wish I could say this was unbelievable.

I’ll have to settle for unacceptable.

This has nothing to do with the law. This has nothing to do with past case law. This is an election tactic. The left wants Trump to win the nomination. The best way to do that is piss off the Trump supporters with endless legal battles. Pissed off Trump supporters are highly motivated to vote in primaries. The left is being blatantly unfair in this situation because that's how they think they are going to get the candidate they want to run against.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
This has nothing to do with the law. This has nothing to do with past case law. This is an election tactic. The left wants Trump to win the nomination.

LOL what???

They’re scared TO DEATH of this man.

They want him to finally say “fuck all this BS” and just withdraw from all politics, then this all magically goes away.

I’d say you’ve got it all backwards.

Evidently, they don't teach Civics in school anymore, but here's a basic elementary school Civics Class question from back in the 1950s:

What kind of governments weaponise their justice department to interfere in elections, or silence their political rivals?

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
The left wants Trump to win the nomination. The best way to do that is piss off the Trump supporters with endless legal battles. Pissed off Trump supporters are highly motivated to vote in primaries. The left is being blatantly unfair in this situation because that's how they think they are going to get the candidate they want to run against.

You're not the only person claiming this, but I don't get it.

This is a quote (a Tweet actually) from Dan Proft, a Chicago conservative talk show host, a person I hold in as high of regard as any other conservative social media personality:

quote:

If DOJ indicts Trump with a case similar to what is being reported, parsing the differences w/ Biden's handling of classified docs, it will further Trump's electoral interests which is likely the intention.

He expressed the same thing on air yesterday morning. I don't follow the logic. It seems counterintuitive but I guess logic isn't a premise I should assume in a tactic by the left. I'm trying to understand here. They know Biden is a loser but they think he has a better chance with independents vs. Trump than DeSantis?

quote:

Originally posted by Ironbutt:
What kind of governments weaponise their justice department to interfere in elections, or silence their political rivals?

I pray that it can be done peacefully, but I suspect that it's going to take bullets flying and bloodshed to get our country back. If we can.

quote:

Originally posted by goose5:
This has nothing to do with the law. This has nothing to do with past case law. This is an election tactic. The left wants Trump to win the nomination. The best way to do that is piss off the Trump supporters with endless legal battles. Pissed off Trump supporters are highly motivated to vote in primaries. The left is being blatantly unfair in this situation because that's how they think they are going to get the candidate they want to run against.

No offense, but this is really stupid shit, an absurd assertion, the left wants Trump to win.

7 reasons to be highly skeptical of the legitimacy of the indictments of Trump
By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.co...ments_of_trump_.html

A politico article from 2012. Note the shoe being on the other foot compared to then and now.

Judge won't seize Bill Clinton-Taylor Branch audiotapes

By JOSH GERSTEIN 03/01/2012 12:19 PM EST

A federal judge has dismissed a conservative legal group's lawsuit seeking to force the National Archives to demand audiotapes author Taylor Branch made of President Bill Clinton during his years in office.

Acting Thursday on the suit from Judicial Watch, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Jackson said there was no obvious legal mechanism that the Archives could use to force Clinton to turn over the recordings. She also said it wouldn't be legally proper for her to issue such an order in any event since the Archives has discretion about when to assert the government's rights under the Presidential Records Act.

"The Court has seriously [sic] doubts about whether the former President’s retention of the audiotapes as personal is a matter that is subject to judicial review. But the Court need not decide this question because whether judicial review is available or not, the relief that plaintiff seeks – that the Archivist assume 'custody and control' of the audiotapes – is not available under the PRA," Jackson wrote in her decision (posted here).

Judicial Watch sought the tapes from the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, but was told that they are not and have never been in the custody of the Archives, which runs the library. In addition, then-Deputy Archivist Adrienne Thomas said she was declining to deem the records to be "presidential records" under the law.

"We respectfully disagree with the Court," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told POLITICO via e-mail Thursday. "The idea that a president could spirit official recordings and documents out of the White House and that there is nothing that can be legally done about it is a misreading of the Presidential Records Act. It is ironic that a law passed in response to the Nixon tapes controversy would allow Bill Clinton to keep tapes of his official actions secret and unavailable to the American people. And it is shameful that the ‘most transparent administration in history’ would defend this gamesmanship. We are considering an appeal.”

The Presidential Records Act, passed in response to disputes over President Richard Nixon's records following his resignation from office, does include a procedure for the Archives to ask the Attorney General to try to recover official presidential records. But, Jackson wrote, "The statute does not mandate that NARA invoke this enforcement scheme but rather vests complete discretion with the agency to utilize that mechanism."

Branch made the tapes privately with Clinton at the White House. Clinton reportedly stored them in a sock drawer for a time. They became the basis for Branch's 2009 book, appropriately named: "The Clinton Tapes."

Judicial Watch claims the tapes weren't just interviews, but are official records in part because they sometimes captured Clinton's telephone conversations with others.

https://www.politico.com/blogs...ch-audiotapes-116074

This excerpt from the Judge's ruling is particularly relevant. Again note that this ruling was never appealed.

quote:

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,” she added.

If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.

Trump needs to have a burn barrel placed somewhere conspicuous on Maralargo. And burn something non stop. Just have people burn papers.

We will get to clearly see all the Republicans who want to stab the President in the back. If this were a Democrat President all the Democrats would be in lock step behind them. The Republicans are their own worst enemy.


Globalist Asa Hutchinson Cheers On Trump Indictment

https://nationalfile.com/globa...on-trump-indictment/

Hutchinson’s statement on Trump’s arrest read, “With the news that Donald Trump has been indicted for the second time, our country finds itself in a position that weakens our democracy. Donald Trump’s actions-from his willful disregard for the Constitution to his disrespect for the rule of law should not define our nation or the Republican Party. This is a sad day for our country. While Donald Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the ongoing criminal proceedings will be a major distraction. This reaffirms the need for Donald Trump to respect the office and end his campaign.” – Gov. Asa Hutchinson, the 46th Governor of Arkansas and a current Republican candidate for President”

Hutchinson has been a proud member of the Never Trump Club. Interestingly on Wednesday, Hutchinson put out a tweet calling on GOP candidates to sign a pledge that says they would not support Donald Trump if he is found guilty of espionage. The statement read, “The @GOP should clarify that there is no pledge to support a nominee if they are found guilty of espionage or a serious felony. Donald Trump is the target of an ongoing criminal investigation and he should step aside & put the good of the country above his candidacy.

Many find the timing of this tweet suspicious as Asa tweeted almost the exact charges Trump would be charged with before the news broke.

National GOP Primary Polling shows Asa Hutchinson polling at 1%.

quote:

National GOP Primary Polling shows Asa Hutchinson polling at 1%.

Asa Hutchinson will never be President.
But these Never-Trumpers have a strong desire to bring down Trump.

Asa Hutchinson, the absolute squishiest of squishy Republicans, who cowardly vetoed a bill that would've protected children from castration and mutilation from the sick trans-ghouls and evil, greedy doctors and unHealth care workers enriching themselves on this trans-scam that is entrapping children.

Fuck that guy.

President Trump is not giving up.

Always remember that leftist project their motives and actions onto their adversaries. Whatever they accuse the opposition of doing, they themselves are doing. The Republic is in grave danger and it isn't from President Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Asa Hutchinson, the absolute squishiest of squishy Republicans, who cowardly vetoed a bill that would've protected children from castration and mutilation from the sick trans-ghouls and evil, greedy doctors and unHealth care workers enriching themselves on this trans-scam that is entrapping children.

Fuck that guy.

Just got a spam text from this a-hole today

He’s got even less a chance than Chris Christie

https://www.romney.senate.gov/...ports-of-indictment/

Romney Statement on Reports of Indictment
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) today issued the following statement on reports of the indictment of former President Trump:

“Like all Americans, Mr. Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The government has the burden of proving its charges beyond a reasonable doubt and securing a unanimous verdict by a South Florida jury.

“By all appearances, the Justice Department and special counsel have exercised due care, affording Mr. Trump the time and opportunity to avoid charges that would not generally have been afforded to others.

“Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so.

“These allegations are serious and if proven, would be consistent with his other actions offensive to the national interest, such as withholding defensive weapons from Ukraine for political reasons and failing to defend the Capitol from violent attack and insurrection.”

Make no mistake, Romney is delighted.

Fuck him too

Trump fucked himself on this. It's that simple.

By his own admission, allegedly recorded and witnessed by others, he had classified documents that he knew were classified and showed or shared with people who held no clearances to view the documents or know the contents. He fucked up.

Anyone who works with classified documents knows the protocols for proper handling and this wasn't it.

I believe he had the authority to unilaterally declassify documents but he hadn't when the two reveal and discuss events occurred.

The majority of the remaining charges are specific intent crimes and while the government has to prove intent, one key distinction with Joe Biden and Mike Pence is that their discovered documents weren't known to be classified but once determined, they were turned over to the FBI or National Archives. Neither one knew they had classified documents in boxes and claimed it was their property to keep.

Specific intent v. strict liability.