Jack Smith and the Presidential Records Act
Link to Quote: The Brief: It Was Okay for Bill Clinton to Keep Presidential Records, But Not Trump? | Gregg Jarrett (thegreggjarrett.com)
I think it is time we took a good look at the Biden DOJ and the law.
Let us start with the Presidential Records Act:
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.
- 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.
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 | National Archives
There is one thing to note about the Act: It has no criminal penalty, thus if a rogue DOJ was looking to criminally prosecute a former President it wouldn't be used. What might be used is the Act that has never been used against a former President: The Espionage Act of 1917. If one really has hutzpah as Jack Smith has, that would be the way to go.
Jack Smith is known for twisting the law. He prosecuted the Bob McDonnell case. You don't recall?
That was the case that was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court because Jack Smith took a bribery statue and tried to expand it beyond reason. Bob McDonnell's career and life was ruined. Then there was the case of John Edwards in which the jury found insufficient evidence. Now Smith is trying to use The Espionage Act in a case of documents not being returned. Normally when someone refuses to turn over documents they are held in civil contempt. Here we have criminal charges under of all things, the Espionage Act of 1917.
Will the nation buy it?
Tags
Who is online
511 visitors
In 2012 a Judge appointed by Barack Obama ruled in favor of former president Bill Clinton in his infamous document case:
The 2012 case arose when the organization Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit seeking Clinton’s documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Litigation ensued to pressure the National Archives into retrieving the materials. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that control over presidential records rests squarely in the hands of a former president:
“The National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as ‘presidential records.’ It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.”
The Brief: It Was Okay for Bill Clinton to Keep Presidential Records, But Not Trump? | Gregg Jarrett (thegreggjarrett.com)
That will be the problem for Biden's DOJ. They are bold. They don't care how it looks.
www.politifact.com /article/2023/jun/12/why-the-bill-clinton-sock-drawer-case-is-not-compa/
PolitiFact - Yes, Bill Clinton kept tapes in his sock drawer. Here's why Trump's case is different.
By Amy Sherman June 12, 2023 6-8 minutes
As former President Donald Trump defended himself against federal charges involving classified documents, he described what sounded like a case of political hypocrisy.
President Bill Clinton kept audiotapes in a sock drawer and a court said it was OK, Trump said a day after being indicted on federal charges that he mishandled classified documents.
"They also don't mention the defining lawsuit brought against Bill Clinton," he told a Columbus, Georgia, crowd June 10, "and it was lost by the government — the famous socks case that says he can keep his documents. They don't mention that. These are minor details. And that’s the ruling law."
Trump has commented about the so-called Clinton socks case for months , recently writing on his social media platform, Truth Social , "Under the Presidential Records Act, I’m allowed to do all this. Under the Clinton socks case, the decision is clear."
Trump’s description distorts the facts. The case was not "lost by the government" — the government didn’t file the case — it was filed by a private group, Judicial Watch.
But Trump is making a faulty comparison. The judicial ruling in the Clinton socks case does not give Trump permission to keep hundreds of classified documents after his presidency ended at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Trump was indicted on 37 counts June 9, including the "willful retention of national defense information" relating to his unauthorized possession and storage of federal documents, including classified documents.
Judge ruled against group seeking access to audiotapes of Clinton
When Clinton was president, he was interviewed dozens of times by historian Taylor Branch to create an oral history of his presidency from 1993 to 2001.
CBS, GQ and USA Today wrote that Clinton kept the audiotapes in his sock drawer. In 2009, Branch published a book titled, "The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President."
Judicial Watch, a conservative group, sued the National Archives and Records Administration in 2010, asking the court to declare the audiotapes presidential records under the Presidential Records Act. The group wanted the court to order the National Archives to assume custody of the tapes and deposit them in the Clinton Presidential Library. Clinton left office in January 2001.
The National Archives had told Judicial Watch that the materials were personal records that did not fall within the Presidential Records Act’s purview.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, dismissed the case in 2012. Jackson said the law distinguished the tapes as "personal records," distinct from "official" records. She wrote that the National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as presidential records and lacked authority to seize control of them.
The Presidential Records Act requires that all "official" documents be returned to the National Archives upon a president’s departure. Former President Jimmy Carter signed the act in 1978, building upon legislation by Congress to stop former President Richard Nixon from destroying tapes linked to the Watergate scandal.
But Jackson wrote that the act described "personal records" as including documentary materials, diaries or journals that don’t relate to carrying out official duties.
The act requires that materials produced or received by the president "to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately." Jackson wrote that the act "assigns the Archivist no role with respect to personal records once the Presidency concludes."
The Presidential Records Act "does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President," Jackson wrote.
Trump and his allies point to the judge’s ruling
Bradley Moss, a Washington-based lawyer who works on national security cases, said Trump’s allies have misconstrued the Clinton socks case.
The socks ruling addressed whether a private party — Judicial Watch — could get a court to order the archivist to determine whether Clinton had improperly designated the audiotapes recorded during his presidency as personal.
"The court concluded that the Presidential Records Act did not give the judiciary that authority to require that of the Archivist," Moss said in an email to PolitiFact. "This alternate dimension Mr. Trump thinks exists because of the case in which he can do whatever he wants with records from his presidency insulated from other statutory provisions like the Espionage Act is the stuff of lunacy."
Trump was indicted under a provision of the Espionage Act that prohibits unauthorized possession of information related to national defense that could be used to injure the U.S.
Jason R. Baron, former litigation director at the National Archives and Records Administration, also told PolitiFact that the Clinton recordings fit the definition of a "personal record."
"In contrast, the boxes of records taken to Mar-a-Lago appear to overwhelmingly contain records pertaining to the official business of the White House, and therefore should have been transferred immediately into the legal custody of NARA as presidential records," Baron said.
Baron said, "No prior case has held that a president has absolute discretion to designate official government records — classified or unclassified — as his own personal records."
Jackson’s ruling cited a prior appeals court opinion that said, "We did not hold (in a prior case) that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise virtually complete control over it notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of ‘presidential records.’"
Baron said, "it would contravene the very reason Congress created the Presidential Records Act were a court to allow a president to designate official records as his own personal records to do with what he pleases."
There is no requirement that a subsequent federal district court judge must follow Jackson’s socks ruling. District court opinions are not binding on other district courts.
Excuses, excuses, and more fucking excuses.
Why not compare apples to apples. Hillary kept classified documents on an unsecured personal server. She had her people remove classified codes to transmit them across that unsecured server. She then destroyed classified documents and other government records by using bleach bit on the server; and smashing cell phones and blackberries with a hammer. Obstruction and destruction of government property- yet no charges were filed because Comey decided to play AG/DA.
Hillary did far worse than Trump; but only Trump faces charges.
[deleted]
Because they're NOT Apples, they're some of our most guarded secrets that Trump REFUSED to return. No rogue DOJ, just a mental midget potus
Let's not forget that Biden falls into the same bucket as Hillary. At the times that they removed and held their classified documents, neither of them were POTUS; therefore, neither had the constitutional right/authority to declassify and/or keep those documents..
Oh please! There is absolutely no comparison between Hillary, Biden and the former 'president' whatsover.
Why so angry?
i've read that a Senator does not have the same restrictions as a POTUS. Main difference being INTENT !
Didn't you hear the latest - the former 'president' also had nuclear secret documents that are more top secret it seems than all the other documents that were found scattered about Mar-a-Lardo.
LMFAO!!!!! Not even close!
Because those afflicted with 'the syndrome' know that their souls are stuck in their arses.
I'm so glad we finally agree on something! Neither Hillary (as SoS) nor Biden (as VP or before that as US senator) were legally allowed to remove classified documents from the White House and store them at their private offices or homes. Trump, as POTUS, did have legal authority.
Correct, none should have had unauthorized possession of classified information.
Now, do you recognize the critical difference between wrongly possessing classified information and the counts brought against Trump?
Stop it. Do not twist my words. I said that Trump, as POTUS, had legal authority to remove classified documents, but Hillary and Biden - who both illegally removed classified documents - didn't have the same authority.
Full stop.
Look at all the emotion and false accusations of twisting words.
Do you disagree that none should have had unauthorized possession of classified information?
No? Then calm down and answer my question:
Do you recognize the critical difference between wrongly possessing classified information and the counts brought against Trump?
Since you responded so aggressively, I will now challenge this part of your post.
Of course he had the authority to possess the documents while he was still PotUS. But Trump had NO legal authority to remove or possess classified documents once he had left office. He violated the PRA by doing so.
Do you disagree?
Worse, Trump violated US Code Title 18 if the allegations hold true that he willfully and knowingly refused to cooperate with authorities, sought to hide classified documents, lied to authorities, discussed classified information with unauthorized individuals, etc.
Do you disagree?
Politifact? You mean the site that distorts facts ???
Come on, Vic. Everyone knows that Politifact has only a "moderate" liberal bias and a "high rating" for factual, credible reporting!
/sarc
They are rated High for factual reporting. What do you and Vic dispute ?
It's great when a left-wing fact-check site deems a left-wing source "credible"!
There is only one rating above it's factuality, and that is Very High, and what, 3 or 4 below high ...? Though that does not explain the point that you are contesting.
He's deflecting from the truth.
Truths is neither left or right. It is simply truth. Besides, if the orange peel that is so admired by some is so wrongly treated he can testify under oath and present his evidence just like anyone else. Why is it that he will never do that?
The way i understood it, the Espionage Act trumps the Presidential Records act. Trump could NOT magically declassify these extremely sensitive and serious documents irregardless, as just possessing them while no longer potus is illegal
Since when? Three weeks ago?
“Trump could NOT magically declassify these extremely sensitive and serious documents irregardless, as just possessing them while no longer potus is illegal”
The bottom line…regardless of what some feel relevant in an attempt to equate prior acts by political adversaries to this particular instance.
And as a P.S. ~ really good to see you back.
What about Judge Jackson's ruling?
by about 6 decades, and there is not a reason to declassify documents you should have Never Taken to begin with. Trump, as usual, his own worse enemy. All he had to do was return the damn things.
Who was the president prosecuted under the Act 6 decades ago?
George Jefferson !
i didn't state any potus was prosecuted, i stated the Espionage Act was established 6 decades before the Prez.Record Act. How do you declassify something you should have never STOLEN in the first place ? Then when given multiple opportunities, you hide the documents as well as leaving them up on a stage, in a bathroom, and a closet. You share them with others not certified to view them. You , through your own lied to lawyers, attempt to say you have no more documents while coordinating their movements with your soda pop boy, who is gonna fall hard on that sordid Trump sword. These are some of our most secret secrets, that could diminish our countries defensive abilities, and make our enemies aware of our OWN Vulnerabilities. The DOJ cannot, in any sort of good faith, just look the other way. They have an obligation for National Security reasons, to reassert authority over what was ALWAYS theirs, NEVER TRUMPS' !
The Espionage act (or, more accurately, the relevant sections of U.S. Code Title 18) and the PRA are addressing different matters.
The PRA states that all non-personal records of a PotUS immediately fall under the stewardship of NARA when that PotUS leaves office.
U.S. Code Title 18 deals with improperly possessing (and disseminating) classified information. In particular, Title 18 deals with willful knowledge and ill-intent.
Further, the PRA has no criminal element. U.S. Code Title 18 does.
And the nuclear secrets documents which were even more hush hush and would have had to been declassified by the DOJ and the DOE, AND THEY WEREN'T!
As I said in the article, and that is why the Espionage Act is being used.
US Code 18 is being used because that is where the crimes Trump is accused of committing are defined.
If someone is indicted for a crime, the indictment will, of course, cite the law that was ostensibly violated. There is nothing unusual or sinister about that.
It's a matter of convenience.
Jack Smith's face reminds me of the stereotypical Russian hit man...............always pissed off. LOL
I think they use that picture in a pathetic attempt to make him look intimidating. It looks like he's constipated.
people that don't give a shit, are meant to be intimidating.
Yeah, not working. Laughing to hard at him.
Wasn't their cat named Socks? I had no clue what the former 'president' was talking about but then neither does he, ever.
Yesterday Bill Barr, Trumps Attorney General, appearing on Face The Nation, said that Trumps attempted use of the Presidential Records Act to defend himself is "ridiculous".
It would be ridiculous and I doubt that his lawyers will use it.
Of course the premise of the article was that Merrick Garland has brought distrust and shame to the DOJ.
The people see if for what it is.
We shall see how it plays out.
What people ?
You know, the people neither you or Joe Biden cares about. The AMERICAN people!
“The AMERICAN people!”
The forty percent or so of gop sycophants that still…unimaginably…support this embarrassment do not, will not, and will never represent the America they so desperately ignore in their propagandizing polemics.
The people who work and try to raise a family.
Comon, you remember them..
“The people who work and try to raise a family.”
Well, that includes me.
Apparently for some, however, raising their children to have empathy, compassion, and an appreciation for the advantages they have by simply being born here has been politicized to foster exclusion, discrimination, and isolation in a stubborn unwillingness to face the reality of today’s ever changing world.
TRUTH!
No more ridiculous than the alleged germaphobe ex-president grapping a p**** without surgical gloves.
Trump is NOT being charged with breaking the PRA. Try again.
That is the point!
You still don't get it?
The point is to deflect from the real crimes Trump is being accused of? The MAGA faithful may cling to bullshit like this, but the results don't hinge on what they think no matter how many OP-EDs they write.
They'll soon be coming out with the coloring book edition.
and still not see what is there for all to see, in BLACK N WHITE
yes that will be for liberals.
Some people have a preconceived notion of right (far right) and wrong (everything else) and do the most creative mental gymnastics to fit reality into that box. They get very cranky when it doesn't work, but it's never their fault, so they are always the victim.
What is obvious is that you refuse to acknowledge that Trump (if the facts of the indictment are true) criminally violated US Code Section 18.
Why do you still defend Trump?
What is obvious is that you and others prefer not to discus the premis of the article.
Why do you still ignore the politization of the DOJ & the FBI?
Simple. You don't criticize what you support.
I have never ignored the infusion of politics into the workings of government ... I have stated it in this forum plenty of times. In fact, I just made a comment to that effect yesterday: " No surprise that the DoJ factors politics into its decisions. That should never happen, but politics is a great inhibitor to doing what is right. "
You need to stop inventing your own ' facts ' in lieu of an argument.
Now, since you deflected:
What is obvious is that you refuse to acknowledge that Trump (if the facts of the indictment are true) criminally violated US Code Section 18.
Why do you still defend Trump?
Another case of inventing 'facts' in lieu of an argument.
Your premise of the PRA DOES NOT APPLY to the discussion of the criminal lawsuit against Trump. No amount of tortured logic on your part will make it so. Once Trump lied about having documents and worked to conceal where they were he committed obstruction. Once Trump had shown documents to others not cleared to see them he ran afoul of the espionage act. Once Trump talked about knowing they were classified he admitted intent.
In short, a criminal indictment will cite the laws that were alleged to be violated.
Do you think that the counts in Trump's indictment are not substantiated by facts?
In other words, was it wrong for Trump to refuse to return, lie, obstruct, etc. regarding classified documents that he was told to return?
I don't think a bank robber would get off if their defense strategy was they were only withdrawing their own money.
"Will the nation buy it?"
If you want your boy DeSantis to win, I suggest you start praying they do.
Correct, the PRA has no criminal penalty.
What is also true is that the indictment does not cite the PRA for any of its counts.
So WTF is this article about?
What kills me is that you have seen and responded to a comment of mine with this content (TiG {external} @ 8 ) so clearly you have been informed yet you pen this article nonetheless:
Thanks as always TIG for always carrying out your due diligence and informing us all with the pertinent truths and facts of the matter/article at hand.
I believe this will be the determining factor of this case.
No, it will not be. Trump merely having unauthorized possession of classified documents is not criminal. It violates the PRA and is wrong (and Trump is obligated to return the documents), but it is not criminal.
What is criminal is the willful, knowing refusal to return the documents, obstruct the return of the documents, lie to authorities about the location and existence of documents, reveal information about the documents to unauthorized individuals, etc.
If Trump had cooperated with NARA and returned ALL documents for which he had unauthorized possession, he would have had no document issues.
see:
It is so simple if Trump had returned the documents there would be no indictment and his life would have gone on but he chose not to return the docs and tried to hide them even from his own attorney.
There is no excuse that he can use, his choice to keep the docs, and this is what he is getting so he should STFU.
Those defending him should actually read the indictment and grasp the fact that it is not the PRA that he was indicted on.
So many do not take the (relatively little) time to get the facts behind a matter. And when dealing with a matter of this historical and present significance, one would think investing 15 minutes of time to get informed would be a no-brainer. Especially for those who wish to opine / debate the matter.
The article I linked lays it all out. Very few Trump supporters took advantage of the fact that the data was presented and summarized for them.
Also, this (drawn from the indictment ) gets to the heart of the problem for Trump — knowing and willful violation of the law:
What if it was legal for him to be in possession of the documents?
No it was not legal since that alone violates the PRA. But it was not criminal to merely possess the documents.
The indictment deals with criminal acts. The case will be decided regarding criminal acts.
Show me where that has been determined by a court.
Do you actually think that the determination of what is legal or illegal is determined by a court? Courts determine guilt or non-guilt. Legality is codified in law. If a law is challenged , the legality of the law is adjudicated by a federal court or the SCOTUS.
The PRA is NOT under challenge.
The PRA states:
I addressed your challenge, but it looks to me that you are simply arguing for the sake of argument. Just tossing shit out to see if anything sticks.
This started with your belief @6.2 that in the Trump documents case merely having unauthorized possession of documents would be the determining factor.
That is clearly wrong since the indictment deals with criminal charges and it is not criminal to merely have unauthorized possession of these documents.
How do you know what his defense is going to be?
You presume the defense will focus on the unauthorized possession per @6.2 and I am telling you that they will NOT because Trump is NOT being charged with mere unauthorized possession.
See? The PRA is NOT a factor (and is not even mentioned in the indictment).
You are just playing games. Read the indictment and gain some understanding of what is going on.
Yes, otherwise he will more than likely be convicted. You keep saying the PRA is not a factor, however if he possessed the documents legally (via the PRA) I feel his chances of beating the charges are very good.
Goosie you clearly have not done any research in this area and you apparently do not understand (or have not read) what I have presented to you.
The PRA does not give Trump the ability to legally possess the documents after he left office. IT STATES THE EXACT OPPOSITE!
Get informed (and that goes for Just Jim too).
Does a President have the authority to declassify documents while in office?
Yes.
I cannot wait to see where you are going with this.
Could a declassified document be claimed as a personal record?
No. There might be an exception, but in general personal records are things like notes to children about personal matters, etc. Anything that was classified will undoubtedly remain as government business (official records) when declassified.
What point are you trying to make?
Okay, I am going to presume that you really have no point and that you were tossing out shit to see if anything stuck.
Well you made no point.
The Presidential Records Act is law. Violating the PRA is illegal. But the PRA does not define a crime. Thus those who violated the PRA (including recently Trump, Biden, and Pence) are not subject to criminal charges but they absolutely broke the law and clearly did wrong.
Now, what is the proper course of action? Immediately, all documents that are legally under the stewardship of NARA per the PRA should be returned to NARA. That would pretty much end that. Both Biden and Pence immediately returned their documents and cooperated fully with the authorities. They even both preemptively looked for other violations of the PRA.
Trump, in contrast, tried to keep the documents. He knew they were classified yet willfully sought to prevent NARA from getting all of them back. He did not cooperate, but rather obstructed, lied, hid documents, and even disclosed contents (in abstract) to unauthorized individuals. This is why Trump was indicted. Biden and Pence fully cooperated while Trump did the exact opposite.
Trump's actions violated US Code Section 18. US Code Section 18 is law which, if broken, yields criminal charges. Trump brought this all on himself.
Now, in short, the documents indictment, if applied to Biden or Pence, would fail since they did not take the actions charged by the counts. Trump did.
If the President has the ability to declassify, if a declassified document can be considered a personal document (if its not personal, what is it), then the PRA would apply and the Espionage Act wouldn't. It would become a matter of did he follow the correct procedure for declassifying documents.
The PotUS would have to declassify while in office. If done there would be an official record.
A declassified document remains public property and per the PRA is to be held by NARA when the PotUS leaves office.
Trump was indicted for refusing to cooperate in the return of classified documents, lying to authorities, trying to hide classified documents from authorities, and disclosing abstract contents to unauthorized individuals.
You have it all wrong. Wishful thinking is no substitute for actual facts of reality.
Please don't tell me about facts and reality when it comes to Washington DC, Hunter Biden failed to file on Millions of dollars in income and gets a slap on the wrist, when anyone else would be in jail. As soon as you can explain that I will agree to your facts and reality.
You clearly are dead wrong in your understanding of the PRA, Title 18 of US Code (where espionage act is codified), the process of declassifying documents, and the distinction between public documents and private documents.
Dishonestly deflecting to Hunter Biden now after illustrating your utter lack of understanding is pathetic.
Read the PRA, read the indictment, read the cited sections of Title 18. Get informed before attempting to engage in debate.
Gawd, It is hard to believe that a man who will not release his academic records from Wharton Business School continues to dominate every faction of US news. What the hell is it about this guy? And Melania, she still there and sticking to the fold?
The sheer effrontery. A President has never hidden his academic records before. If one had tried, we know progressives would object regardless of party, because its the principle that matters to them.
Good one
Wasn't that the plan all along?
Please let me know when Obama releases all of his academic records, OK?
Former and current First Ladies need to release their records, too? Imagine that!
Relax, bbl. I'm just joshing you with a little levity!
What ever it is, it has garnered the COMPLETE attention of the left to the point they cannot function without bringing him up every chance they get.
He is the leading candidate for the GOP nomination and is the only PotUS who has been federally indicted.
Trump is in the news. Do the fucking math.
It also captures roughly 35% of the Republican electorate, and his continued based on babble and BS campaign and raking in monies from the sheep creates an audience that includes many Republicans that are not Trumpers, Independents and all stripes, not an unusual circumstance.
It's difficult to see why Trump wouldn't be part of the daily news, media sites, talk on the street and NT.
When you are getting an advanced clown show free, why not take in the show?
Not exactly. Trump, personally and through his actions have forced under penalty of law that a 10 year old or a 70 year old carry a child to term regardless of circumstance. He did this and he did this on purpose.
I wish someone would ask him this----"You conducted yourself throughout your life as a man that couldn't keep it in his pants and used every opportunity to 'make some girl'. Why, once you had the power would you make it so men like you couldn't take care of 'an unplanned situation'? Or were you assured that men like you that had the means could take care of these things regardless of what the laws stated?
Random, unrelated comments like this pop up all the time from those on the left. Why those on the left so worried about his sex life?
There are only 2 times he even remotely influenced my vote. I guess I'm in the 65%. But it doesn't explain the infatuation the left has with this man. Do you all fear him that much that you would support such hypocrisy?
What hypocrisy are you talking about, I explained exactly why he is daily news, and in addition to that he is running for President of the US, again which makes him news.
Why in the world would I fear him, is that some kind of talking point for you? I think he would be a terrible president and would not vote for him, but fear, naw that's a projection/invention/ on your part.
Do you not pay attention to what others are talking about? Or are you so set in getting you narrative out there that conversations completely miss you?
You don't see there is a double standard when it comes to Trump? He's indicted for having classified materials. Yet several others have been investigated and let off for the exact same thing. The left screams that evidence is required to prove a crime, yet these very same loudmouths stand behind the investigations into Trump with zero evidence. Hunter Biden gets a plea deal for tax issues while others are in federal prisons. THAT is the hypocrisy I'm referring to. And everybody on the left is silent about it. And no, criticizing the methods of the left and the Democrats is NOT support for Trump. One thing you all need to get into your heads is that most do not want Trump to run again. It's support for how the system is supposed to work.
Trump left office 2 years ago. Yet you ALL blather on and on about him at every chance you get. The article could be about the spitting distance of camels and here comes some leftist bobble head trying to interject him in.
Yes, I do and what does that have to do with anything? The outline of what I posted is exactly why he is daily news whether you want to admit it or not.
BS perhaps you do a bit better if you read my comments. The comparison between the two is BS and I posted exactly what he took a plea on. Here it is again.
cnn
cbsnews
I didn't say it was, in fact, I gave the breakdown of MAGA Trumps and other groups. The thing that you have to get into your head is that Trump is a presidential candidate and for that reason alone he is news on a daily or hourly basis. It is as simple as that.
Since you capitalized the ALL I'll assume you include me in that comment. In my case it isn't true at all I skip many of the articles on him and when I do get involved I use facts, and yes, I do make fun of him since he brings it on himself and not the guesswork you use.
Again he is news because he is running for President of the US. What do you not understand about that?
Obviously you don't or you would know what it has to do with things.
Wrong. He was indicted for refusing to return classified materials, lying about the existence of classified materials, hiding classified materials from authorities, and disclosing the existence and contents (in abstract) of classified materials to unauthorized individuals.
If Trump had cooperated in the return of those materials (as did Biden and Pence), he would not be dealing with this indictment.
You can find 'hypocrisy' anywhere if you invent your own 'facts'.
Yet again, you have created your own alternate reality that most everyone knows is wrong.
That is my complete quote and it's self-explanatory.
Maybe he can get a plea deal for knowingly possessing a firearm?
Or maybe no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case?
Are you still refusing to understand Trump's indictment? After having the actual words in front of you, having it summarized and explained to you, having your misconceptions corrected ... are you still trying to claim this indictment is about merely possessing classified documents?
What drives you (and Just Jim) to defend (albeit feebly) Trump no matter what?
It's a two way street TiG. You admit to the two tiered justice system and I'll talk about Trump.
I never said it wasn't. It explains that you aren't paying attention.
WTF? First of all, I have stated that our justice system is clearly impure in that it is influenced by politics and power (wealth). Nothing for me to 'admit'. (Stop inventing 'facts'.) What just amazes me is that you cannot see how this system has favored Trump. Look at all the shit he pulled and the entirely disproportionate response.
In the documents case, as the immediate example, do you not see how NARA bent over backwards to accommodate Trump for about 1½ years? Do you think you would have been treated with such deference?
In the Big Lie situation, justice focused on the 'little people' first and have yet to charge Trump with anything. If they do, I predict it will be a fraction of what he actually did wrong.
Have you any knowledge of Trump's history of legal cases and his use of deep pockets to prevail?
Yet you are here trying (again feebly) to defend Trump claiming that he is a victim (rather than beneficiary) of an impure justice system.
If Trump had simply cooperated and returned the classified documents, the documents case would have never appeared.
Or most likely willful ignorance on your part.
anybody else that has done what trump has done, is already sitting in jail...
You made him so.
“You made him so.”
Funny that, ignoring the oft told and obnoxious, to the point of being noxious…that he is a self made [man].
His ‘trump’ card? This and only this:
“Martyrdom covers a multitude of sins.” ~ Mark Twain
That is the best you can offer?
Trump’s problems are of his own making. Your comments imply that you cannot see this blatantly obvious fact.
Not random. Not unrelated. If something is inaccurate please point it out.