Trumps classified Documents Case Dismissed

[Offthemat]

18 minutes ago, ionel said:

Loser vacates the boards for a year, @BobDole verifies? 

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Does this mean we are going to lose Redviking for a year?

[RockLobster]

The classified documents case will be back. Why? Because he is obviously guilty. Those documents, classified or not, didn't belong to him. They were (and are) property of the federal government. Ex-presidents have zero right to claim them as their own. They requested he return them multiple times - Trump denied, and went so far as to lie to his lawyers that they had all been returned. When the feds got a search warrant, they found he had illegally retained them - and that there were classified documents among the boxes they discovered. Had he simply returned them, it would likely not have become a problem at all. He effectively stole documents, hid them, and lied about it.

Vak already covered this in detail back when it was a current event.

Edited July 15, 2024 by RockLobster

[RockLobster]

... further, here's a YouTube video from FOX News with Republican Bill Barr that explains it in simple terms.

Trump is simply guilty in this particular case.

That's not to say Trump is necessarily guilty of any other charges in other cases. He may well be innocent of charges in other cases that have yet to be tried.

This also has nothing to do with Hunter Biden or any of the other weird things people try to link to this.

This is simply a case where Trump is guilty. I have to wonder if anyone who doesn't see this is just not capable of being honest with themselves.

[JimmyBT]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

Does this mean we are going to lose Redviking for a year?

Man I hope so.  He’s a clown. 

[Le duke]

Aileen Cannon has been curb stomped by the 11th every time Jack Smith appeals.

Her logic here is non-existent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

39 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Aileen Cannon has been curb stomped by the 11th every time Jack Smith appeals.

Her logic here is non-existent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is non-existent is Constitutionally mandated Congressional authorization to appoint a special counsel sans Senate Advice and Consent.  

[Paul158]

14 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

What is non-existent is Constitutionally mandated Congressional authorization to appoint a special counsel sans Senate Advice and Consent.  

Looks like the AG and the DOJ missed that tiny little fact when they appointed Smith. How will the 11th be able to override that factual part of the law?

Edited July 16, 2024 by Paul158
missed a word.

[red viking]

18 hours ago, ionel said:

and you are willing to bet how much? 

If it can legally be appealed, and is, and you have an objective judge(s), then whatever you want. 

[red viking]

This is the epitome of a conflict of interest. What we have here is a corrupt, right-wing judge that was appointed by Trump and is now making a ruling on his criminal activities. It doesn't get any worse than that. 

It also had nothing to do with the merits of the case, so this will either be appealed successfully or re-filed. Trump is a criminal and will eventually go down. 

[Offthemat]

It is the equivalent of “no standing” only against the prosecutor. 

[Offthemat]

5 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Looks like the AG and the DOJ missed that tiny little fact when they appointed Smith. How will the 11th be able to override that factual part of the law?

I don’t think they can with a straight face. 

[WrestlingRasta]

I love when the current news cycle makes us all legal scholars on anonymous social media. 

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I love when the current news cycle makes us all legal scholars on anonymous social media. 

I love it when lawyers start talking geometry.  

[red viking]

17 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I don’t think they can with a straight face. 

DOJ has been operating under the same guidelines and laws for 25 years now re: special counsels. How interesting that a Trump-appointed judge now says it is illegal on the day of Trump's nomination. Great timing. This was a slam dunk case and Trump's only hope was to get it thrown out on a technicality. The merits of the case were slam-dunk and everybody in this country should be disappointed in how this has gone. Anybody responsible for a crime should be held accountable. 

Nothing to see here....move along. 

[headshuck]

Are we talking about Alec Baldwin’s case now?

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Are we talking about Alec Baldwin’s case now?

Sounds like it, I mean we've seen bigger thread hijacks.

17 minutes ago, red viking said:

Anybody responsible for a crime should be held accountable. 

But if presumed innocent till proven guilty then how do we know?

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

Sounds like it, I mean we've seen bigger thread hijacks.

But if presumed innocent till proven guilty then how do we know?

The evidence is extremely strong. If this is decided based upon the facts presented thus far (and not how the prosecutor was appointed) and the decider (judge or jury) was even somewhat objective, he gets more felony counts stacked on his already impressive felony record. 

Edited July 17, 2024 by red viking

[red viking]

The guy held on to classified documents at his home, 1.5 years after he was out of office, and despite repeated requests for him to return the documents. FBI raided his palace and found them. 

Doesn't get much more of a slam dunk than that. However, we live in a Banana Republic where the elite don't get held accountable for their crimes. 

[ionel]

Just now, red viking said:

The guy held on to classified documents at his home, 1.5 years after he was out of office, and despite repeated requests for him to return the documents. FBI raided his palace and found them. 

Doesn't get much more of a slam dunk than that. However, we live in a Banana Republic where the elite don't get held accountable for their crimes. 

Isn't faking an assassination a crime?  Why don't we get him for that one.  Some folks on here have the evidence, its a more current crime so should be an easier slam dunk.  

[headshuck]

He’s been colluding with the Russians for what seems like forever too.

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, ionel said:

Isn't faking an assassination a crime?  Why don't we get him for that one.  Some folks on here have the evidence, its a more current crime so should be an easier slam dunk.  

I don't see much evidence for that personally, but I wouldn't put it past the GOP, in general, to do whatever it takes to win. I have to give your party credit. You are incredibly resourceful, organized and are willing to any level to win. Shows a lot of determination and drive. 

[Paul158]

44 minutes ago, red viking said:

DOJ has been operating under the same guidelines and laws for 25 years now re: special counsels. How interesting that a Trump-appointed judge now says it is illegal on the day of Trump's nomination. Great timing. This was a slam dunk case and Trump's only hope was to get it thrown out on a technicality. The merits of the case were slam-dunk and everybody in this country should be disappointed in how this has gone. Anybody responsible for a crime should be held accountable. 

Nothing to see here....move along. 

Last sentence.  It doesn't apply if you are old and feeble. It doesn't apply if you are a nice likeable guy and have a poor memory.

[Bigbrog]

10 minutes ago, red viking said:

I don't see much evidence for that personally, but I wouldn't put it past the GOP, in general, to do whatever it takes to win. I have to give your party credit. You are incredibly resourceful, organized and are willing to any level to win. Shows a lot of determination and drive. 

LOL....so you are saying the Dems aren't incredibly resourceful, organized and will do anything to win??  Here's a hint...both sides are.

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL....so you are saying the Dems aren't incredibly resourceful, organized and will do anything to win??  Here's a hint...both sides are.

Not as dedicated to winning as the Republicans. Republicans will do WHATEVER it takes. Democrats will only go so far. I actually wish they could match the aggressiveness, political savvy and cut-throat style of the Republicans.