|
|
| Re: Federal indictment (1939968) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (1940199) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 09:37:13 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jun 9 23:51:16 2023. There’s a lot of misunderstanding about the presidential records act🚨 Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978. President Trump is not covered under PRA. -The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents, and subsequently NARA, must manage the records of their Administrations. The PRA was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions. Specifically, the PRA: -Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records. -Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records. -Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President. -Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records. -Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing. -Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA. -Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office. -Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. -Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489). -Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489. -Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.) -Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records. |
|
|
| (1940200) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 09:52:08 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 09:37:13 2023. Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.There you have it. |
|
|
| (1940201) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 10:27:43 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 09:52:08 2023. Then there’s Trump’s revising section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, part of which included a change to 18 U.S. Code §1924 regarding removing and retaining classified information. He pushed for this to weaponize* government against Hillary Clinton, but it might come back to bite him in the ass now.* popular word |
|
|
| (1940202) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 10 10:44:52 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 9 21:52:57 2023. He allowed people who had no security clearance to see and handle…No,he did NOT. He didn't even realize he had the papers. When they came to light, he INVITED the FBI to come to his homes and offices to make sure there wasn’t anything that got missed. Same with VP Pence. He has been exonerated. The political thing I see in this is that President Biden has not. As to TFG, apparently he’s been bandying them about his clubs, hiding them and refusing to honor the subpoenas demanding their return. |
|
|
| (1940205) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 10:51:20 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 09:10:11 2023. See, this is why people begin sentences in complaints with “[A]t all relevant times.” |
|
|
| (1940207) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 10:56:45 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 9 21:52:57 2023. Yeah, well Newsmax told you wrong on that one, chum. |
|
|
| (1940210) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 10 11:07:59 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 10:56:45 2023. Why do you asswipe liberals always inject Newsmax or fox. Are you so insecure about your maddow fantasy? |
|
|
| (1940213) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 11:12:43 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 10:56:45 2023. - Biden allowed classified documents to be conveyed to his private premises.- No one has alleged intent. - The documents didn't involve nuclear secrets or plans for defense against a foreign attack. |
|
|
| (1940214) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jun 10 11:18:43 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 09:37:13 2023. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post that. Now lets see where due process lends a hand in Trump's future. |
|
|
| (1940218) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 10 11:40:30 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 11:12:43 2023. How the fuck do you know what they contained. It's already admitted that he had no right as vice president to take the documents or have his lawyers review them. |
|
|
| (1940223) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 12:27:15 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 10 11:07:59 2023. Oh, because you always quote them |
|
|
| (1940225) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by chicagoMotorman on Sat Jun 10 12:41:57 2023, in response to Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Thu Jun 8 19:50:23 2023. 
|
|
|
| (1940226) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 12:43:14 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by chicagoMotorman on Sat Jun 10 12:41:57 2023. It’s just a shame that out country has joined the ranks of the shitholes where the political opponents are actual criminals. |
|
|
| (1940231) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 13:29:34 2023, in response to Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Thu Jun 8 19:50:23 2023. Finished reading it. This is the indictment that America needs. Not that Stormy Daniels shit. Alvin Bragg just wants to pretend to be important. |
|
|
| (1940232) | |
Re: Federal “indictment” |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 10 13:35:31 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by chicagoMotorman on Sat Jun 10 12:41:57 2023. True meme. |
|
|
| (1940235) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 13:52:18 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 13:29:34 2023. I agree that, compared to this, his machinations with corporate records are petty grifting.And even if he didn't leak any of the material himself, how can we really know for sure that no Chinese agent didn't get himself invited to Mar-a-Lago and make a little excursion to the bathroom? |
|
|
| (1940236) | |
Re: Federal “indictment” |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 13:53:14 2023, in response to Re: Federal “indictment”, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 10 13:35:31 2023. True, but simplistic. |
|
|
| (1940237) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 13:55:22 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 13:52:18 2023. That’s why these sorts of things should be strictly in forced.Those of who’ve detested Trump since he took that escalator ride have known all along that he is uniquely unsuited to the presidency of the United States, that he would bring grave dishonor to our country, and this shows that we were right all along. |
|
|
| (1940243) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 10 15:38:44 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 12:43:14 2023. Biden has not yet been charged. |
|
|
| (1940251) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jun 10 16:41:42 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 09:15:47 2023. I'm talking POTUS |
|
|
| (1940252) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jun 10 16:48:13 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 13:55:22 2023. It's lookingvlike he'll be back on Jan 20, 2025. |
|
|
| (1940254) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 16:52:43 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jun 10 16:41:42 2023. No other former POTUS has ever taken nuclear secrets or major defense secrets to his personal premises.No other former POTUS has ever taken any classified information to his personal premises deliberately. |
|
|
| (1940256) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jun 10 17:02:25 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 13:55:22 2023. "...and this shows that we were right all along."Lets see the conviction(s) first. |
|
|
| (1940261) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 17:23:30 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jun 10 17:02:25 2023. Why? You doubt the factual accuracy of the indictment? |
|
|
| (1940266) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 18:00:00 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by chicagoMotorman on Sat Jun 10 12:41:57 2023. If you know you’re gonna get arrested for crimes, run for president and then you can claim it’s political persecutionespecially if you’re a leader of a cult 🤡 |
|
|
| (1940269) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jun 10 18:18:24 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 16:52:43 2023. That the MSM reported... |
|
|
| (1940271) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 10 18:32:55 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jun 10 18:18:24 2023. Maddow has spoken |
|
|
| (1940273) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 18:59:10 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 10 17:23:30 2023. 1. He didn't do anything illegal.2. If he did something illegal, it was the same things Obama, Clinton, and Biden did. 3. If he's charged with much more serious offenses than anything those people have done, let's see him get convicted before we take it seriously. 4. If he gets convicted, of course he has the right to see through an appeal before we take it seriously. 5. If he gets pardoned by a future Republican President, that's only right because it will help the country heal. 6. If he gets re-elected President, Smith works for him and so of course he has the right to fire Smith and disband the entire investigation. |
|
|
| (1940274) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 19:00:24 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jun 10 18:18:24 2023. Fox hasn't reported anything of that sort either. Are you getting your information from Newsmax, or who else? |
|
|
| (1940275) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 19:04:48 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 11:12:43 2023. The stuff at Biden’s residence was from his Senate years. Any senator can take his paperwork home |
|
|
| (1940276) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 19:11:47 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 19:04:48 2023. Not the classified stuff.But there is no evidence of intent. And it was nothing of the serious "must not leave the special room" variety that Trump took. |
|
|
| (1940278) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 19:31:36 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 19:11:47 2023. Oh sorry I thought you were talking about the “1850 boxes“ |
|
|
| (1940280) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 10 19:55:32 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 19:00:24 2023. You really are a dog-fucking asshole |
|
|
| (1940283) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 22:11:12 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 19:00:24 2023. No, that’s the fallacy “we don’t really have all the answers” |
|
|
| (1940298) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 07:34:35 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 10 19:11:47 2023. If you actually read the indictment, you’d see that the major aspect of the crime is that he purposely had his shit moved so that his lawyer wouldn’t find it and return it to NARA. Had he just let all of the boxes be searched, we’d have never heard about it at all. |
|
|
| (1940311) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 08:37:58 2023, in response to Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Thu Jun 8 19:50:23 2023. So the Republicans are all running on the idea that if elected president their first act would be toDo they not know how pardons work, or do they know that Trump is actually guilty? If he were really innocent and this were just a witch hunt, then a Republican president could just direct the AG to stop the prosecution and more to overturn the conviction if it already happened. |
|
|
| (1940313) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 08:54:18 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 10 22:11:12 2023. What we don’t have is Trump’s side of the story, which he’s entitled to present at trial. But what sort of evidence do you think that would be? |
|
|
| (1940319) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 11 09:22:24 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 08:37:58 2023. They know Trump is guilty but can't afford to say so.James Carville said it long ago. Republican primaries have a voter quality problem. |
|
|
| (1940320) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 09:22:51 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 08:37:58 2023. Theres a precedent here. Ford pardoned Nixon before any conviction even though Nixon, based on all the witnesses and evidence would have been convicted of any charge(s) levied against him.I can see a Trump pardon if convicted and if the Republicans win in 2024. |
|
|
| (1940322) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 11 09:24:09 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 07:34:35 2023. ???My post was about Biden, not Trump. |
|
|
| (1940325) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 11 09:26:52 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 08:54:18 2023. Judge Aileen Cannon will declare all the prosecution's evidence inadmissible. Then his side of the story will be that they had no evidence. |
|
|
| (1940331) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Jun 11 09:38:19 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 09:22:51 2023. The entire GOP didn't declare Watergate a witch hunt tho. They acknowledged Nixon's wrongdoing. The Trump GOP is the opposite. |
|
|
| (1940333) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 09:40:46 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 09:22:51 2023. But that’s not my point. Acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt. They’re all saying that they believe Trump is guilty. If Trump were innocent, it would be in the president’s power to ensure that he not be railroaded.The candidates all know that Trump is guilty, but the voters they’re trying to appeal to are too stupid to know what a pardon is. |
|
|
| (1940334) | |
Re: Federal indictment |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 09:41:15 2023, in response to Re: Federal indictment, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 11 09:24:09 2023. I know. I was contrasting. |
|
|
| (1940339) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 10:09:12 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Fred G on Sun Jun 11 09:38:19 2023. "The Trump GOP is the opposite."So far. |
|
|
| (1940340) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 10:22:25 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 09:40:46 2023. Trump is innocent until proven guilty, a quote from Jack Smith himself. Thats regardless of any rush to judgment and misinformed opinions by folks that have already made up their minds. Like anyone else, he deserves his day in court. Thats still the way we do business here regardless of how the left is trying to change that, letting their personal hatred of the man make themselves sound stupid. |
|
|
| (1940341) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Jun 11 10:40:44 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 10:09:12 2023. yeah that's fair. We're at different points in the timelines. |
|
|
| (1940343) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 11 10:47:39 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 10:22:25 2023. Thats regardless of any rush to judgment and misinformed opinions by folks that have already made up their mindsAnyone who promises to pardon Trump has made up their mind that he is guilty. Because if he weren't guilty, he wouldn't need a pardon from anything. |
|
|
| (1940347) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 11:18:39 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Fred G on Sun Jun 11 10:40:44 2023. I remember all the hard line Republicans were lined up behind Nixon, saying that he's getting railroaded by the "pinko" press (the term used then by Nixon lovers) and he will get by with this. But when Rep.hard liner hawk Goldwater bailed, all of the Rep establishment followed and Nixon was on his own. At that point he had no choice to resign or get thrown out of office. Point being the same thing can happen to Trump as in with his Republican supporters. If that happens, all the MAGA voters will line up solidly behind DeSantis |
|
|
| (1940351) | |
Re: Pardon me? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 11 11:38:21 2023, in response to Re: Pardon me?, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jun 11 10:22:25 2023. You really don’t understand what that phrase means and how it’s applied. It’s what’s called a “legal fiction.” It only means that the burden of proof at trial is on the prosecution alone. It doesn’t mean that the accused is magically innocent of a crime he actually committed until the minute that the jury verdict comes down.And again, accepting a pardon, whether before or after conviction, is an admission of guilty. A person is thus “proven guilty” by accepting a pardon. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||