Trump's world....

[DBP66]

6 minutes ago, FreeBird said:

Bro Biden groped his daughter in shower and sent her over the cookoos nest, how can you support that man?

and where did you hear that B.S.?...from Trump?....dude...worry about REAL issues...and Trump did say he'd screw his own daughter....and his first wife said he raped her....🙄

[FreeBird]

9 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

and where did you hear that B.S.?...from Trump?....dude...worry about REAL issues...and Trump did say he'd screw his own daughter....and his first wife said he raped her....🙄

Bro Hunter Biden had an affair and was fucking his dead brothers wife while still married 

[DBP66]

6 minutes ago, FreeBird said:

Bro Hunter Biden had an affair and was fucking his dead brothers wife while still married 

and "what does that have to do with the price of eggs".....Hunter Biden is a private citizen who has no role in our gov't...it's time to move on and worry about REAL issues......like raising the taxes on corporations...and saving $ on prescription drugs...keep your eye on the ball Jr....don't fall for the silly distractions.... 😉

[I AM IRONMAN]

2 hours ago, FreeBird said:

Bro Biden groped his daughter in shower and sent her over the cookoos nest, how can you support that man?

I thought they bathed together so she can play with his wavy leg hair in the water?😉

[Troll]

1 hour ago, DBP66 said:

...and saving $ on prescription drugs...... 😉

Dude 

Don't under sell yerself....you're from NEW YORK !!!

You aren't just saving a little $ on prescriptions...

You all get FREE FRENCH FRIES with your prescribed drugs these days. 

 

 

PS: Healthy healthcare there...

 

BTW: 

[concha]

[DBP66]

[Troll]

1 hour ago, DBP66 said:

You do realize...

that's a GUARD tower,

you know...

that OVERLOOKS all them prisoners....

 

PS:  #leftcan'tmeme

 

 

 

btw: 

[DBP66]

This spineless jellyfish needs go....what a professional ass-kisser he is...another clown who sold his soul...maybe he shouldn't have interfered in the election by calling state officials in Georgia?!...a state he doesn't represent....🤡

‘No Law’ When It Comes to Trump: Lindsey Graham Predicts ‘Riots in the Streets’ If Ex-President Prosecuted

 

 

Caroline Downey

Mon, August 29, 2022 at 8:55 AM

 

 

Republican senator Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he expects civil unrest in the event former president Trump is prosecuted for mishandling the classified documents that were seized during the FBI raid of his Florida residence.

The South Carolina Republican suggested that he and many of his GOP colleagues believe that the political system has been weaponized against Trump, noting that he is often subjected to a “double standard” that his Democratic adversaries are not.

“If there’s a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information, after the Clinton debacle… there’ll be riots in the streets,” Graham said during an appearance on Fox News’ Sunday Night in America.

 

The FBI chose not to prosecute Hillary Clinton after finding that she accessed classified documents via a private server in violation of federal law. FBI director James Comey announced the decision not to prosecute months ahead of the 2016 election, saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case in such circumstances.

In making the case for Trump’s mistreatment, Graham cited Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent admission that the platform suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story after the FBI told the company to “be on high alert” for Russian “misinformation” ahead of the 2020 election.

Graham also mentioned the criminal probe into Trump’s alleged efforts to swing the results of the 2020 election in Georgia by leaning on various state officials, arguing that the decision to prosecute the former president on those grounds could also lead to unrest. Graham was subpoenaed to testify in the probe but a federal appeals court blocked the order last week, sending the case back to a lower court to determine whether Graham is exempt from answering certain questions given his role as a federal lawmaker.

“Most Republicans, including me, believes when it comes to Trump, there is no law. It’s all about getting him,” Graham said. “I’ve never been more worried about the law and politics as I am right now.”

As for the Mar-a-Lago search, a federal judge said Saturday that, partially because of the “exceptional circumstances presented,” she has “preliminary intent” to appoint a “special master” to review the records seized from the property earlier this month. Trump requested the special master in a motion for judicial oversight and additional relief last week.

The FBI took roughly 20 boxes of items, including one set of documents marked as highly confidential, as well as binders of photos, a handwritten note, the executive grant of clemency for Roger Stone, and information about French president Emmanuel Macron, according to the released search warrant.

Graham’s comments also come as the January 6 committee approaches its hard deadline of January 3, 2023 to wrap up proceedings. Partisan pressure has intensified in recent months, including from certain Republicans such as Representative Adam Kinzinger, to indict Trump over his role in the Capitol Riot.

However, it is doubtful that the panelists will be able to produce clear-cut evidence for such a criminal case that’s sufficient to pursue the unprecedented action of prosecuting a former president. Ultimately, the committee may recommend Trump’s prosecution in its final report.

[Troll]

12 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

what a professional ass-kisser he is  I am...

LOL.

Here you go...

-------------

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? 

But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added).

These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office.  Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category.

Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.

Those statutes are general in their text and application. 

But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978.  It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” 

The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

The PRA dramatically changed the rules regarding ownership and treatment of presidential documents.  Presidents from George Washington through Jimmy Carter treated their White House papers as their personal property, and neither Congress nor the courts disputed that.

In Nixon v. U.S. (1992), the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that Richard Nixon had a right to compensation for his presidential papers, which the government had retained under the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 (which applied only to him). “Custom and usage evidences the kind of mutually explicit understandings that are encompassed within the constitutional notion of ‘property’ protected by the Fifth Amendment,” the judges declared.

The PRA became effective in 1981, at the start of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.  It established a unique statutory scheme, balancing the needs of the government, former presidents and history.  The law declares presidential records to be public property and provides that “the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records.”

The PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access.

Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed.

Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

The only exceptions are for National Archives personnel working on the materials, judicial process, the incumbent president and Congress (in cases of established need) and the former president himself.  PRA section 2205(3) specifically commands that “the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative,” regardless of any of these restrictions.

Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based.

Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”

Nothing is said about the former president himself, but applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced PRA statutory scheme. 

Thus if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House, he should be in the clear, even if some of those records are classified.

In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified.

That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present—making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access.

The government obviously has an important interest in how classified materials are kept, whether or not they are presidential records.

In this case, it appears that the FBI was initially satisfied with the installation of an additional lock on the relevant Mar-a-Lago storage room.

If that was insufficient, and Mr. Trump refused to cooperate, the bureau could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a search warrant—a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access.

Surely that’s what the government would have done if any other former president were involved.

As the leftist media propaganda fake news circus about President Trump’s legally possessed documents nears Russiagate hoax proportions, this report concludes, the just published Wall Street Journal article “The Mar-a-Lago Affidavit: Is That All There Is?” today assessed: “A federal judge on Friday released a heavily redacted version of the FBI affidavit used to justify the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, and we can’t help but wonder is that it?...This is why agents descended on a former President’s residence like they would a mob boss?...The redacted 38-pages add to the evidence that the FBI search really was all about a dispute over documents”—an assessment joined by top American constitutional law expert Mike Davis, who factually stated: “The President has the absolute Constitutional authority to declassify anything he wants for any reason he wants and he doesn’t have to get permission from any bureaucrat at the National Archives to do that, so there goes the underlying potential charge for espionage that was in this warrant...The second point, the President has the sole statutory authority to make the determination whether a record is a personal record that belongs to him or a Presidential record that goes to the bureaucrats at the National Archives and almost certainly gets sent back to the President...So what is left?...They’re looking at obstruction...Well it is legally impossible for a former President to obstruct investigations into non-crimes...The Justice Department did not have the power to even look at these crimes because it doesn’t matter what the affidavit discloses in the affidavit, no matter what that shows, as a matter of law it is legally impossible for President Trump to have committed espionage or have violated some Presidential records act”—and while viewing this latest socialist Biden Regime, leftist media and FBI fake news circus swirling all around him, President Trump hilariously responded with one of his shortest statements ever (posted below), that comically said: “They missed a page!”. 

-------------

PS: Mr Conspiracy Theorist 

 

[DBP66]

1 minute ago, Troll said:

LOL.

Here you go...

-------------

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? 

But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added).

These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office.  Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category.

Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.

Those statutes are general in their text and application. 

But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978.  It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” 

The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

The PRA dramatically changed the rules regarding ownership and treatment of presidential documents.  Presidents from George Washington through Jimmy Carter treated their White House papers as their personal property, and neither Congress nor the courts disputed that.

In Nixon v. U.S. (1992), the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that Richard Nixon had a right to compensation for his presidential papers, which the government had retained under the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 (which applied only to him). “Custom and usage evidences the kind of mutually explicit understandings that are encompassed within the constitutional notion of ‘property’ protected by the Fifth Amendment,” the judges declared.

The PRA became effective in 1981, at the start of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.  It established a unique statutory scheme, balancing the needs of the government, former presidents and history.  The law declares presidential records to be public property and provides that “the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records.”

The PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access.

Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed.

Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

The only exceptions are for National Archives personnel working on the materials, judicial process, the incumbent president and Congress (in cases of established need) and the former president himself.  PRA section 2205(3) specifically commands that “the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative,” regardless of any of these restrictions.

Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based.

Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”

Nothing is said about the former president himself, but applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced PRA statutory scheme. 

Thus if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House, he should be in the clear, even if some of those records are classified.

In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified.

That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present—making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access.

The government obviously has an important interest in how classified materials are kept, whether or not they are presidential records.

In this case, it appears that the FBI was initially satisfied with the installation of an additional lock on the relevant Mar-a-Lago storage room.

If that was insufficient, and Mr. Trump refused to cooperate, the bureau could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a search warrant—a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access.

Surely that’s what the government would have done if any other former president were involved.

As the leftist media propaganda fake news circus about President Trump’s legally possessed documents nears Russiagate hoax proportions, this report concludes, the just published Wall Street Journal article “The Mar-a-Lago Affidavit: Is That All There Is?” today assessed: “A federal judge on Friday released a heavily redacted version of the FBI affidavit used to justify the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, and we can’t help but wonder is that it?...This is why agents descended on a former President’s residence like they would a mob boss?...The redacted 38-pages add to the evidence that the FBI search really was all about a dispute over documents”—an assessment joined by top American constitutional law expert Mike Davis, who factually stated: “The President has the absolute Constitutional authority to declassify anything he wants for any reason he wants and he doesn’t have to get permission from any bureaucrat at the National Archives to do that, so there goes the underlying potential charge for espionage that was in this warrant...The second point, the President has the sole statutory authority to make the determination whether a record is a personal record that belongs to him or a Presidential record that goes to the bureaucrats at the National Archives and almost certainly gets sent back to the President...So what is left?...They’re looking at obstruction...Well it is legally impossible for a former President to obstruct investigations into non-crimes...The Justice Department did not have the power to even look at these crimes because it doesn’t matter what the affidavit discloses in the affidavit, no matter what that shows, as a matter of law it is legally impossible for President Trump to have committed espionage or have violated some Presidential records act”—and while viewing this latest socialist Biden Regime, leftist media and FBI fake news circus swirling all around him, President Trump hilariously responded with one of his shortest statements ever (posted below), that comically said: “They missed a page!”. 

-------------

PS: Mr Conspiracy Theorist 

 

LOL...so the FBI is wrong and Trump is right??...LOL...you run with that one...let's see how far you get with your new conspiracy of the day....🤡

[Troll]

22 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

Republican senator Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he expects civil unrest in the event...

 

 

 

 

Oh and BTW:

As Joe Biden’s polls stagnate and the midterms approach, we are now serially treated to yet another progressive melodrama about the dangers of a supposed impending radical right-wing violent takeover.

This time the alleged threat is a Neanderthal desire for a “civil war.” 

The FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Florida home, the dubious rationale for such a historic swoop, and the popular pushback at the FBI and Department of Justice from roughly half the country have further fueled these giddy “civil war” conjectures.

Recently “presidential historian” Michael Beschloss speculated about the parameters of such an envisioned civil war.

Beschloss is an ironic source.  Just days earlier, he had tweeted references to the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who passed U.S. nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union in the 1950s, in connection with the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.

That was a lunatic insinuation that Trump might justly suffer the same lethal fate due to supposedly mishandling of “nuclear secrets.”  Unhinged former CIA Director Michael Hayden picked up on Beschloss death-penalty prompt, adding that it “sounds about right.”                                                                                                      

Hayden had gained recent notoriety for comparing Trump’s continuance of the Obama Administration’s border detention facilities to Hitler’s death camps.  And he had assured the public that Hunter Biden’s lost and incriminating laptop was likely “Russian disinformation”.

So, like the earlier “Russian collusion” hoax, and the January 6 “insurrection,” the supposed right-wing inspired civil war is the latest shrill warning from the Left about how “democracy dies in darkness” and the impending end of progressive control of Congress in a few months.

On cue, Hollywood now joins the civil war bandwagon. It has issued a few bad, grade-C movies.  They focus on deranged white “insurrectionists” who seek to take over the United States in hopes of driving out or killing off various “marginalized” peoples.

Pentagon grandees promise to learn about “white rage” in the military and to root it out.  But never do they offer any hard data to suggest white males express any greater degree of racial or ethnic chauvinism than any other demographic.

When we do hear of an insurrectionary plan—to kidnap the Michigan governor—we discover a concocted mess.  Twelve FBI informants outnumbered the supposed four “conspirators.”  And two of them were acquitted by a jury and the other two so far found not guilty due to a mistrial.

The buffoonish January 6 riot at the Capitol is often cited as proof of the insurrectionary right-wing movement.  But the one-day riotous embarrassment never turned up any armed revolutionaries or plots to overthrow the government.

What it did do was give the Left an excuse to weaponize the nation’s capital with barbed wire and thousands of federal troops, in the greatest militarization of Washington D.C. since the Civil War.

In contrast, Antifa and BLM rioters were no one-day buffoons. They systematically organized a series of destructive and deadly riots across the country for over four months in summer 2020. The lethal toll of their work was over 35 dead, $2 billion in property losses, and hundreds of police officers injured.

Such violent protestors torched the ironic St. John’s Episcopal church and attempted to fight their way into the White House grounds. Their violent agenda prompted the Secret Service to evacuate the president of the United States to a secure bunker.

The New York Times gleefully applauded the rioting near the White House grounds with the snarky headline “Trump Shrinks Back.” 

As far as secession talk, it mostly now comes from the Left, not the Right.

Indeed, a parlor game has sprung up among elites in venues such as The Nation and The New Republic imaging secession from the United States.  Blue-staters brag secession would free them from the burden of the red-state conservative population.

Over the last five years, it was the Left who talked openly of tearing apart the American system of governance—from packing the Supreme Court and junking the Electoral College to ending the ancient filibuster and nullifying immigration law.

------------

PS: you dropped yer pom poms....

 

 

 

[Troll]

2 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

.you run with that one...let's see how far I get. I'm running with my new conspiracy of the day....🤡

FIFY LOL

 

PS: all the links are in red...

BTW: Be sure and let everyone know ...you know...

just how far you get.

[DBP66]

1 minute ago, Troll said:

 

Oh and BTW:

As Joe Biden’s polls stagnate and the midterms approach, we are now serially treated to yet another progressive melodrama about the dangers of a supposed impending radical right-wing violent takeover.

This time the alleged threat is a Neanderthal desire for a “civil war.” 

The FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Florida home, the dubious rationale for such a historic swoop, and the popular pushback at the FBI and Department of Justice from roughly half the country have further fueled these giddy “civil war” conjectures.

Recently “presidential historian” Michael Beschloss speculated about the parameters of such an envisioned civil war.

Beschloss is an ironic source.  Just days earlier, he had tweeted references to the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who passed U.S. nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union in the 1950s, in connection with the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago.

That was a lunatic insinuation that Trump might justly suffer the same lethal fate due to supposedly mishandling of “nuclear secrets.”  Unhinged former CIA Director Michael Hayden picked up on Beschloss death-penalty prompt, adding that it “sounds about right.”                                                                                                      

Hayden had gained recent notoriety for comparing Trump’s continuance of the Obama Administration’s border detention facilities to Hitler’s death camps.  And he had assured the public that Hunter Biden’s lost and incriminating laptop was likely “Russian disinformation”.

So, like the earlier “Russian collusion” hoax, and the January 6 “insurrection,” the supposed right-wing inspired civil war is the latest shrill warning from the Left about how “democracy dies in darkness” and the impending end of progressive control of Congress in a few months.

On cue, Hollywood now joins the civil war bandwagon. It has issued a few bad, grade-C movies.  They focus on deranged white “insurrectionists” who seek to take over the United States in hopes of driving out or killing off various “marginalized” peoples.

Pentagon grandees promise to learn about “white rage” in the military and to root it out.  But never do they offer any hard data to suggest white males express any greater degree of racial or ethnic chauvinism than any other demographic.

When we do hear of an insurrectionary plan—to kidnap the Michigan governor—we discover a concocted mess.  Twelve FBI informants outnumbered the supposed four “conspirators.”  And two of them were acquitted by a jury and the other two so far found not guilty due to a mistrial.

The buffoonish January 6 riot at the Capitol is often cited as proof of the insurrectionary right-wing movement.  But the one-day riotous embarrassment never turned up any armed revolutionaries or plots to overthrow the government.

What it did do was give the Left an excuse to weaponize the nation’s capital with barbed wire and thousands of federal troops, in the greatest militarization of Washington D.C. since the Civil War.

In contrast, Antifa and BLM rioters were no one-day buffoons. They systematically organized a series of destructive and deadly riots across the country for over four months in summer 2020. The lethal toll of their work was over 35 dead, $2 billion in property losses, and hundreds of police officers injured.

Such violent protestors torched the ironic St. John’s Episcopal church and attempted to fight their way into the White House grounds. Their violent agenda prompted the Secret Service to evacuate the president of the United States to a secure bunker.

The New York Times gleefully applauded the rioting near the White House grounds with the snarky headline “Trump Shrinks Back.” 

As far as secession talk, it mostly now comes from the Left, not the Right.

Indeed, a parlor game has sprung up among elites in venues such as The Nation and The New Republic imaging secession from the United States.  Blue-staters brag secession would free them from the burden of the red-state conservative population.

Over the last five years, it was the Left who talked openly of tearing apart the American system of governance—from packing the Supreme Court and junking the Electoral College to ending the ancient filibuster and nullifying immigration law.

------------

PS: you dropped yer pom poms....

 

 

 

LOL..you're on a conspiracy roll today huh??..LOL...any idea why Trump lied to OUR gov't when he told them all files were returned in June and they weren't...what conspiracy theory can you pull out for that lie??....🙄

[DBP66]

Just now, Troll said:

FIFY LOL

 

PS: all the links are in red...

BTW: Be sure and let everyone know ...you know...

just how far you get.

links?...to your right-wing rabbit holes??..LOL..no thanks...🤡

[Troll]

Just now, DBP66 said:

any idea why I conspirize that Trump supposedly lied to OUR gov't when he told them all files were returned in June ...what conspiracy theory am I trying to pull, saying he lied??....🙄

 

PS: Stop being such a conspiracy nut...

[Troll]

13 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

links?...to your right-wing rabbit holes??..LOL..no thanks...🤡

You sure

that's not

Russian dis-info ?....

 

PS:What exactly is in all those Documents ???...

...any Conspiracy Nut knows that's a secret and can't say... right ? LOL

 

BTW: 

 

[DBP66]

Trump lawyer appeared to agree he should return government documents, old email shows, undermining his later defense

Tom Porter

Thu, August 25, 2022 at 7:35 AM

 

 

 

Former President Donald Trump at Trump Tower on August 10, 2022, in New York City.James Devaney/GC Images

• A new email has given extra insight into wranglings between Trump and the National Archives.

• The message from May 2021 is an urgent request for the return of government documents.

• White House counsel Pat Cipollone apparently agreed they should be returned.

A newly published email from the legal fight over secret documents that former President Donald Trump kept after leaving office appears to show that White House counsel agreed that such files should be returned.

The message, obtained first by The Washington Post and then by The New York Times, is from a lawyer, Gary Stein, working for National Archives and Records Administration.

The agency contacted Trump's lawyers about returning government documents soon after he left office in 2021, the email shows, and indicates that his top counsel had offered no objection.

Pat Cipollone, who served as White House counsel to Trump, agreed that the records should be returned to the government.

Trump has stubbornly sought to hold on the documents, despite his counsel admitting they were not his property, refusing to hand over the full records to the NARA despite repeated requests. The former president has privately described all of the records as "mine," The New York Times reported.

The message also shows the length of time — more than a year — that NARA sought to obtain the documents from Trump before officials resorted to executing the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022.

"It is also our understanding that roughly two dozen boxes of original presidential records were kept in the Residence of the White House over the course of President Trump's last year in office," Stein wrote.

He said they had not been given back, "despite a determination by Pat Cipollone in the final days of the administration that they need to be."

"We know things are very chaotic, as they always are in the course of a one-term transition," Stein wrote. "But it is absolutely necessary that we obtain and account for all presidential records."

Trump's handling of presidential records, including highly classified information, in the wake of leaving office is the subject of intense controversy.

Despite the May 2021 email and subsequent requests, Trump repeatedly resisted handing over all of the records he had taken with him. The National Archives revealed in January that those documents included top-level secrets.

The email made no specific mention of the classification level of the records it was seeking.

Trump has sought to portray the investigation as part of a political plot against him, and his allies have claimed that the government did not make sufficient attempts to resolve the matter without raiding his property.

But the letter undercuts those claims, indicating that the National Archives had sought Trump's assistance in recovering the records before he left office, and that his lawyer made no objection to them being retrieved.

[DBP66]

6 minutes ago, Troll said:

 

PS: Stop being such a conspiracy nut...

..."supposedly lied"??...LOL...no...he lied...and it's in writing....black and white....now what??....LOL...🤡

[Troll]

19 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

..."supposedly lied"??...LOL...no...he lied...and it's in writing....black and white.

(non-editorialized) LINK ?

LOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Troll]

20 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

now what??....LOL...🤡

Now tell us what is in....

...those supposedly "stolen" docs.

 

[DBP66]

1 hour ago, Troll said:

(non-editorialized) LINK ?

LOL

 

 

 

 

 

 

you don't need a link...it's been widely reported by every major news outlet...his lawyers sent a letter to the DOJ in June saying everything was returned...and it was a LIE...in black and white....get away from the conspiracy sites for a moment and get a shot a reality...it will do you some good!!

[DBP66]

1 hour ago, Troll said:

Now tell us what is in....

...those supposedly "stolen" docs.

 

sorry champ....me and the rest of the world will never know what's in the top-secret files he stole and lied about...that's why they call them top secret...see how that works?...

[Warrior]

Just checking in, I wasn't sure if I missed it. You get him yet? Got to be any day now. 

 

2015 - DP We got him now
2016 - DP We got him now
2017 - DP We got him now
2018 - DP We got him now
2019 - DP We got him now
2020 - DP We got him now
2021 - DP We got him now
2022 - DP We got him now

[DBP66]

Just now, Warrior said:

Just checking in, I wasn't sure if I missed it. You get him yet? Got to be any day now. 

 

2015 - DP We got him now
2016 - DP We got him now
2017 - DP We got him now
2018 - DP We got him now
2019 - DP We got him now
2020 - DP We got him now
2021 - DP We got him now
2022 - DP We got him now

 

I guess you'd have to ask the many attorneys he has working for him for the many legal issues he has going on at the moment...N.Y. state...Georgia...stealing top secret files.... starting a insurrection.... planning a scheme to submit fake electoral votes...but fear not!!...it's all just "fake news"!!...feel better?.....🤡