Trump says on Truth Social he’s been indicted in classified docs probe?

[CNCAppsJames]

Roe V Wade cough cough.     

That was DEFINITELY bad precedent. Not because I am Pro-Life, but because it should have ALWAYS been a state's rights issue, as it is now. Congress had 50+ years to Federally Mandate it. They "chose" not to, so now it's back where it belongs. In the individual states' hands.

[CNCAppsJames]

Our government is so upside down right now that I can only see it getting worse.  Hopefully the Country doesn't fall completely apart until I'm too old to care. 

It will get worse... before it gets worse. That is if World History and human nature are any indication. 

 

[Incogneeto]

Tranny's running topless on The White House Lawn.

A Supposed President that can't walk a flight of stairs nor recall his own staff.

Derelict Prosecution of a Former And Future President.

We are in the shit.

America is in a Dire Strait.

[MIL-TFP-41]

Tranny's running topless on The White House Lawn.

Pretty nice tits for a dude.

[Incogneeto]

Pretty nice tits for a dude.

You can take him on a date.

Just not The Whitehouse so I have heard.

In your Family were you always the first one opening Packages on Christmas Day??

[Incogneeto]

putting it in Perspective.

Garland was to be nominated to The Supreme Court.

he was denied to receive the nomination.

Due to The Eminent Election of Trump.

Anyone here have any doubts as to why he is trying to Prosecute Trump??

He appointed the Investigator against Trump.

Yeah.

[gcode]

Pretty nice tits for a dude.

The best that money can buy... and absolutely no class behaving like that on the White House lawn
f'ing clown 

[Jim at Gentex]

AND Judicial Watch v. National Archives IS precedent and THAT matters more than all those indictments.

Which case are you referring to?
I think Judicial Watch has filed several FOIA lawsuits against the National Archives, but I can't find the one that is pertinent to the Presidential Records Act or anything related to the Trump case.

[CNCAppsJames]

Which case are you referring to?
I think Judicial Watch has filed several FOIA lawsuits against the National Archives, but I can't find the one that is pertinent to the Presidential Records Act or anything related to the Trump case.

The Case is also known as Clinton's Sock Drawer Case which is VERY easy to find right now for obvious reasons.

 Somewhere in one of these topics I posted the words verbatim from the Appelate Court judge which pertain to Presidents and the documents they choose to retain once they leave office. 

[CNCAppsJames]

Should be interesting to watch considering how Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration was ruled.

In that case the judge (Amy Berman Jackson) stated in no uncertain terms;"... the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. "

I'm not defending anyone, just stating what has already been adjudicated and set as precedent.

[Jim at Gentex]

OK I got it now.
Thanks.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-clinton-sock-drawer-audio-tape-case-exonerates-pres-trump/

[Jim at Gentex]

It is especially sweet that the Obama appointed federal judge who made the ruling to cover Clinton's ass also set the precedent for future Presidents, including Trump.

I expect liberal heads will be asploding all over the place, but for now, Judge Jackson's ruling stands:

"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.'"

[mkd]

It is especially sweet that the Obama appointed federal judge who made the ruling to cover Clinton's ass also set the precedent for future Presidents, including Trump.

I expect liberal heads will be asploding all over the place, but for now, Judge Jackson's ruling stands:

Nice reference to what I've been trying to say to those that inexplicably condemn The GREATEST LIVING POTUS by being swayed by swampy DOJ allegations.

[Jim at Gentex]

Nice reference to what I've been trying to say to those that inexplicably condemn The GREATEST LIVING POTUS by being swayed by swampy DOJ allegations.

Oh they will still try to slam-dunk him, but precedents in law can be pesky things.

The only alternative would be for SCOTUS to overturn the lower court decision, which is a can of worms the Dems are likely not wanting to open.

But sadly, all of this political theater will continue, and in fact will be ramped up even further as Trump's poll numbers continue to climb.

[beej]

OK I got it now.
Thanks.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-clinton-sock-drawer-audio-tape-case-exonerates-pres-trump/

that ruling seems legit on the surface, but the thing that makes me think it's not is the fact that Turley and Durshowitz have not cited it, when defending Trump. Makes me think, that the Sock Drawer Case has more to it than we are being shown in pro-trump articles.