You can't support your claim?
Of course not - with you moron Nazis it's "Fascism good, Trump BAAHHHD"
McCarthy is trying to support the Reich attack on democracy. But his argument is specious. There in nothing in the LAW which differentiates between one set of records and another. Your NR link is behind a paywall - so worthless. Still the gist of the claim that the Commander in Chief is not in charge of certain documents because the Reich wants to get Donald Trump is an absurdity.
The media plays to uninformed, as long as a real court is used - that is outside of New York or California - actual law will be invoked - meaning the Xi's Biden Regime will lose - since this is a political rather than criminal case.
But as stated earlier - the intent of this is not to win - it is simply meant to corrupt the 2024 election. Merrick Himmler and his little dog Jack Smith know that the indictment is a complete fraud, but the goal is to tamper with the election.
Specifically defeating your assertion is not difficult,
{
A lot of my friends have spoken insightfully about the scope of the Presidential Records Act. I’d direct you to Mike Davis’s (@mrddmia
) commentary on the subject, and also Michael Bekesha of @JudicialWatch
’s piece yesterday in the @WSJ
about the Clinton Sock Drawer Case.Basically, their argument distills down to the idea that the President’s authority to retain Personal Records, as well as his rights to access his Presidential Records, make it impossible to prosecute him under the Espionage Act section at issue here, § 793(e), because the government cannot prove “unauthorized possession,” as required under the statute. I want to make a different point relating to the intent elements in § 793(e) of the Espionage Act, the statute Trump is being charged under. Section 793(e) requires the government to prove that the Defendant KNEW he had National Defense Information (NDI) in his possession, and also that the Defendant KNEW that there was a government official entitled to receive the Information, and also that the Defendant then WILLFULLY failed to deliver it to that official.This is a very high set of mens rea bars to jump, in any circumstance. Proving a Defendant’s intent and knowledge can often be tough. But it’s even tougher here. The Presidential Records Act sets up a system where the president designates all records that he creates either as Presidential or Personal Records. 44 U.S.C. § 2203(b). A former president is supposed to turn over his Presidential Records to NARA, and he has the right to keep his Personal Records. Based on the documents I’ve read and his actions that I’ve read about, I believe that Trump viewed his “boxes” as his Personal Records under the PRA. There are statements he made, quoted in the Indictment, that support that view. If Trump considered the contents of these boxes to be of purely personal interest, hence his designation of them as Personal Records, did he knowingly retain NDI? }
https://twitter.com/willscharf/status/1669333165930868736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1669333165930868736%7Ctwgr%5E9ea720db6e9dbb2113eef5b2b78d94e434519667%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj%2F2023%2F06%2F15%2Fattorney-thread-case-against-trump-point-by-point-n2384535
Twitter rarely works on this site, but the link is above even if it doesn't show.
