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

[Marener]

Trump is allowed to retain National Defense information.

No he’s not.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I just quote the judicial decision that says he does.

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.

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. “​

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).

There is no credible evidence that he committed any crime. All the evidence indicates that this is political persecution.

He hasn't told any lies or destroyed any evidence. He is unable to compel anyone to do anything.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

No he’s not.

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. “​

 

[Faun]

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.

Fucking moron, I already showed you excerpts from Pyatt's speech which pre-dated Shokin's termination.

 

[Faun]

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. ​

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.

 

[Faun]

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. “​

That wasn't about classified documents, ya fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So three months after they said he was great the said he sucked?

 

[Skylar]

That wasn't about classified documents, ya fucking moron.

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.

 

[Marener]

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. “​

The judge never said that. That quote is from some dipshit Trump worshiping lawyer.

Fail, loser.

 

[Skylar]

I just quote the judicial decision that says he does.

No, you quoted the lead investigator of Judicial Watch.

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. “​

That's a quote by Farrell, paraphrasing what he thinks the ruling said. The actual ruling make no mention of an 'unreviewable right'.

There is no credible evidence that he committed any crime. All the evidence indicates that this is political persecution.

There is no credible evidence says you, citing yourself. But you're not a legal authority. So your personal opinion has no bearing on the admissibility or use of any evidence. You citing yourself is not part of any due process of law.

The judges issueing the warrants, however, are part of the process. They found probable cause of very serious crimes.

The prosecutors with that evidence found it to be credible and convened grand juries.

The grand juries found the evidence sufficient to justify 91 felonies charges in total.

That's due process. Not you saying 'uh-uh'.

 

[Faun]

So three months after they said he was great the said he sucked?

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Lie,
lie,
lie.

 

[Skylar]

He hasn't told any lies or destroyed any evidence. He is unable to compel anyone to do anything.

When he says he's returned all documents that had classified markings, and he didn't....that's a lie.

The subpoena, which was held to be legal in review, required Trump turn those documents over. There's strong evidence that Trump lied and compelled others to lie about returning those docs.

There's evidence that Trump tried to hide the documents.

There's evidence that Trump tried to have videos deleted in defiance of the subpoena.

There's evidence that Trump asks his lawyer to lie and withhold documents, that's obstruction.

None of that would be legal.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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?

 

[Skylar]

Lie,
lie,
lie.

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.

 

[Faun]

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?

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

 

[Skylar]

link?

Yeah, your link. It clearly says that its Farrell.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Link?