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

[BackAgain]

A claim supported by specific actions of Trump

No. A claim not supported by any actions of Trump - claimed, real or imagined.

Wait until his codependents turn on him

Oh nozies. A prosecution where the prosecutor “turns” people? That’s unthinkable. That’s horrifying. That could never happen. Oh. Wait.

I meant to say: “oh wow. Again?”

 

[bripat9643]

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....

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....

Regulations are not laws, moron. A president or his minions creates them, and the President can ignore them.

 

[rightwinger]

No. A claim not supported by any actions of Trump - claimed, real or imagined.

Oh nozies. A prosecution where the prosecutor “turns” people? That’s unthinkable. That’s horrifying. That could never happen. Oh. Wait.

I meant to say: “oh wow. Again?”

All those who refuse to go to jail for Trump…….Raise your hand

 

[Marener]

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

You are allowed to challenge subpoenas. The problem is Trump didn’t challenge the subpoena. You’re going to need to find another argument.

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.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

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

It alleges real crimes. The charges are not ridiculous. Obstruction of justice is taken pretty seriously.

 

[bripat9643]

You are allowed to challenge subpoenas. The problem is Trump didn’t challenge the subpoena. You’re going to need to find another argument.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

It alleges real crimes. The charges are not ridiculous. Obstruction of justice is taken pretty seriously.

The charges are ridiculous.

 

[Marener]

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

Yes it does.

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

it does.

For example 18 USC 1512

(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any person to—
(A)
withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)
alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)
evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

 

[Care4all]

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

If you willfully ignore a subpoena, it is considered an obstruction of justice, under the law.

 

[BackAgain]

You are allowed to challenge subpoenas. The problem is Trump didn’t challenge the subpoena. You’re going to need to find another argument.

Yes. He did challenge the subpoenas. And to a great extent he even tries to comply with much of what they sought. So no. I won’t need another argument. But you do.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

Your reply is pretty stupid.

It alleges real crimes.

No. It doesn’t. It makes real crimes. It doesn’t allege any shit worthy of anything but derisive laughter.

The charges are not ridiculous.

Oh yea they are. Absolutely absurd. Laughable.

Obstruction of justice is taken pretty seriously.

Real obstruction of justice is.

You’re stuck with idiot Smith’s nonsensical charges.

 

[bripat9643]

If you willfully ignore a subpoena, it is considered an obstruction of justice, under the law.

No, it's considered failing to comply with a subpoena.

 

[surada]

And the only reason Trump gets away with things is because the courts are rigged. The 3 justices he appointed gave him a pass on breaking laws. Hell, does anyone think the Supreme Court is a legitimate court? After seeing how many billionaires shower Clarence Thomas with gifts?

Thomas may be compromised, but I think ( Hope) the rest put the constitution and rule of law ahead of loyalty to Trump.

 

[Marener]

Yes. He did challenge the subpoenas. And to a great extent he even tries to comply with much of what they sought. So no. I won’t need another argument. But you do.

He didn’t. But if you think he did, I sure would be open to seeing you substantiate this statement with any kind of link, especially the court document that challenges the subpoena.

 

[surada]

Yes. He did challenge the subpoenas. And to a great extent he even tries to comply with much of what they sought. So no. I won’t need another argument. But you do.

Your reply is pretty stupid.

No. It doesn’t. It makes real crimes. It doesn’t allege any shit worthy of anything but derisive laughter.

Oh yea they are. Absolutely absurd. Laughable.

Real obstruction of justice is.

You’re stuck with idiot Smith’s nonsensical charges.

Only Trump, the loser, claims the election was stolen.

 

[bripat9643]

Thomas may be compromised, but I think ( Hope) the rest put the constitution and rule of law ahead of loyalty to Trump.

That's the only reason Biden isn't in prison yet.

 

[bripat9643]

Only Trump, the loser, claims the election was stolen.

Why would the winner claim it was stolen?

 

[bripat9643]

Trump ordered some employee to delete the security footage. That's obstruction

That much would be true, if it actually occurred and if the FBI didn't already have the security footage.

 

[BackAgain]

He didn’t. But if you think he did, I sure would be open to seeing you substantiate this statement with any kind of link, especially the court document that challenges the subpoena.

I am looking. But you may be right. I can’t find it yet. I know he had been in negotiations with the Archives. So, that may be what I was thinking of. I can’t find a legal filing objecting to the subpoena.

Then came the Search Warrant. That abusive display of power against a former President really tells the story.

 

[Lastamender]

It isn't persecution.

It is following the rule of law and it isn't the DoJ or the FBI, it's the grand jury.

Are you confused?

But they cannot follow the rule of law for many others guilty of the same crimes, the same kind of speech, and the denial of elections. Like every Democrat from 2000 on. Al Gore, Stacy Abrams, and Killary. Shove that rule of law up your deluded ass.

 

[Marener]

I am looking. But you may be right. I can’t find it yet. I know he had been in negotiations with the Archives. So, that may be what I was thinking of. I can’t find a legal filing objecting to the subpoena.

Then came the Search Warrant. That abusive display of power against a former President really tells the story.

When it comes to classified documents, a search warrant is always the first step, not the method of last resort.

They asked.
They asked again.
They issued a subpoena.

Every time, Trump delayed and obstructed.

Issuing a search warrant wasn’t an abuse of power, it was a last resort.

There was nothing illegal or improper about the search warrant and based on what we know, it would have been really stupid not to have done so. Trump demonstrates he can’t be trusted to comply.

 

[sealybobo]

Thomas may be compromised, but I think ( Hope) the rest put the constitution and rule of law ahead of loyalty to Trump.

If the election were closer the Supreme's would have sided with Trump just like they sided with Bush.

They can twist and interpret that constitution any way they want. In fact I think one of the cons arguments on Gore v Bush was "my opinion in this case should not be used as justification to rule in future cases". Something like that. In other words, his justification for siding with Bush was bullshit.

They don't mind legislating from the bench.

If they think they can get away with it they'll do it. Even sometimes when they shouldn't get away with things, they do. Like I can't believe Clarence isn't being forced to step down.

 

[Billo_Really]

Leftists are still blubbering about supposedly "classified documents" that Trump took with him when he left the White House. They claim to support Law and Order, but the truth is they don't even know the law.​

​

Mark Meadows’s irrelevant memories about whether Trump declassified documents​

​

Leftists are excited. They’ve got him now because Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, doesn’t recall Trump declassifying the documents later seized at Mar-a-Lago. In fact, that’s a big “who cares?”. Trump didn’t need to follow bureaucratic requirements to declassify anything. As one with plenary power over national security under the Constitution, merely by taking them with him, he declassified them.​

​

ABC News' story :​

​

Trump is correct. He declassified the documents by taking the documents. That’s all he needed to do.​

​

Let me explain.​

​

National security questions belong solely to the president. That’s not me saying that; that’s the Supreme Court saying that:​

​

Mark Meadows is going to get f'ed in the A.