The 'Classified' Documents DOJ / FBI Raid Targeted ARE ALREADY UNCLASSIFIED...& They Knew It

[struth]

In that case you’re factually wrong.

And you still failed to answer the question.

i’m factually correct

 

[Marener]

what legal precedent do you think she ignored?

You should read appeals court overruling her.

Basically they went through two legal tests, each with 4 points.

On all 8 point she was wrong.

 

[Marener]

i’m factually correct

The government did not have access to the documents. Factually incorrect.

And you still can’t answer the question.

Were these documents under the control of the government?

 

[struth]

The government did not have access to the documents. Factually incorrect.

And you still can’t answer the question.

Were these documents under the control of the government?

sure they did, they asked to come down and reviews them he said yes, they did

 

[struth]

You should read appeals court overruling her.

Basically they went through two legal tests, each with 4 points.

On all 8 point she was wrong.

show me the case

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. A district court does not bind another district court.

Sure it does. They do it all the time.

 

[Marener]

sure they did, they asked to come down and reviews them he said yes, they did

Which means the government was not in control of the documents.

Thanks for admitting it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Once again, you're conflating two separate issues: presidential records, and classified documents. This is deliberate on the part of the DOJ and the prog NAZIs

 

[struth]

Which means the government was not in control of the documents.

Thanks for admitting it.

the govt was guarding the documents with fedeal agents

 

[bripat9643]

Which means the government was not in control of the documents.

Thanks for admitting it.

"In control of" is ambiguous terminology.

 

[Marener]

Sure it does. They do it all the time.

Nope. That’s not how the legal system works.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Matthew-Schafer-FederalLawFederalCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

 

[struth]

"In control of" is ambiguous terminology.

he thinks the govt should be in control of trumps bday party menu, and attorney client privilege material

 

[Marener]

show me the case

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-625b-da48-a3e3-e2ff83050000

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. That’s not how the legal system works.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Matthew-Schafer-FederalLawFederalCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

Yes it does turd. Were the courts bound by the decision of one court saying that is immigration policies were unconstitutional?

 

[Marener]

"In control of" is ambiguous terminology.

It’s not to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

 

[Marener]

Yes it does turd. Were the courts bound by the decision of one court saying that is immigration policies were unconstitutional?

If it’s a scotus decision, then yes. Precedent only binds lower courts.

 

[struth]

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-625b-da48-a3e3-e2ff83050000

that doesn’t show where she ignored any precedent…in fact all it did was give the United States partial stay….

 

[Marener]

he thinks the govt should be in control of trumps bday party menu, and attorney client privilege material

You should consider lying less.

 

[bripat9643]

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-625b-da48-a3e3-e2ff83050000

The request for a special master was granted, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s not to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

You mean not to anyone who is suffering profound brain damage.