Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
District court decisions aren’t binding precedent. One district court can’t tell another district court how to rule. An appeals court binds a district court. A Supreme Court binds an appeals court.why isn’t it binding? there were no national security risk. The docs were all stored and guard by armed federal agents
any court can overrule a decision. It’s case law that the court should follow though on this lawDistrict court decisions aren’t binding precedent. One district court can’t tell another district court how to rule. An appeals court binds a district court. A Supreme Court binds an appeals court.
Precedent only works from a higher court to a lower court.
Any classified document outside the government control is a security risk.
Wrong. Lower courts cannot overrule a higher court.any court can overrule a decision. It’s case law that the court should follow though on this law
the govt was guarding the documents…federal agents were
sure a lower court can…Wrong. Lower courts cannot overrule a higher court.
The prior case isn’t applicable since it didn’t deal with a similar circumstance.
The documents were not under control of the government. Trump was in control of those documents. That makes it a national security risk.
You can claim they were guarded by federal agents, a claim you can’t back up.sure a lower court can…
same circumstances
the docs were guarded by federal agents
It was about presidential records, dumbfuck.It was about Clinton.
Not Trump.
So it’s completely irrelevant.
No federal court has ruled that Trump can make these classified documents personal property and it would be insane to think that make sense.
there were secret service agents guarding the propertyYou can claim they were guarded by federal agents, a claim you can’t back up.
But it’s irrelevant.
The documents were not in the control of the government. Period. Nothing you said changes that fact.
We've already established that prior president have done what Trump did.Prior presidents haven’t done what Trump is doing.
No judge is going to accept that these documents were personal documents as defined by the PRA.
Yes they do.Court don't issue rulings that are only applicable to specific individuals.
Do you claim the documents were under control of the government?there were secret service agents guarding the property
You're trying to conflate to separate things: presidential records, and classified documents.The very important differences are serious national security risks.
Clinton’s case isn’t relevant to these concerns and isn’t even binding precedent.
what legal precedent do you think she ignored?Yes they do.
Any federal court would smack down any attempt by Trump to claim these were personal documents.
Well, maybe not that fruit loop Eileen Cannon because as we’ve just seen she’d ignore any legal precedent and any law to help out Trump.
Wrong.Yes they do.
Any federal court would smack down any attempt by Trump to claim these were personal documents.
Well, maybe not that fruit loop Eileen Cannon because as we’ve just seen she’d ignore any legal precedent and any law to help out Trump.
i said they guarded it and had complete access to the documentsDo you claim the documents were under control of the government?
Simple yes or no.
When?Do you claim the documents were under control of the government?
Simple yes or no.
Unless a higher court overturns then, they yes they are binding precedent.District court decisions aren’t binding precedent. One district court can’t tell another district court how to rule. An appeals court binds a district court. A Supreme Court binds an appeals court.
Precedent only works from a higher court to a lower court.
Any classified document outside the government control is a security risk.
When they were sitting in Trump’s house.When?
Wrong. A district court does not bind another district court.Unless a higher court overturns then, they yes they are binding precedent.
In that case you’re factually wrong.i said they guarded it and had complete access to the documents
It’s not wrong. No one in their right mind like think these classified documents could rationally be considered personal documents as defined by the PRA. You’re not even pretending they could.Wrong.
In other words, your claim is wrong.
