Merrick Garland Has No Legal Standing Against Trump

A sad reality in having a corrupt babbling moron ..yup that's Biden .. with the power to declassify any document he or his money/power hungry conspirators desire is hardly a pleasant thought..:omg:
 
That looks like a real floor shaker!

Floor shaker, window breaker, shelf on the other side of the home rattler, heart stopper, and police-calling asshole neighbor-waker across the street and up the road at 4AM maker. :SMILEW~130:

Take the most badass earth-moving (but accurate) bass you've ever heard at any live concert front row centered and DOUBLE it.

The woofers have an ultra-linear servo-controlled 1000W peak BASH-powered motor with a 50 pound magnet structure for virtually no distortion at the highest excusions!




Screen shot 2014-11-28 at 9.21.43 PM.png
 
Floor shaker, window breaker, shelf on the other side of the home rattler, heart stopper, and police-calling asshole neighbor-waker across the street and up the road at 4AM maker. :SMILEW~130:

Take the most badass earth-moving (but accurate) bass you've ever heard at any live concert front row centered and DOUBLE it.

The woofers have an ultra-linear servo-controlled 1000W peak BASH-powered motor with a 50 pound magnet structure for virtually no distortion at the highest excusions!




View attachment 729016
Holy Shit!! That looks like a monster!! In the 70's (in my band) the bass player had 36 inch electro voice speakers. They could make your ears bleed but were not that accurate, mostly 'mushy' sounding. He had 2 of them!!
 
I don't care if Bill Barr says that he has a case.......Merrick Garland has no legal standing to investigate Trump on any documents that were at Mara-lago....and he knows it. Here's why:

Actually, no, there's a process for declassifying documents. The president just can't think that a document is unclassified. He has to go through a process, inform effected agencies so they can let their people know what is classified and what isn't.

All of which is moot, because the minute he stopped being president, he had no right to classified documents.
 
You're the east coast distributor of lame posting...
...and you are an uninformed idiot.

 
...and you are an uninformed idiot.

They de-classified those forks and spoons.
 
garland is basically harassing trump and smearing trump
their obsession with trump is psycho
they can't let it go

What if I told you they were both on the same team playing a massive game of "good cop bad cop" on the American people to keep them divided and focused on each other rather than the real evil taking place by BOTH "parties" in Washington DC, Headquarters to United States of America Inc."
What if I told you that big pharma, the big military industrial complex and big tech and big corporations actually run America?
(The Bloombergs, the Gates, Soros, the wealthy etc etc.) Their God is wealth and power. Not the Biblical God. SURPRISE !!!!!
Meh, your ultra partisan ignorance would call it BS and go right back to worshiping Trump...or Biden...or whoever they trick you into supporting.

And the American lemmings wonder why they are where they are today.
 
...and you are an uninformed idiot.


Or...a cleverly planted insider,...here to keep you cons on your toes, infuriated and bickering non stop day in and day out.
My vote would be this, a troll.
 
Actually, no, there's a process for declassifying documents. The president just can't think that a document is unclassified. He has to go through a process, inform effected agencies so they can let their people know what is classified and what isn't.

All of which is moot, because the minute he stopped being president, he had no right to classified documents.

Riiiiiight........"processes".........

Like the "Process" your uncle Joe used to grant amnesty to student debt.
Totally illegal, totally unconstitutional....but as long as whatever "process" fits your liking all is good.

Got it.
 
We no longer live in a 1st world nation where law and order prevails.
We are now 3rd world where money and corruption and those who can afford it alone can get "Justice"

Expecting true Justice now is a bit absurd. Pandora is out of the box. Getting her back in is near impossible.
As the current generation dies off perhaps it will become more commonly accepted this new 3rd world status and how it works (or doesn't)

They'll adjust and get used to it. Learn how to survive in it.
I don't think we ever really did

Right after the Revolutionary war the government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made illegal speaking out against elected officials

Although Jefferson latter overturned most of it, what was left FDR locked away innocent Japanese Americans with no push back. In fact, ask any lunatic Leftist and they will place FDR at the top of the greatest Presidents list.
 
I don't care if Bill Barr says that he has a case.......Merrick Garland has no legal standing to investigate Trump on any documents that were at Mara-lago....and he knows it. Here's why:

"When government drones “classify” documents, they do so only because their authority comes from the president. They can neither challenge nor exceed the president’s authority. Neither can Congress for that matter.​
This isn’t me saying that. This is the Supreme Court of the United States in an unchallenged decision that relies on a long-standing (as in, back to 1788) assignment of power to the executive. Presidents can voluntarily respect a national security law, but they do not have to abide by it.​
That’s because the president—and only the president—has plenary power when it comes to national security matters. Plenary power means “a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power.”​
The leading case on this is Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), which considered whether a civil service board can review a “laborer’s” being denied national security clearance. In that context, the Supreme Court was clear about the president’s plenary power:​

Note that there are no procedural rules the president must follow to exercise his authority. Again, that’s because neither Congress nor the bureaucracy (which reports to the president) has the power to impose rules on him.​
Because Trump was still the President of the United States, at the very moment when he transferred those documents from the White House to his private residence, they were automatically and instantly declassified. After that, nothing in his possession was either “sensitive” or “classified,” and neither the current nor the past Attorney General can change that fact."​
You guys always come back to this old and quite frankly DUMB argument.

Trump is at this moment a FORMER president. Any rights awarded to a president (however dictatorial you presume they are) ended when his successor was inaugurated.

This is not considering the whole stupidity of the notion that respecting national security laws is some kind of voluntary thing for a President. The oath of office he took would be meaningless for one.

Or the stupidity of the notion that declassification is some kind of automatic de jure thing triggered by Trump taking the documents from its secure setting.

I imagine you'll be surprised how Garland's "standing" will result in actual charges in front of an actual judge, completely independent from your opinion on how the law works.
 
Last edited:
Riiiiiight........"processes".........

Like the "Process" your uncle Joe used to grant amnesty to student debt.
Totally illegal, totally unconstitutional....but as long as whatever "process" fits your liking all is good.

Got it.
What he did will be challenged all the way to the supreme Court. And that judgement will be respected no matter what anybody thinks about it. That's how "the process" works.

Trump on the other hand makes these weird statements about declassification and planting of evidence and then declines to repeat them in court even when prompted.
 
Theft isnt a crime? :cuckoo:
Only when you can actually show "theft". In this case going by the article the White House counsel said it wasn't theft, and when discussion arose the Clinton's returned the items.

That's the thing about the law. Different aspects need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before one is found guilty. A fact I suspect you will have no problem understanding if or when Trump gets indicted.
 
Only when you can actually show "theft". In this case going by the article the White House counsel said it wasn't theft, and when discussion arose the Clinton's returned the items.

That's the thing about the law. Different aspects need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before one is found guilty. A fact I suspect you will have no problem understanding if or when Trump gets indicted.
You all needed no proof to accuse Trump of being a Rusian asset, a rapist, piss lover, nuclear secrets trafficker, etc., so spare me your hypocritical lecture.
 
You all needed no proof to accuse Trump of being a Rusian asset, a rapist, piss lover, nuclear secrets trafficker, etc., so spare me your hypocritical lecture.
People can say all kinds of things.

I distinguish between what I believe, what I know, and what can be proven in a court of law. Those things aren't necessarily the same. It doesn't make me a hypocrite. It makes me a hell of a lot more rational than you!
 
You guys always come back to this old and quite frankly DUMB argument.

Trump is at this moment a FORMER president. Any rights awarded to a president (however dictatorial you presume they are) ended when his successor was inaugurated.

This is not considering the whole stupidity of the notion that respecting national security laws is some kind of voluntary thing for a President. The oath of office he took would be meaningless for one.

Or the stupidity of the notion that declassification is some kind of automatic de jure thing triggered by Trump taking the documents from its secure setting.

I imagine you'll be surprised how Garland's "standing" will result in actual charges in front of an actual judge, completely independent from your opinion on how the law works.
You didn't read the OP apparently.

This wouldn't be the first time that these folks in the DOJ started an investigation on Trump over something they knew full-well wasn't a crime.
This is just one more example of it.
Go back and re-read the OP, read the reference I provided that explains it.
 
People can say all kinds of things.

I distinguish between what I believe, what I know, and what can be proven in a court of law. Those things aren't necessarily the same. It doesn't make me a hypocrite. It makes me a hell of a lot more rational than you!
Bullshit. The Clintons wanted that stuff. It wasnt a case of accidentally packing up the wrong items. How do i know that? Because once they were caught and told to give it back, the Clintons bought it all to make it "legal".
 

Forum List

Back
Top