Elections Trump Indicted On 91 Counts

[Joe]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/judic...drawer-audio-tape-case-exonerates-pres-trump/
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.

“[Special counsel] Jack Smith is terrified of the only standing legal case decision from a court concerning the Presidential Records Act,” said Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch.

The case Farrell is referring to is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration – also known as the “Clinton sock drawer” case. Former President Bill Clinton created White House audio tapes with historian Taylor Branch and stored them in his sock drawer. Judicial Watch sued to obtain access to the tapes and lost.

“He took them from the White House with him into private life,” said Farrell. “There’s classified material on those tapes and arguably it’s the sort of running stream of consciousness record of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Pretty important stuff.”

Special counsel Jack Smith is currently investigating the 45th president for his handling of classified documents since departing the White House. But Farrell says the ruling in this specific case from 2012 exonerates Trump from any alleged wrongdoing.

“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “

“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.

In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”

Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

Read more here…

RELATED

Trump went to tom fitton for advice if he should give the documents back. Fitton said no. So its very possible trump is in this in part because of tom fitton. Who is not an actual attorney.

 

[Darkballs]

What a shocking opinion from them.

Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials. Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the administration of Barack Obama. It was founded by attorney Larry Klayman, and has been led by Tom Fitton since 2003.
​

Larry Elliot Klayman is an American attorney, right-wing activist, and former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor. He founded both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch.

Thomas J. Fitton is an American conservative activist and the president of Judicial Watch. Fitton has long been a senior member of the clandestine far right umbrella organisation the Council for National Policy. Fitton is the current CNP President. Fitton is known for pro-Trump commentary.

The Council for National Policy (CNP) is an umbrella organization and networking group for conservative and Republican activists in the United States. It was launched in 1981 during the Reagan administration by Tim LaHaye and the Christian right, to "bring more focus and force to conservative advocacy". The membership list for September 2020 was later leaked, showing that members included prominent Republicans and conservatives, wealthy entrepreneurs, and media proprietors, together with anti-abortion and anti-Islamic extremists. Members are instructed not to reveal their membership or even name the group.

The CNP has been described by The New York Times as "a little-known club of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country", who meet three times yearly behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference. The Nation has called it a secretive organization that "networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy". The organization has been described by Anne Nelson as a "pluto-theocracy" (plutocracy/theocracy).
​

Ignoring the obvious bias in Judicial Watch as a source, their legal analysis is shit tier. Their entire argument rests on the idea that the presidents private recordings are the same as classified nuclear secrets, which clearly they are not. The idiotic argument is that because the Court ruled that Bill private tapes fell under the Presidential Records Act, then what Trump took must too. Idiocy.

And that still ignores the charges of obstruction and others related to lying to federal investigators and federal judges.

The chuds are just copying and pasting anything they think is a flotation device at this point.

 

[weed]

I don't think the goal is to get him behind bars.

they just want to make it so he can't ever run.

getting him arrested is just the absolute perfect outcome they could ever achieve.

 

[Loiosh]

Ignoring the obvious bias in Judicial Watch as a source, their legal analysis is shit tier. Their entire argument rests on the idea that the presidents private recordings are the same as classified nuclear secrets, which clearly they are not. The idiotic argument is that because the Court ruled that Bill private tapes fell under the Presidential Records Act, then what Trump took must too. Idiocy.

And that still ignores the charges of obstruction and others related to lying to federal investigators and federal judges.

The chuds are just copying and pasting anything they think is a flotation device at this point.

Pretty sure we had all these discussions months ago.

How many times have you had to explain all this?

 

[Loiosh]

I don't think the goal is to get him behind bars.

they just want to make it so he can't ever run.

getting him arrested is just the absolute perfect outcome they could ever achieve.

They can't stop him, though.

Even if he's convicted he can run from prison.

The senate could have stopped him but they were never going to get the supermajority.

 

[pinger]

Apparently one of the secret documents is a fucking invasion plan for Iran.

FFS

 

[curryjunkie]

[QUOTE="oldshadow, post: 171299481, member: 161383"read my Bullshit posts.[/QUOTE]
Fixed

 

[curryjunkie]

Apparently one of the secret documents is a fucking invasion plan for Iran.

FFS

Yea......but hunters laptop...

 

[curryjunkie]

Just know all, I shared a bottle of Camus and then some high end bourbon tonight. That went with some Baby Back ribs, gourmet Mac&Cheese (white cheeses.. 3 different kinds), and asparagus with great family. Look out how well I type as I watch UFC fights lit up with great achohol.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

They can't stop him, though.

Even if he's convicted he can run from prison.

The senate could have stopped him but they were never going to get the supermajority.

you know your candidate is a real piece of work when he's doing a presidential debate by holding a telephone in front of a glass window inside of a prison visitors booth lol

 

[pinger]

Just know all, I shared a bottle of Camus and then some high end bourbon tonight. That went with some Baby Back ribs, gourmet Mac&Cheese (white cheeses.. 3 different kinds), and asparagus with great family. Look out how well I type as I watch UFC fights lit up with great achohol.

I have many books that smell of rich mahogany

 

[ocean size]

I have many books that smell of rich mahogany

(white cheese)

 

[fingercuffs]

If this has been posted already, sozles

They can't stop him, though.

Even if he's convicted he can run from prison.

The senate could have stopped him but they were never going to get the supermajority.

We need to investigate this law. The fucking tiger king can run ffs.

 

[oldshadow]

No one is going to prosecute a simple possession case based off of a social media post. Same with prostitutes, etc. The statute of limitations has run, and that evidence is too weak to build a case off of.

The bottom line, Hunter, Hillary, Bill, whomever else you need as a distraction; have much less evidence to build a case off of that what we see here with Trump. Notice how none of you chaps actually try to defend trump here? I think even the most diehard know he's fucked.

That's the reason one is getting indicted and the others aren't. There is evidence for one, and not for the other. If you say otherwise, spell something out. Don't just say vague stuff like "arrest hunter and squeeze him." Do you understand how the criminal justice system works at all?

Yea I understand how it works and the cops and the DA do just what I said all the time.

 

[oldshadow]

D

 

[oldshadow]

[QUOTE="oldshadow, post: 171299481, member: 161383"read my Bullshit posts.

Got nothing [/QUOTE]

Fixed

 

[sickc0d3r]

I have many books that smell of rich mahogany

Discovered in 1904 by the Germans, they named it Huntington Beach. Which of course in German means “a whale’s vagina”.

 

[nixkid]

Dude, you're being a coward. Why can't you discuss the differences between this indictment and situation and what happened with Democrats? Come on man, step up.

I thought oldshadow would be the next to crack but you just took the lead.

 

[panamaican]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/judic...drawer-audio-tape-case-exonerates-pres-trump/
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.

“[Special counsel] Jack Smith is terrified of the only standing legal case decision from a court concerning the Presidential Records Act,” said Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch.

The case Farrell is referring to is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration – also known as the “Clinton sock drawer” case. Former President Bill Clinton created White House audio tapes with historian Taylor Branch and stored them in his sock drawer. Judicial Watch sued to obtain access to the tapes and lost.

“He took them from the White House with him into private life,” said Farrell. “There’s classified material on those tapes and arguably it’s the sort of running stream of consciousness record of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Pretty important stuff.”

Special counsel Jack Smith is currently investigating the 45th president for his handling of classified documents since departing the White House. But Farrell says the ruling in this specific case from 2012 exonerates Trump from any alleged wrongdoing.

“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “

“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.

In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”

Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

Read more here…

RELATED

This case has been out there for a while and doesn't really touch on the issues related to Trump and the documents that he took from the WH.

I hate typing in shorthand because of how easily it's misinterpreted but I've got shit to do this morning so here goes. Essentially, not everything the President does is a government record. He's entitled to his own private records so long as they're about his personal stuff, not official government business. Clinton was creating records (tapes I think) for his memoirs (or some other writing). In the course of creating his records, he frequently talked about government business.

The archives wanted those tapes because they were created while Clinton was POTUS and they involved the discussion of government activities. Clinton argued otherwise - that they were created for personal use, they were not government property and he could dispose of them how he wished.

The courts agreed with him. But the why is extremely important here. The records Clinton took were created by him for his personal use. This was known while the records were being created. He did not take records that were originally created for government use. As such, they're his records and the government can't tell him how to use or store them.

When this case first started circulating related to Trump, it was about the President's ability to declassify information and his responsibility to store those records.

Here's the next important piece of information -- If the records were government records, the POTUS can declassify them, the POTUS can take them with him. But he does not own them. The records still belong to the government and they must be stored securely. If POTUS doesn't declassify them before leaving, he still has to keep them away from people without sufficient security clearance. And POTUS has to return them to the government whenever the government asks.

Trump's legal problems stem from the possibility that 1) He didn't declassify all of the records he took; 2) He didn't secure them from individuals without proper security clearance; and 3) He did not return records upon request.

The case might have value for Trump in the records that he did declassify in allowing him to share them with others. But it does nothing to address his failure to return records as requested since these were not documents created for his personal use.

 

[Andy Capp]

The limo driver, the fuckin limo driver.

hunh?