Trump Indicted on Documents Case!

[mobiusptc]

@Steel-W0LF

@mobiusptc

@Steel-W0LF

@mobiusptc

@Steel-W0LF

@toreyj01

@Steel-W0LF

So here’s the million dollar question:

A president could take classified documents and give them to a reporter……. After that president leaves office could that reporter be prosecuted?

The answer should obviously be “no”.

So why is a president giving himself documents being treated differently other than an election season political witch hunt?

Giving yourself something that doesn’t belong to you is called stealing.

It does belong to the president. FYI.

No it doesn’t, it belongs to the office of the presidency and the federal government… Not the man.

And as president he can give them to whomever he pleases. That’s actually also in the same links Dr posted earlier.

Only while he is holding office , and not when it comes to nuclear secrets.

Did he break into the WH and steal the documents after leaving office? That’d be new.

is he president now? does he get to keep document for life? is he allowed to keep the documents when the national archives, the current rightful owners, request them back?
they were never HIS. they were never HIS to box, to transport to multiple location post presidency. the US presidency is not his or any one persons…

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Steel-W0LF

Weird. It’s almost like you can’t read what’s written in your own links.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen,

No, I can read it - we’ve all been over this before, with Clinton.

I can also read the Supreme Court case that easentially held the Espionage Act to be unconstitutional without a showing of scienter - which is an even higher standard than “intent.”

Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941)

Which is why no civilian has ever been charged with a violation of the Espionage Act without the prosecution showing intent.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Steel-W0LF

It does belong to the president. FYI.

No, it doesn’t.

Where do you guys come up with this ■■■■■

[Steel-W0LF]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Steel-W0LF

Weird. It’s almost like you can’t read what’s written in your own links.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen,

No, I can read it - we’ve all been over this before, with Clinton.

I can also read the Supreme Court case that easentially held the Espionage Act to be unconstitutional without a showing of scienter - which is an even higher standard than “intent.”

Gorin v. United States :: 312 U.S. 19 (1941) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Which is why no civilian has ever been charged with a violation of the Espionage Act without the prosecution showing intent.

So you knew the law actually states negligence, omitted that, then claimed it didn’t.

Got it. Least we know what we’re dealing with.

[Orygun]

@mobiusptc

is he president now? does he get to keep document for life? is he allowed to keep the documents when the national archives, the current rightful owners, request them back?
they were never HIS. they were never HIS to box, to transport to multiple location post presidency. the US presidency is not his or any one persons…

And Trump made it abundantly clear that he understood that when he returned some of the documents. He knew they weren’t his to keep- otherwise he would have said…No they are mine!

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Steel-W0LF

So you knew the law actually states negligence, omitted that, then claimed it didn’t.

I was hoping that you’d fall into the obvious trap, and you did. Here’s me giving you the same lesson 5 years ago:

@TheDoctorIsIn

I have read the statute - and it does no such thing. In fact, all of the sections of the Act aside from one mention specific intent.

As for the section you’re trying to use (the one that only requires “gross negligence”) - 18 USC 793(f) - there’s a reason why no one in history has ever been convicted under it - it’s unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled in Gorin v. United States that absent scienter (bad faith, knowledge of wrongdoing, intent), the Espionage Act would be unconstitutional, and therefore any conviction under it requires such intent.

You understand you’re still wrong, right?

[mobiusptc]

@Orygun

@mobiusptc

is he president now? does he get to keep document for life? is he allowed to keep the documents when the national archives, the current rightful owners, request them back?
they were never HIS. they were never HIS to box, to transport to multiple location post presidency. the US presidency is not his or any one persons…

And Trump made it abundantly clear that he understood that when he returned some of the documents. He knew they weren’t his to keep- otherwise he would have said…No they are mine!

like the kim letters, or the hurricane poster he sharpies, or the Japanese’s whiskey. none of if was Donald Trump Jr.

[Orygun]

Haley callin’ it. Of course she has to assuage MAGA somehow so she says she’d pardon him. Mmmmmkay.

…

After calling Donald Trump “reckless,” Nikki Haley on Tuesday said she would still be “inclined” to pardon him if he is convicted of federal charges.

Haley’s remarks on the conservative Clay Travis and Buck Sexton radio show came after the former U.N. ambassador and GOP presidential candidate on Monday said the allegations against Trump, if true, show that he put “all of our military men and women in danger.”

In Tuesday’s interview, Haley maintained that Trump was “incredibly reckless with our national security,” based on the indictment — but not reckless enough to deserve to carry out a sentence.

“When you look at a pardon, the issue is less about guilt and more about what’s good for the country,” Haley said.

Haley ‘inclined in favor’ of Trump pardon

[SeaManatee]

She thinks being a possible vp pick is good for the country.

[Orygun]

Trump would never pick her at this point. I seriously doubt DeSantis would pick her- not MAGA-y enough.

[Nemesis]

I guarantee if Trump is found guilty and is ultimately pardoned, cons will change their tune and say a pardon does not mean the reciepent is guilty.

[LucyLou]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Steel-W0LF

It does belong to the president. FYI.

No, it doesn’t.

Where do you guys come up with this ■■■■■

I’ll tell you where. I just listened to AM radio cultist scream at her listeners that “HE COULD DECLASSIFY ANYTHING HE WANTED AND TAKE IT ANYWHERE HE WANTS!!”

Making them more uninformed every day.

[Orygun]

It was all political! The jury were Trump haters!

The true believers will never admit that Trump is a reckless shady crook.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@LucyLou

@Orygun

@LucyLou

“NEW: Former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the indictment of former President Trump on federal charges last week will make him unelectable in 2024 if he wins the GOP’s primary election.”

Just another one of the hater swamp creature globalist marxist terrorists out there. Trump is the only way.

Wisconsin AM radio cultists are hair on fire raging against Ryan today. They’re furious.

Country club WisGOP politicians are frantically retweeting Paul Ryan quotes desperate for Donald to not be the nominee.

I’m sitting back drinking gin and smoking cigarettes, watching the carnage. It’s beautiful.

Gin.

I knew there was something wrong with you.

[Orygun]

Now hold on a minute. Don’t mess with juniper berry juice.

[DougBH]

@LucyLou

“NEW: Former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the indictment of former President Trump on federal charges last week will make him unelectable in 2024 if he wins the GOP’s primary election.”

He was already going to be a Loser again, of course this ensures it.

What do you think the purpose of the indictment was?

[Orygun]

@DougBH

What do you think the purpose of the indictment was?

If you ask Nikki Haley it would be to prosecute someone who was “incredibly reckless with our national security.”

[Nemesis]

@DougBH

@LucyLou

“NEW: Former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the indictment of former President Trump on federal charges last week will make him unelectable in 2024 if he wins the GOP’s primary election.”

He was already going to be a Loser again, of course this ensures it.

What do you think the purpose of the indictment was?

The purpose was to prosecute an individual whose obstruction led to criminal charges.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@DougBH

What do you think the purpose of the indictment was?

Charging a criminal with his crimes, so we can have a trial.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Orygun

Now hold on a minute. Don’t mess with juniper berry juice.

Eeew.

I prefer hickory aged corn juice myself.