Mark Meadows’s irrelevant memories about whether Trump declassified documents: The President declassified the documents by taking the documents.

[sealybobo]

Yes it is a Big ******* Deal if that is the backbone of his defense

It will quickly fall apart in cross examination.
That is why Trumps lawyers will not even raise it

How many Trump associates have gone to jail so far?

Factbox: Here are eight Trump associates arrested or convicted of crimes

Steve Bannon has been charged with defrauding Trump supporters in a campaign to help build the president's signature wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, prosecutors said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

8 plus More than 1,033 of the rioters have been arrested, with approximately 485 federal defendants receiving sentences.

How many more people will go to jail for Trump?

First Mug Shots In Trump's Georgia Election Interference Case Released

The ex-president is expected to turn himself in on Thursday.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Care4all]

You’re right. In fact it’s even easier. He doesn’t have to waive his hands.

Nope. That may follow. In fact, in most cases, it does follow. . But isn’t a rule binding on the President.

Correct.

“More importantly?” Nothing you spewed is important. The question is not why he did what he did. The question is whether he did it, as Kash Patel has said he did. If he did it, the why is irrelevant.

You can belabor your complaint and challenge the smarts of doing it. Your complaint wouldn’t erase the act of the President.

The president is bound by rules, regulations and laws... Our govt is not built on chaos....

The Take Care Clause


The Constitution provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .” This duty potentially implicates at least five categories of executive power, including:

(1) powers the Constitution confers directly upon the President by the opening and succeeding clauses of Article II;

(2) powers that congressional acts directly confer upon the President;

(3) powers that congressional acts confer upon heads of departments and other executive agencies of the federal government;

(4) power that stems implicitly from the duty to enforce the criminal statutes of the United States; and

(5) power to carry out the so-called “ministerial duties,” regarding which an executive officer can exercise limited discretion as to the occasion or manner of their discharge.

 

[BackAgain]

The president is bound by rules, regulations and laws... Our govt is not built on chaos....

The Take Care Clause


The Constitution provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .” This duty potentially implicates at least five categories of executive power, including:

(1) powers the Constitution confers directly upon the President by the opening and succeeding clauses of Article II;

(2) powers that congressional acts directly confer upon the President;

(3) powers that congressional acts confer upon heads of departments and other executive agencies of the federal government;

(4) power that stems implicitly from the duty to enforce the criminal statutes of the United States; and

(5) power to carry out the so-called “ministerial duties,” regarding which an executive officer can exercise limited discretion as to the occasion or manner of their discharge.

Thanks for the unasked for and unneeded lecture.

The issue is the declassification of documents.

You are attempting (and massively failing) to contend that a President is so bound by procedural rules and regulations that he can’t do what he has a unilateral right to do: declassify a document or a dozen or a hundred boxes of allegedly classified documents.

Newsflash. Rules and regulations are for the rest of the Executive Branch. A President isn’t bound to them. If he has the Constitutional authority to declassify documents, he has the power to modify the rules and regulations issued by prior Presidents regarding declassification process.

The usual procedure not being followed by the President doesn’t nullify the Presidential act of declassification.

 

[Marener]

The backbone of his defense is that there are no real crimes listed in the indictment. Trump exercised his First Amendment rights, and that's not a crime.

Obstruction of justice is very much a real crime. It is not a first amendment issue.

 

[BackAgain]

Obstruction of justice is very much a real crime. It is not a first amendment issue.

A claim that some alleged behavior qualifies as “obstruction of Justice” is nothing more than a claim.

In this case, it’s a bullshit claim.

 

[Marener]

A claim that some alleged behavior qualifies as “obstruction of Justice” is nothing more than a claim.

In this case, it’s a bullshit claim.

Keeping documents that were subpoenaed is obstruction of justice.

It’s not a claim that he had documents that were subpoenaed. The FBI found them upon execution of the search warrant.

But at least we both agree that this other poster doesn’t know what they’re talking about by claiming the indictment has no “real” crimes.

 

[bripat9643]

Obstruction of justice is very much a real crime. It is not a first amendment issue.

Trump didn't obstruct justice, but Biden, Garland, Weiss and Smith clearly all have. They will all be indicted when Trump gets into office.

 

[bripat9643]

Keeping documents that were subpoenaed is obstruction of justice.

Not necessarily. Only if they are evidence of a crime.

It’s not a claim that he had documents that were subpoenaed. The FBI found them upon execution of the search warrant.

But at least we both agree that this other poster doesn’t know what they’re talking about by claiming the indictment has no “real” crimes.

You don't know what you're talking about, moron.

 

[Marener]

Trump didn't obstruct justice, but Biden, Garland, Weiss and Smith clearly all have. They will all be indicted when Trump gets into office.

If he knowingly refused to turn over documents that had been subpoenaed as part of a grand jury investigation, he did.

 

[bripat9643]

If he knowingly refused to turn over documents that had been subpoenaed as part of a grand jury investigation, he did.

That isn't what happened, moron.

 

[Marener]

That isn't what happened, moron.

Sure looks like it.

The FBI found dozens of documents that should have been turned over as part of their subpoena. Some of them were in Trump’s desk drawers.

 

[rightwinger]

The backbone of his defense is that there are no real crimes listed in the indictment. Trump exercised his First Amendment rights, and that's not a crime.

 

[rightwinger]

Nah. It may seem so to you, but that’s just your ignorance in display.

Also, who said it was the backbone of his defense. It’s just one facet and it will seriously **** up Smith’s persecution efforts. (At least if the judge is concerned more with the law than with politics.)

You wish. It won’t. You’re wrong.

Of course they will.

No question Trump followers believe that defense

No court will buy it. That is why his lawyers will not even bring it up in court

 

[rightwinger]

A claim that some alleged behavior qualifies as “obstruction of Justice” is nothing more than a claim.

In this case, it’s a bullshit claim.

A claim supported by specific actions of Trump
Wait until his codependents turn on him

 

[bripat9643]

Sure looks like it.

The FBI found dozens of documents that should have been turned over as part of their subpoena. Some of them were in Trump’s desk drawers.

Failure to turn them over is the supposed crime. It's not an example of obstruction of justice. You obviously don't understand what that term means.

 

[bripat9643]

A claim supported by specific actions of Trump
Wait until his codependents turn on him

The only action was Trump expressing his opinion, a right protected by the First Amendment.

 

[BackAgain]

Keeping documents that were subpoenaed is obstruction of justice.

In most cases yes. But no. Not in all cases. People are allowed to challenge subpoenas.

It’s not a claim that he had documents that were subpoenaed. The FBI found them upon execution of the search warrant.

Allegedly. And so what? If you subpoena my 6th grade country report, I may not agree that you’re entitled to it. So, I hold on to it (if it even still exists). You don’t like it? Too bad. It ain’t up to you. It will be up to a court and possibly a jury.

But at least we both agree that this other poster doesn’t know what they’re talking about by claiming the indictment has no “real” crimes.

It doesn’t charge any real crimes. It alleges some crimes. But the charges it makes are ridiculous.

 

[Marener]

Failure to turn them over is the supposed crime. It's not an example of obstruction of justice. You obviously don't understand what that term means.

Obstruction of justice is an umbrella term for different kinds of acts that all obstruct Justice.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 Part I - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

www.law.cornell.edu

This chapter has all the various codes. Trump is charged under 18 USC 1512.

 

[Care4all]

A President isn’t bound to them

Nope! He is bound by them, according to the take care clause in the constitution....

Follow the laws and rules in place even if ministerial duties....

He still is the head declassifier, just follow the laws and rules to do it.... He took an oath to that....

 

[bripat9643]

Obstruction of justice is an umbrella term for different kinds of acts that all obstruct Justice.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 Part I - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

www.law.cornell.edu

This chapter has all the various codes. Trump is charged under 18 USC 1512.

Perhaps, but failure to comply with a subpoena doesn't qualify as obstruction of justice..