Marener
Platinum Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 26,583
- 12,512
- 973
No he’s not.Trump is allowed to retain National Defense information.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No he’s not.Trump is allowed to retain National Defense information.
I just quote the judicial decision that says he does.Nope. No where in any law does it say that citizen Trump is allowed to retain National Defense information.
You're offering us meaningless, pseudo-legal gibberish, pulled sideways out of your ass.
As you do.
What part of "any record" didn't you understand?The Clinton v. Judicial Watch case? These weren't national security docs. These were personal interviews with an author for book.
No where in the 2012 ruling that Clinton had the authority to retain national defense information, classified or otherwise after he left office.
There is no credible evidence that he committed any crime. All the evidence indicates that this is political persecution.First, there's strong evidence that he committed dozens and dozens of serious felonies. Says who? The grand juries.
Second, how could he obstruct anything? By lying to authorities (a crime), destroying evidence (a crime), trying to compel others to lie and destroy evidence (a crime).
Yes they are, turd. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You're making a distinction that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.It appears everything I said went over your head. Photos are not often called data, they’re called photos.
Information obtained from those photos is called data.
Read what the judge had to say about that.No he’s not.
Emails from a U.S. ambassador show otherwise, you fucking moron . Show us some document written before Shokin was fired that proves that any government official wanted Shokin fired.
The same state department said the following:
“We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government,” gushed the State Department’s Ukraine point person Victoria Nuland to Shokin in summer 2015. “Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee” of aid money, noted another federal functionary that October.
Read what the judge had to say about that.
“That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “
So three months after they said he was great the said he sucked?Fucking moron, you realize fall comes after summer, right?
Of course, I'm asking this of the fucking moron who thinks Trump was president only until January 6th, 2021.
That wasn't about classified documents, ya fucking moron.
The judge never said that. That quote is from some dipshit Trump worshiping lawyer.Read what the judge had to say about that.
“That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “
I just quote the judicial decision that says he does.
What part of "any record" didn't you understand?
Judicial Watch: Clinton Sock Drawer Audio Tape Case Exonerates Pres. Trump
A decade old legal case that could exonerate former President Donald Trump has been buried by legacy media.www.oann.com
“That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “
There is no credible evidence that he committed any crime. All the evidence indicates that this is political persecution.
So three months after they said he was great the said he sucked?
Lie,Nor does the ruling say that what Judicial Watch says it did. Nor did the judicial watch case.
Nor did either say anything about the 'right' of the president to take classified documents.
He hasn't told any lies or destroyed any evidence. He is unable to compel anyone to do anything.
Oh, so they were lying the first time, but they were telling the truth the second time?Yes, at one point, they were trying to get Shokin to work with them to fight corruption in HIS office. Then, as I showed you, they wanted him out too.
Lie,
lie,
lie.
Oh, so they were lying the first time, but they were telling the truth the second time?
You know what rational people think about your argument?
link?You're quoting Farrell, the lead investigator Judicial Watch paraphrasing the ruling. Not the ruling.
I'm looking right at the memorandum ruling from 2012. No where does it say 'unreviewable right'. Not in any of its 27 pages.
link?
Link?No, you fucking moron, no one said they were lying. His office was corrupt. They shielded Zlochevsky from prosecution and then there was a major scandal where prosecutors were caught taking bribes. The latter occurred during Shokin's reign. So we tried working with him to fight corruption in HIS office. He said he would but then he didn't. It was determined he was the one shielding Zlochevsky from prosecution.