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

[BackAgain]

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.

Zzz

You’re a one note symphony. And it’s off key.

 

[Catsnmeters]

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.

Which of the indictments do you believe would apply to those other people?

 

[Lastamender]

Which of the indictments do you believe would apply to those other people?

This is a word game with you. It is free speech they are going after. They are criminalizing political opposition. Those people were election deniers and one had classified documents with no right to have them.

Again you deny the obvious.

 

[Marener]

Zzz

You’re a one note symphony. And it’s off key.

Yet I’m the one correcting you.

What was abusive about issuing a warrant when the subpoena clearly failed to work?

 

[BackAgain]

Yet I’m the one correcting you.

What was abusive about issuing a warrant when the subpoena clearly failed to work?

No. I’m correcting you. You’re just a very slow student.

 

[Marener]

No. I’m correcting you. You’re just a very slow student.

I actually don’t mind being corrected! I’d rather be corrected than continue to believe something that is factually wrong.

But having a different opinion doesn’t make me wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

I actually don’t mind being corrected! I’d rather be corrected than continue to believe something that is factually wrong.

But having a different opinion doesn’t make me wrong.

No. Being wrong makes you wrong.

 

[Marener]

No. Being wrong makes you wrong.

Okay dude. You’re the one who is being evasive. That’s usually not a sign that you’re doing great.

 

[BackAgain]

Okay dude. You’re the one who is being evasive. That’s usually not a sign that you’re doing great.

Ok bud. But of course, you’re wrong.

How am I being evasive. You suggested that Trump had not challenged rhe subpoenas. I Checked. I discovered that I might have conflated his other subpoena fights with this one. I conceded as much directly to you.

Sounds a lot like you’re the one who is full of shit.

But, be specific, brief and precise. What is that you now claim that I’m evading? Go.

 

[Marener]

Ok bud. But of course, you’re wrong.

How am I being evasive. You suggested that Trump had not challenged rhe subpoenas. I Checked. I discovered that I might have conflated his other subpoena fights with this one. I conceded as much directly to you.

Sounds a lot like you’re the one who is full of shit.

But, be specific, brief and precise. What is that you now claim that I’m evading? Go.

You’re being evasive about what was so improper about the search warrant.

 

[BackAgain]

You’re being evasive about what was so improper about the search warrant.

No. I wasn’t being evasive. I just hadn’t answered one of your usually irrelevant questions.

The government used a ******* criminal subpoena to get material in a raid at the home of the former President. That was what was improper. You don’t go that route over non classified materials requested by the ******* Arcuivist. The. PRA is a non criminal statute. The dispute was civil and being negotiated.

To secure a search warrant, they had to gin up a claim of “classified” documents. They had to claim that there was a reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed or being committed and that Donald Trump was the one allegedly committing such crime(s).

The search warrant allegations were nonsense. DocumentCloud

 

[Marener]

The government used a ******* criminal subpoena to get material in a raid at the home of the former President. That was what was improper. You don’t go that route over non classified materials requested by the ******* Arcuivist. The. PRA is a non criminal statute. The dispute was civil and being negotiated.

It wasn’t over “non classified” materials and it wasn’t on behalf of the National Archives.

There was no civil suit that was under dispute. It was a criminal investigation into the mishandling of classified documents done to protect national security.

The president is not above the law. If you or I defied a grand jury subpoena, you better believe we would be subject to a search warrant.

 

[BackAgain]

It wasn’t over “non classified” materials and it wasn’t on behalf of the National Archives.

There was no civil suit that was under dispute. It was a criminal investigation into the mishandling of classified documents done to protect national security.

The president is not above the law. If you or I defied a grand jury subpoena, you better believe we would be subject to a search warrant.

False. Even the SW application reflects that their investigation began over the Archives MAKING a request for the investigation based on claims of possession of allegedly “classified” material.

Can’t you even read?

The matter which has been under discussion was the anrchive’s effort to get some papers to which they believed they were entitled under the Act.

No part of my argument has contended that the President is above the law. Nor is that an argument or even a premise in anything I have written.

And if you get a grand jury subpoena you should comply. I would. But then, I’m not a former President who believes that the Arcuivist is overreaching and that the DOJ is engaged in more shameful chicanery.

Trump was right about that.

 

[Marener]

False. Even the SW application reflects that their investigation began over the Archives MAKING a request for the investigation based on claims of possession of allegedly “classified” material.

Can’t you even read?

The matter which has been under discussion was the anrchive’s effort to get some papers to which they believed they were entitled under the Act.

No part of my argument has contended that the President is above the law. Nor is that an argument or even a premise in anything I have written.

And if you get a grand jury subpoena you should comply. I would. But then, I’m not a former President who believes that the Arcuivist is overreaching and that the DOJ is engaged in more shameful chicanery.

Trump was right about that.

The archivist has nothing to do with the criminal investigation other than they told the DoJ that Trump was retaining classified documents. After they referred it to the DoJ, they had no input or role.

If Trump thought the DoJ was overreaching, he should have challenged the subpoena. He could have. He had every opportunity to do so.

He didn’t.

As for the DoJ, there wasn’t any question those documents were classified. They were clearly marked classified. Everyone one can see that.

 

[BackAgain]

The archivist has nothing to do with the criminal investigation other than they told the DoJ that Trump was retaining classified documents. After they referred it to the DoJ, they had no input or role.

So. The exception you concede proves you wrong. The archive did get this shot rolling. And why. Because any alleged violation of the PRA wasn’t criminal.

Even as the FBI agent preparesd the SW affidavit, the DOJ already knew about the presidential claim of declassification.

So we know what the DOJ was really up to.

They may want a scalp. They’d live a conviction. But that isn’t their main agenda. What they really want is what they’re getting already: election interference.

If Trump thought the DoJ was overreaching, he should have challenged the subpoena. He could have. He had every opportunity to do so.

Bogus argument. He could have done lots of things. Being selective in what he chose to do versus what he chose not to do is irrelevant therefore.

He didn’t.

Yep. Irrelevant.

As for the DoJ, there wasn’t any question those documents were classified.

Yes there was.

They were clearly marked classified.

As is every document that is about to be declassified. So what? It isn’t the marking that matters. It’s whether the previously classified documents had been declassified. Kash says they had been declassified. And it looks like the stupid special counsel is going to have to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dumb move by Smith.

Everyone one can see that.

Irrelevant. You just don’t get much of anything.

 

[Catsnmeters]

This is a word game with you. It is free speech they are going after.

None of the indictments are for speech. Free or otherwise.

Speech can be used as evidence to a committed crime which is typically what a conspiracy is.

So if a man goes into a bank and tells the teller, I have a gun, give me all your money...and subsequently robs the bank. The statement that he "has a gun and wants the money" is used as evidence against the crime of bank robbery. They will not be convicted of his speech.

They are criminalizing political opposition.

The only thing worse then that is thinking that just because someone is running for president, they are above the law. If that is the case everyone could run for president and it would be like thunderdome for two years ahead of every election which of course is half the time.

Those people were election deniers and one had classified documents with no right to have them.

You will have to more specific.

Again you deny the obvious.

Again; none of the indictments are for something Trump said, however what Trump did say can and is being used against him in support of the actions he carried out.

Obviously you aren't thinking this up on your own...so who is telling you these obviously flawed legal theories? Which outlet? Fox? Gateway pundit? Alex Jones? Tucker?

If you could post a link to whoever is telling you to make these outrageous legal claims, I would be eager to read it.

 

[Lastamender]

None of the indictments are for speech. Free or otherwise.

Speech can be used as evidence to a committed crime which is typically what a conspiracy is.

So if a man goes into a bank and tells the teller, I have a gun, give me all your money...and subsequently robs the bank. The statement that he has a gun and wants the money is used as evidence against the crime of bank robbery. They will not be convicted of his speech.



The only thing worse then that is thinking that just because someone is running for president, they are above the law. If that is the case everyone could run for president and it would be like thunderdome for two years ahead of every election which of course is half the time.



You will have to more specific.


Again; none of the indictments are for something Trump said, however what Trump did say can and is being used against him in support of the actions he carried out.

Obviously you aren't thinking this up on your own...so who is telling you these obviously flawed legal theories? Which outlet? Fox? Gateway pundit? Alex Jones? Tucker?

If you could post a link to whoever is telling you to make these outrageous legal claims, I would be eager to read it.

Your excuses do not matter. This is about trying to outlaw political dissent. The majority of voters think 2020 was rigged or stolen and the number is growing thanks to these ridiculous charges.

 

[Marener]

So. The exception you concede proves you wrong. The archive did get this shot rolling. And why. Because any alleged violation of the PRA wasn’t criminal.

Even as the FBI agent preparesd the SW affidavit, the DOJ already knew about the presidential claim of declassification.

So we know what the DOJ was really up to.

They may want a scalp. They’d live a conviction. But that isn’t their main agenda. What they really want is what they’re getting already: election interference.

The archivist might have gotten it rolling, but your characterization of what occurred wasn’t accurate. The criminal investigation by the DoJ never had anything to do with the PRA. It was solely about mishandling of classified documents.

Bogus argument. He could have done lots of things. Being selective in what he chose to do versus what he chose not to do is irrelevant therefore.

It’s not irrelevant. If Trump wanted to fight the subpoena he could have. If he chose to defy the subpoena while giving the appearance he was complying, a search warrant is exactly what he should expect. The DoJ can’t read his mind.

As is every document that is about to be declassified. So what? It isn’t the marking that matters. It’s whether the previously classified documents had been declassified. Kash says they had been declassified. And it looks like the stupid special counsel is going to have to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

We could argue this point, but we don’t have to. Nor does Smith have to prove they were classified to prove obstruction of justice. You say they might not have been classified. Sure. That’s possible. That’s why an investigation is needed. In an investigation, the DoJ can issue subpoenas from a grand jury that need to be complied with.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Your excuses do not matter. This is about trying to outlaw political dissent. The majority of voters think 2020 was rigged or stolen and the number is growing thanks to these ridiculous charges.

This is a false statement (it's about 1/3 I think) and absolutely irrelevant. Do you actually think that the defense will claim that since so many people believe the election is false...that is evidence my client is not guilty?

What you want is a banana republic where running for president makes you above the law.

My question to you is, if this is true, why wouldn't everyone run for president?

Can you please share the link I requested earlier?

 

[Lastamender]

This is a false statement (it's about 1/3 I think) and absolutely irrelevant. Do you actually think that the defense will claim that since so many people believe the election is false...that is evidence my client is not guilty?

What you want is a banana republic where running for president makes you above the law.

My question to you is, if this is true, why wouldn't everyone run for president?

Can you please share the link I requested earlier?

I did not say that. What I said is what people believe. I know you don't like it and I also know that is your problem not mine.