• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump: I could declassify documents by thinking about it

He never had any objection to giving them to the NA. They were working on it (just like Obama is working on his records) and the NA and FBI and DOJ double-crossed him.

Ohh, not only Trump had an objection, he lied and was caught keeping classified records in his office. You can squeal as much as you want, but you cannot change the fact that Trump's behavior is unprecedented and all this talk that Trump supposedly did the same thing Trump did is just a lie which has been refuted by the facts.
 
A vacant furniture warehouse is far better. Most likely vacant because it's in a crap area prone to break-ins and theft at night.
The links I provided prove that the facility was not vacant after it was leased by NARA to sort out and hold temporarily Obama's records. The same facility was also modified by NARA to have a secured compartment which could hold the classified materials according to the legal requirements that NARA has to follow.
 
All I can do is present the facts...even when there are "10,000 responses" from people who disregard the facts.
At least he admits to the gaslighting, In his mind if something is said by the left 10,000 times it must be true and anyone who isn't a believer is a sinner.
 
Just to let you know that your claim of double-lock was lacking in correctness.

For 16 of the 18 months that the FPOTUS was in illegal possession of government property (which included classified documents), there was no double-lock.

But as I said, I appreciate that they installed one while the DOJ was getting the search warrant. Good on them.

WW
It was in his frigging house, a place certainly more secure than some warehouse in a Chicago ghetto. Stop with this nonsense. his house is behind gates and watched by the Secret Service.
 
Shoulda woulda coulda. I'm stoked for the blues festival this weekend.

Here. Something worthwhile.



Bonnie won't be there, but Carolyn's at the Tahoe Stage 3:00 tomorrow. Hell yeah.

You go back to whatever is you're doing. (y)

okie dokie
 
This is why I have so many posts. I answer nearly every post, no matter how dumb the post is.

Well I know that's a lie, since you refuse to address any of mine. Seems that started right after I posted my documenting your erroneous understanding of masks in my sig.
 
At least he admits to the gaslighting, In his mind if something is said by the left 10,000 times it must be true and anyone who isn't a believer is a sinner.
It is not the fact that something has been said numerous times. It is the fact that your side is full of intellectual cowards who refuse to address what has been said and refute it with evidence. THIS behavior of yours is evidence that you have lost the argument.
 
I so miss WWII Vets.
 
If we’re going by the letter of the constitution than no.

Still waiting for you to post where in the Const it says the president cannot be charged and convicted of treason?
 
It was in his frigging house, a place certainly more secure than some warehouse in a Chicago ghetto. Stop with this nonsense. his house is behind gates and watched by the Secret Service.
Trump's house is the parade ground of foreigners with no security clearance. The facility that was used to store Obama's records was closed to the public, including to foreigners socializing with Obama.
 
Ohh, not only Trump had an objection, he lied and was caught keeping classified records in his office. You can squeal as much as you want, but you cannot change the fact that Trump's behavior is unprecedented and all this talk that Trump supposedly did the same thing Trump did is just a lie which has been refuted by the facts.
Um, cause he declassified them. Did you not get the memo?
 
The links I provided prove that the facility was not vacant after it was leased by NARA to sort out and hold temporarily Obama's records. The same facility was also modified by NARA to have a secured compartment which could hold the classified materials according to the legal requirements that NARA has to follow.
Why didn't they send the FBI while he was sorting things out? He is still not done after 6 years! The letter from his attorney promised to be done by August of 21 and yet there has been no raid.
 
What you advocate for is a sovereign based purely on the roll of the dice fiction of a special bloodline deigned to rule with no ability for the citizenry to change or alter the institution without the sovereign’s permission.
Nope.

On the other hand, there IS something to be said for having a politically neutral arbitrator who is trained in the law and history and who has had a deep sense of responsibility for the welfare of all of the people inculcated in them available to "vet" the actions of legislative bodies which sometimes do not have any of those three things in mind when legislating.

This is why many countries separate their "Head of State" from their "Head of Government".
Might explain Europe’s mad obsession with eugenics among the parasitical ruling classes.
Really? Most of the "Royal Marriages" that I hear about these days involve "marrying commoners".
The royal family of England is not even as apolitical as most people are told.
Oh now there you have a point. I don't know how "King Chuck#3" is going to function, but during the reign of Elizabeth II, the legislative leaders met with the monarch on a very routine (and totally "off the record" [as far as what happened at the meetings was concerned]) basis. Since, under the laws of the UK, Parliament has absolutely no ability to enact (which is different than "pass") legislation WITHOUT the concurrence of the monarch, the odds that the monarch had absolutely no impact on the legislation actually "passed" and then "enacted" upon receiving the monarch's signature are actually quite low.
 
If a president thinks it, it can't be illegal.
 
It is not the fact that something has been said numerous times. It is the fact that your side is full of intellectual cowards who refuse to address what has been said and refute it with evidence. THIS behavior of yours is evidence that you have lost the argument.
We get it pamak. Anything the left says is true. We get it. Especially if it was said 10,000 times it must certainly be true.
 
Trump's house is the parade ground of foreigners with no security clearance. The facility that was used to store Obama's records was closed to the public, including to foreigners socializing with Obama.
You know this how?
 
Why didn't they send the FBI while he was sorting things out? He is still not done after 6 years! The letter from his attorney promised to be done by August of 21 and yet there has been no raid.
Why do you support a thief?
 
Um, cause he declassified them. Did you not get the memo?
I got it, read it, responded to you showing that the memo did NOT declassify everything, and that the memo DID accept the FBI's recommendations to protect continuing classified information.
Again, you act like you did no read what I posted to you, so in contrast to what you say, you DO NOT respond to all the posts because in all your responses you pretend that you have not read what people write to you.
Why didn't they send the FBI while he was sorting things out? He is still not done after 6 years! The letter from his attorney promised to be done by August of 21 and yet there has been no raid.


You still do not understand that NA
Why didn't they send the FBI while he was sorting things out? He is still not done after 6 years! The letter from his attorney promised to be done by August of 21 and yet there has been no raid.
You still do not understand that NARA did the sorting
 
Also the canadian police allowed the slaughter of and killed natives up until very recently when the natives were able to seek justice.
And your evidence that the Canadian police allowed (which implies an advance knowledge) of First Nations people is - what?
Kinda like basing your nation on the supremacy of the white man de facto or de jure creates a hell of a lot of injustices which are not solved by monarchies eh?
No one ever said that monarchies were perfect. Then again, no one (other than Americans) ever claimed that republics (except for the American republic, of course) were perfect.
The position is unaccountable by the people. No thanks. Prince Andrew can continue to leech off the public despite being a pedophile and the queen prevented justice. Its an unacceptable layer of unaccountability. Government of, by, and for the people or nothing. Im glad you like your system but inability to hold someone accountable to the people without revolution is rather unacceptable.
And, for some reason, you believe that the "rich and powerful" in the United States of America are always "held accountable" - why?
Monarchies do not solve the problem of unaccountability nor rule by the rich when they can also influence politics the same way Jeff Bezos can.
Indeed, they don't and I never said that they did.

However, a monarchy led by someone who is a politically neutral arbitrator who is trained in the law and history and who has had a deep sense of responsibility for the welfare of all of the people inculcated in them available to "vet" the actions of legislative bodies which sometimes do not have any of those three things in mind when legislating sure goes a lot further in doing so than does a republic led by an egocentric, narcissistic, ignorant, vindictive, compassionless, self-aggrandizing, lout who acts as if they were ruling by divine right and for their own sole benefit.
 
1. If the party does in fact represent its constituents.
1a. Regimes do not represent constituents, as minorities are left out.
1b. Trump does represent Trumpers and they are happy with that.

2. Then we are not dealing with merely an individual or even individuals. We are dealing with the rise of an ideology, a perspective, a belief system. That cannot be defeated via assassination.

Thus

3. Representative parties cannot be affected negatively by assassinations.

And noting

4. Regimes are devastated by assassinations.

A win for democracy :)
All well and good - and completely non-responsive to what I posted.

Would you like to try again?
 
Well, if it goes to court, Trump is going to have to PROVE that the documents were declassified, and merely just thinking it won't be enough in a court of law.
Ummm...

I think it's the other way around. Since a President can declassify anything at any time, if this goes to court, it'll be up to the prosecution to prove that stuff has NOT been declassified.

The defense does not have to prove their innocence.
 
Ummm...

I think it's the other way around. Since a President can declassify anything at any time, if this goes to court, it'll be up to the prosecution to prove that stuff has NOT been declassified.

The defense does not have to prove their innocence.
Under the Rules of Evidence, documents prepared in the normal and everyday course of business are admissible to prove the truth of the contents of those documents.

The documents in question were prepared in the normal and everyday course of business.

Part of the contents of the documents in question is the "Security Classification Markings" clearly printed on the documents.

Those "Security Classification Markings" were affixed in the normal and everyday course of business AND are an integral part of documents that were also prepared in the normal and everyday course of business.

Upon entry of the documents in question as evidence, the "Security Classification Marking" prove (rebuttably) that the documents ARE, IN FACT, "classified" documents.

At that point, Mr. Trump has the option of introducing evidence to rebut the evidence that the documents are, in fact, "classified" documents.

If the evidence that Mr. Trump introduces is preferred to the contrary evidence, then Mr. Trump would have succeeded in establishing his "affirmative defence".

If not, he won't.

If you don't believe me, go and pay a practicing attorney in your area to explain how the rules of evidence apply to documents prepared in the normal and everyday course of business.
 
Back
Top Bottom