Trump has learned his lesson. According to people like Kash Patel and Jeff Clark, Trump is already assembling his new team that will hit the ground running when he is reelected. Four years in the Swamp have prepared him. Trump is fighting the GOPe who don't want to give up power. He is the leader of the GOP.
No, it absolutely does not. Have you even read it yet? Apparently not. Trusting what Trump tells you will often leave you completely misinformed, or worse, repeating those mistruths. The PRA only allows a President to keep "personal records," that being, things he created himself. No government documents, can remain in his possession, at all. Especially not classified ones. The unclassified ones must go in a Presidential Library process managed by the National Archives. It's really quite plain, when you read it. Trump is trusting you won't.
OMG. Of course I have read the PRA. I don't know where you get your information, but you clearly have not read or heard the Trump position on all of this. As a strong supporter, I would have expected you would knpow Trump's position better. FYI: He has pled not guilty to all the charges as have his associates who were charged.
Mike Davis, former law clerk for Justice Gorsuch, makes the case for Trump:
Presidential Records Act v. Espionage Act:
The Presidential Records Act of 1978 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201 through 2209, generally controls the handling of the President's records.
Generally, records created or received by the President or this White House staff are presidential records.
This includes classified records sent to advise the President or his White House staff.
Before the Presidential Records Act, Presidents owned their presidential records.
Congress changed the law after Nixon won a legal fight on this issue.
After the Presidential Records Act, the U.S. government owns Presidents' presidential records.
Per the 2012 Obama judge ruling in the Clinton sock-drawer case, where President Clinton stuffed 8 years of highly classified audio recordings of his presidency in his sock drawer (see picture 1 below), the President solely decides what are:
- "personal" (belong to him)
v.
- "presidential records" (belong to government).
And if the President doesn't designate them as presidential records and then takes them when he leaves office, they are deemed personal records.
(Read news story and linked opinion here:
Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute--Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.
But even if people think this 2012 Obama judge ruling protecting Clinton is incorrect or Trump (somehow) shouldn't have the benefit of this ruling (because they hate and fear Trump):
"[T]he Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative."
44 U.S.C. § 2205(3) (see picture 2 below).
Former Presidents do not have the right to have any classified record they want.
But they have the absolute statutory right to have (not own) their presidential records, classified or not.
There is no criminal component to the Presidential Records Act.
Disputes are settled with negotiations and civil lawsuits.
Not unprecedented and unlawful raid and indictments.
How can Trump violate the Espionage Act for retaining his presidential records he is allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act?
Garland must allege and prove more than mere retention, in order to charge a former president for espionage for having his presidential records he's allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act.
One way a court may attempt to harmonize the Presidential Records Act with the Espionage Act is requiring the government to allege and prove the former President intended to cause "injury to the United States or aid to a foreign nation result from the disclosures." United States v. Rosen, 520 F. Supp. 2d 786, 793 (E.D. Va. 2007).
There is zero evidence--not even an allegation--Trump intended to harm America by retaining his presidential records.
It is not a crime to be a jerk.
It is not "espionage" to fight with librarians and other bureaucrats.
We do not send former presidents, who happen to be your boss's chief political enemy, to die in prison over presidential-records disputes.
This is one key reason Garland's indictment of Trump is fatally flawed as a matter of law.
The hacks are intentionally ignoring the plain language of the Presidential Records Act.
Regardless of whether a President considers his records "personal" (which he owns; see Clinton sock drawer case) or "presidential records" (which the government owns), the President can have his presidential records.
"[T]he Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative." 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3).
That statute trumps any press release from librarians or other bureaucrats--or any tweet from the hacks.
It doesn't matter whether his presidential records are national-defense information or marked classified.
That is why Congress funds the Office of the Former President, with secure office space, staff with clearances, and Secret Services protection.
Former presidents don't get to access any classified or national-defense information they want.
But they have an absolute statutory right to access their presidential records, even if the government owns them.
The hacks pretend to believe a former President of the United States (somehow) commits "espionage"--and should die in prison--for simply retaining copies of his personal or presidential records.
And fighting with librarians and other bureaucrats over them. (Gasp, "obstruction.")
Even if they are declassified.
Even if there is zero evidence the former President used them to harm America.
This is an absurd legal argument.
Presidents and Former Presidents are treated differently than everyone else as it relates to their presidential records (regardless of ownership).
The hacks are ignoring the Presidential Records Act, which doesn't even have a criminal component.
And peddling an unconstitutional reading of the Espionage Act.
The remedy is negotiations and civil lawsuits, not raids and indictments.
But Jack Smith is used to getting reversed by the Supreme Court, with his absurd legal arguments.
Indeed, he managed the nearly impossible:
Getting a unanimous Supreme Court to reverse his (bogus) conviction of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate.
But the damage was already done. Jack Smith took out a Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Mission accomplished, Jack.
Biden and Garland have Jack Smith on his new mission in 2024: take out Trump.
The hacks, of course, have been eerily quiet about President Biden's 5 sets of stolen classified records as the vice president and even senator, unguarded for years, moved several times, accessible by a foreign national, and potentially used to secure millions in foreign bribes and corruption.
Biden and Garland sent a raid after Trump.
They secretly colluded for 2 months on Biden's stolen classified records.
When they got caught and Garland appointed a Special Counsel, the FBI found Biden's 5th set of stolen classified records. What did Biden and his attorneys misrepresent about their 4 prior searches? How did this miss this 5th set? How is this not obstruction of justice, like Garland and Smith are charging Trump?
If the hacks cared about "national security," evidence that a sitting President is compromised by espionage, foreign bribery, and other foreign corruption would be a 5-alarm fire.
But, of course, they are hacks.
They know this is all about Trump's declassified (and damning) Crossfire Hurricane records.
And deflection from evidence the FBI covered up then VP-Biden and his son Hunter taking a $10 million foreign bribe and change U.S. policy.
Why are they so scared to let the American people decide in November 2024 whether they trust Trump or Biden more with our national security?
No, I get it, completely. And, considering how you keep looping back to that complaint in every paragraph, it is clearly by far the main reason you are still supporting Trump. Probably goes for most people still supporting him. They want the government to pay for what they did to Trump. That's the summary of pretty much every thing you say.
No, you don't get it. Trump is an innocent man. I am supporting him because of his policies and record of achievement during his first four years. Trump should be in the WH today if the election wasn't stolen. And yes, there needs to be accountability for the real crimes committed by Deep State and the Dems.
And I want accountability too, but Trump has already proven he's incapable of ever delivering accountability. From his letting Hillary walk, to never firing any of his horrible hires, to having the election supposedly stolen right out from under his nose, to seeing a lot of his J6 supporters locked up without even trying to help them, he's been nothing but a punching bag for the other side. Is he really this inept, or is he fighting with one arm behind his back just to draw more sympathy?
You keep harking back to never firing "any of his horrible hires," is demonstrable lie. He fired many of them from Mattis, Tillerson, Sessions, Kelly, Shulkin (VA), Scaramucci, Price, Costa, and many more.
Trump has promised pardons for the vast majority of the J6 prisoners except for those who committed violence. Trump says he's 'financially supporting' January 6 defendants and will look 'very favorably' about full pardons if he wins the 2024 election
Facts that don't matter in the grand scheme. So what if Trump's vote totals went up 17%, when the Democrats went up a lot more. And all the "evidence' we hear of is not of actual "fraud" which has a legal definition. No, it's all statistical based, or complaints about process, that simply present a possible opportunity for fraud. But no actual fraud has been proven, to any measurable degree, just questionable processes.
Another OMG. Did you read the links I provided to you? Do you know about the pending legal cases in GA and WI? Or the detailed reports with evidence in the Gableman and Favorito reports? Let's just take GA:
Who says there was no Georgia Election fraud? Each item contains a link to substantiate the allegation:
The U.S. District Court found on Oct 11th, 2020 the Dominion Voting System that was used in the November 2020 election is unverifiable to the voter and in violation of two Georgia statues.
There are six sworn affidavits of counterfeit mail-in ballots in Fulton Co. election results scaling into the tens of thousands
State Farm Arena video shows at least four violations of Georgia election law
Approximately 43,000 DeKalb Co. drop box ballots have no chain of custody forms to authenticate them
Tru-Vote Geo tracking showed evidence of ballot harvesting teams driving repeatedly to drop boxes in Fulton and DeKalb
All 350,000+ original in-person ballot images in Fulton are missing in violation of federal, state retention law
All 393,000+ original ballot images in Cobb are missing in violation of federal, state retention law
At least 17,720 certified in person recount votes have no ballot images in Fulton
18,325 voters had vacant residential addresses according to U.S. Post Office
904 voters were registered at a P.O. Box address, which is illegal
All or large parts of 2,000,000 original ballot images from 70+ Georgia counties are missing
Failure to make mandatory check of ballot envelope signature to signature on file resulted in a 2020 absentee ballot rejection rate drop from 3.47% (in 2018) to 0.34%, which translates to the acceptance and inclusion of approximately 4,400 dubious Fulton County mail-in ballots
The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee report concluded on December 9, 2020:
“The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it should not be certified”.
I can provide similar findings for all the battleground states. There is real evidence, but the courts haver not allowed to to bed presented. Social media censored anyone who mentioned election fraud. The TV networks ignored it or called it a conspiracy.
Still stuck on Trump getting more votes than in 2020 LOL? As already explained, and anyone should understand, there was massive mail in voting. Vote totals for everyone went up, not just Trump.
Mail-in balloting is fraught with opportunities for fraud. It is why it is very limited in Europe. Many states mailed out ballots to everyone on the rolls, i.e., unsolicited. This increased election fraud. The Dems inflated the voter rolls and then submitted ballots from ghost voters. Canvassing after the 2020 election revealed many examples of fraud from voting from empty lots, PO Boxes, commercial addresses, etc. to large nujmber of votes coming from a single residence address. And the lack of proper signature verification compouinded the fraud.
Is your Trump bubble that thick? Bellwether counties is an interesting statistic, but even that wasn't unprecedented.
Provide me an example when a President won while winning just 1 out of 19 bellwether counties. I provided you the graphic that compared Obama's totals in 2008 with Biden's and Trump's 2020 results. Look at the number of counties won by Obama in 2008 to Biden's in 2020. And Biden had not coattails despite getting more than 12 millions more votes than Obama in 2008. Common sense tells you that Biden campaigning from his basement could beat Trump.
2,000 Mules appears to describe ballot harvesting, which is legal in many states.
Let's look at the battleground states:
Arizona--Arizona permits a family member, household member, or caregiver to return a voter's absentee ballot. It establishes the collection of early ballots by anyone outside those groups as a class 6 felony.
Georgia--In Georgia, a voter with a physical disability may have their absentee ballot returned by a family member (defined by the law) or a household member. Voters confined to a hospital can vote an absentee ballot immediately upon delivery by a registrar or absentee ballot clerk and return it to the official.
The law states that absentee ballot "delivery by a physically disabled elector may be made by any adult person upon satisfactory proof that such adult person is such elector's mother, father, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, spouse, son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandchild, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, or an individual residing in the household of such disabled elector. An elector who is confined to a hospital on a primary or election day to whom an absentee ballot is delivered by the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall then and there vote the ballot, seal it properly, and return it to the registrar or absentee ballot clerk."
Did you know that True to Vote discovered that one of the mules who delivered ballots ion the 2020 AZ election also was a mule in the 2021 GA runoff election?
Michigan--Michigan law permits a household member or a family member (defined by law), or an election official if those options are not available, to return a voter's absentee ballot.
WARNING--All of the following actions are violations of the Michigan election law and are illegal in this state:
(1) To vote an absent voter ballot at a meeting or gathering at which other people are voting absent voter ballots.
(2) For a person who is assisting an absent voter in marking the ballot to suggest or in any manner attempt to influence the absent voter on how he or she should vote.
(3) For a person who is present and knows that a person is voting an absent voter ballot to suggest or in any manner attempt to influence the absent voter on how he or she should vote.
(4) For a person other than those listed in these instructions to return, offer to return, agree to return, or solicit to return an absent voter ballot to the clerk.
(5) For a person other than the absent voter; a person listed in these instructions; or a person whose job it is to handle mail before, during, or after being transported by a public postal service, express mail service, parcel post service, or common carrier, but only during the normal course of his or her employment to be in possession of a voted or unvoted absent voter ballot.
PA--In Pennsylvania, a voter who qualifies for an emergency absentee ballot may authorize in writing a representative to return their ballot. If an authorized representative is not available, a deputy sheriff or constable may deliver and return the emergency ballot.
WI--Wisconsin law does not specify whether someone may return mail ballots on behalf of voters
So, ballot harvesting is expressly prohibited in these states except for WI, which is unspecified. In point of fact, most states don't permit ballot harvesting.
Just because Trump told you not to do it, doesn't mean that was smart, or that doing it was illegal. And none of that is PROOF of anything. The lack of any concrete proof is one of the main reasons I quit supporting Trump. He doesn't have any actual proof. Just a lot of interesting statistics, or legal processes he doesn't like, in the end.
You are wrong. There is concrete proof state by state of election fraud and violations of state law. I could provide chapter and verse of the evidence, but you have your mind already made up. As a former staunch Trump supporter I would expect that you would be more informed on this issue. Sadly, you are not.
Prove it. I say it's yet another Trump fairy tale you've fallen for. I gave you the video where Trump says HE called out the National Guard on J6. Show where he couldn't before. I don't think you can, based on what I've seen. No other Freeper has, when challenged, either. They all just say "well that's what I heard" or some other nonsense. Trump turned 1 million angry people loose on Washington with no security. It's a wonder it didn't turn out worse.
Trump provided the National Guard on J6 because it was requested and there was a riot going on. I provided you with the link on the three criteria that would allow him to
As currently worded, the Insurrection Act allows the president to call up the active military or federalize the National Guard under three circumstances:
At the request of a state. That's how it was most recently used, when Pete Wilson, then the governor of California, asked for federal help in 1992 to control violent protests after police officers were acquitted in the attack on Rodney King.
To enforce federal law. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan ordered the Defense Department to provide military units to help suppress violence at a federal prison in Atlanta. The disturbance was over before the troops arrived.
To protect civil rights. This provision authorizes the president to use the military to suppress "any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" if local law enforcement is unable to provide sufficient protection. It doesn't require the request — or even the permission — of the state. President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the power to send elements of the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, and to federalize the entire state National Guard to enforce court-ordered school desegregation. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson invoked the same authority to enforce other desegregation orders in Mississippi and Alabama.
Again, for emphasis, Pelosi and Bowser turned down the offer from Trump to supply National Guard troops and they also turned down Capitol Police Sund's request for the National Guard on January 3. Your obsession of blaming Trump for J6 is getting a bit tedious. You should direct your anger towards Pelosi and Bowser. They are the one's charged with the security of the Capitol. It should also be noted that the Trump had a permit to hold the rally.
Sure. It played a part, I would imagine. Wasn't it like less than 100 accounts that got banned on Twitter, and some stuff like that. Sounds pretty minor out of over 100 million votes. And media influence (your words) isn't fraudulent votes.
You seem oblivious to the findings of Matt Taibbi and others on Twitter censorship that was coordinated with the USG. We have no idea as to the impact of suppressing negative information on Biden and favorable information on Trump had on the voters. It really had nothing to do with the number of accounts banned, including eventually Trump, but rather, the impact on the voters. Certain topics were not allowed to be discussed including voter fraud and the negative impact of Covid vaccines. You don't know whatr you don't know. I doubt you took the time to read the Molly Ball article.
Obviously they were lying. But Trump's own lawyer Giuliani misplayed the rollout of Hunter's laptop, which he had possession of, first. I know because I watched him release one little out of context e-mai a day, for about a month. I got no traction, without releasing it all, Wikileaks style. It was easy to ignore, and discredit.
Not only were they lying, but it was orchestrated and facilitated by the Biden campaign and current employees of the CIA and other intel agencies. To dismiss it as just "lying" misses the the more important implications of politicization and weaponizing of the government to influence the outcome of an election.
The FBI had the laptop since Nov/Dec of 2019. Trump was never informed of its existence. He was impeached the first time over Ukraine on Dec 18, 2019, without due process I might add. The Senate trial began on February 9, 2020. The Hunter laptop could have obviated the need for the trial or at least provided exculpatory information for Trump.
Go look at my posting history if you doubt it. I know all these facts because I was continually let down trying to support this guy. One of the big turning points that started opening my eyes was the $250M he took under the guise of fighting the election theft, to then go and use that money for other purposes. I was right here on this site defending him, when all that money was collected in December of 2020, from those who were saying Trump was just going to take the money and run. When I found out that's exactly what he did, I felt betrayed. As should everyone. I've seen nothing since 2020 to make me believe Trump is any more trustworthy now.
So you got off the Trump train in 2020 or shortly thereafter. Not just months ago as previously stated. So what exactly did Trump do with the money? You must have known something was up since you already had discounted election theft. Methinks you doth protest too much.
So who is your guy now for 2024?