Why didn’t the Trump lawyer team’s court filing today include the claim that Trump declassified the documents?

[kaz]

Where is the Evidence…..are you shitting us ? You claim all this shit happened and you kept it to yourself. You did the same thing keep Hillary out of jail. Wh6 are you keeping th3 evidence to yourself foolish ?

And now a Democrat wanting "evidence." Damn, dude, this would be great if it became a standard for you. Don't worry, we both know it's not ...

 

[Dagosa]

LOL, a Democrat looking for "proof." You guys always just make it up. Damn, there's a first time for everything

Made up shit…..that’s your response.

 

[kaz]

The election wasn't stolen. And, every court case the idiots who think the election was stolen have brought, has been thrown out.

Sorry, but if it had been stolen, there would be some kind of credible evidence by now.

Sure, guy. Pull my finger ...

 

[Dagosa]

And now a Democrat wanting "evidence." Damn, dude, this would be great if it became a standard for you. Don't worry, we both know it's not ...

So….you have no evidence.

 

[kaz]

Made up shit…..that’s your response.

Oh, I know you

 

[Dagosa]

i wasn’t the one that got mad because he couldn’t properly communicate…you were

Continue….you just made a post that would drain the correction pen of a grammar teacher.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sure, guy. Pull my finger ...

Well, every court case that has been brought forth so far which alleges that the election was stolen has been thrown out for lack of evidence. If you have some kind of proof that the election actually was stolen, other than what you have heard from people who just have feelings but no proof, you'd become famous overnight. So..............where is your proof that the election was stolen?

 

[Dagosa]

Delldude

This is coming from someone who was 20 years enlisted.

 

[MagicMike]

You said it, "HAD."

Zzz. You dimwit lbs aren’t very well informed.

Lawyers generally don’t mention matters outside the scope of the matter at issue in these preliminary matters. There is no legal purpose served in mentioning, in these particular responsive papers, that the President had already declassified the purportedly “classified” papers.

And yet, the former President did address it today:

Trump attorneys respond to latest Justice Department filing on classified documents at Mar-a-Lago

The former president's legal team largely focused its arguments on renewing calls for a federal judge to appoint a special master to review the documents seized by FBI agents.

www.nbcnews.com

What we are seeing here is pretty much the same garbage that was going on in the months after Trump lost the 2020 election.
Trump and his lunatic lawyers like Powell and Guilianni were out there mouthing off non stop in the press about "proof" of election fraud but then whenever they'd appear before the federal judges hearing the cases, they'd suddenly go mum....knowing that there are serious consequences for telling the same lies to judges that they can tell with impunity to the press.

So they were basically laughed out of court....over and over.
Over 50 times in fact.
They wound up facing disciplinary action from their state's barr associations for wasting the court's time with frivolous bullshit.

Same thing here.
They can mouth off all over the place in the media to try to shape public opinion on the issue but when push comes to shove NOBODY is going to put their necks on the line to SWEAR in court to what is really only false propaganda bullshit.

And they do it all the time!
Look at their fake-assed running rhetoric about "the other side not getting to tell THEIR side of the story" in the January 6th Committee Hearings.
NOT TRUE!
"Their side" just wants to tell things in the media.....not UNDER OATH where lying carries consequences.

"On Nov 27, 2020 a federal appeals court rejected a Trump campaign proposal to block Biden from being declared the winner of Pennsylvania. ( here ). At the time, Stephanos Bibas, on behalf of the three-judge panel wrote: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so." It added: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

Similarly, on Dec. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a long-shot lawsuit by the state of Texas and backed by Trump, which sought to throw out voting results in four states ( here ). In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case. "

Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign

Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President...

www.reuters.com

 

[g5000]

 

[ABikerSailor]

I wonder if Trump saw the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats" and thought it was a documentary, so he tried to use this as a method of declassification?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Duh.....the whole purpose was determining what papers or documents were privileged.
Alleged classified files would not be a privilege concern.

Please try and keep up here.....

There are literally 10,000 documents that were seized, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The SM is suppose to simply determine what is Trump's property, and what belongs to the NA via the Presidential Records Act.

Derp…No shit.
It will only serve to show that Trump had no legal reason at all to have those docs.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hey brain damage, it happened when Trump was president

He wasn’t president when he absconded with them.

 

[struth]

Derp…No shit.
It will only serve to show that Trump had no legal reason at all to have those docs.

maybe. not..so? clinton had no legal reason, and knowingly keep them on an illegal server

 

[Faun]

maybe. not..so? clinton had no legal reason, and knowingly keep them on an illegal server

Post the law that made her server illegal...

 

[MagicMike]

maybe. not..so? clinton had no legal reason, and knowingly keep them on an illegal server

She was never officially charged or convicted of that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

maybe. not..so? clinton had no legal reason, and knowingly keep them on an illegal server

Derp…

 

[struth]

She was never officially charged or convicted of that.

My point....

 

[struth]

Post the law that made her server illegal...

Did you not read the IG report on it?

IG Report on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org

How do Hillary Clinton's statements on her use of a personal email system while secretary of state stack up with the report by the State Department Office of Inspector General?

www.factcheck.org

The IG report cited department policies dating to 2005 that require “normal day-to-day operations” to be conducted on government servers, contrary to Clinton’s claim that her server was allowed. It also said she “had an obligation” to discuss her email system with cybersecurity officials, but there’s “no evidence” that she sought or received their approval.
The IG report said Clinton should have turned over her emails before she left office — not 21 months after she left. “he did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report said.
Clinton has said her emails “were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department” because she emailed department officials at their government accounts. The IG report said that is “not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record.”

As we have written before, Clinton has said her email arrangement was “allowed” by her department and “fully above board.” Even after the report came out, Clinton continued to make this claim, saying in an ABC News interview on May 26 that “it was allowed.”

The IG report says that that was not the case.