The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis. BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tranquillus in Exile said:
The Presidential Records Act (1978) requires that all Presidential records should automatically transfer into the legal custody of the National Archives and Records Administration as soon as the President leaves office.

Trump not only failed to do that, he tried to prevent it by concealing his possession of some Presidential records. In those circumstances, after repeated attempts to obtain all the records by agreement had failed, a search warrant was justified.
Click to expand...

Which should kill this thread but I have a feeling it won't
 
archives said:
The same Presidential Records Act that specifies that "the United States owns Presidential records," which started the whole affair, Trump refusing to return requested records to the National Archives
Click to expand...

Link to where he was asked and refused
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
OH FUCK YOU FOR BEING SO WRONG!

Yes, an ex-president has a right to access Top-Secret documents- BUT NO! A president has no legal authority to steal them from the WHITE HOUSE!

WHAT A FUCKING RETARD!
Click to expand...
Unless, as the case should be here, said former POTUS has his security clearance taken away.
 
evince said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B._Rivkin


One of the writers of that piece






David Boris Rivkin, Jr.[2] (born 1956) is an American attorney, political writer, and conservative media commentator on matters of constitutional and international law, as well as foreign and defense policy. Rivkin has gained national recognition as a representative of conservative viewpoints, frequently testifying before congressional committees, and appearing as an analyst and commentator on a variety of television and radio stations.[3] He is a visiting fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a recipient of the U.S. Naval Proceedings Annual Alfred Thayer Mahan Award for the best maritime affairs article.[4] He is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies,[5] and is a former member of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.[6][7]




Born
David Borisovich Rivkin
1956 (age 65–66)
Leningrad, Soviet Union[1]
Click to expand...


so hes a real lawyer specializing in relevant law, gotcha.
 
evince said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B._Rivkin


One of the writers of that piece






David Boris Rivkin, Jr.[2] (born 1956) is an American attorney, political writer, and conservative media commentator on matters of constitutional and international law, as well as foreign and defense policy. Rivkin has gained national recognition as a representative of conservative viewpoints, frequently testifying before congressional committees, and appearing as an analyst and commentator on a variety of television and radio stations.[3] He is a visiting fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a recipient of the U.S. Naval Proceedings Annual Alfred Thayer Mahan Award for the best maritime affairs article.[4] He is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies,[5] and is a former member of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.[6][7]




Born
David Borisovich Rivkin
1956 (age 65–66)
Leningrad, Soviet Union[1]
Click to expand...

Born in Russia
 
volsrock said:
Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.


Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.




https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tr...st-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684



WHOOPS


To summarize: Garland and his 30 Gaystapo cockroaches broke the law.
Click to expand...

Posting an opinion piece from two right wing commentators proves shit. You fucks are so fucking desperate. trump took our stuff. His security clearance was revoked. He had no right to them. He was asked to give the stuff back for over a year. We finally had to go get it. That stuff was ours and had national security implications.

Do you have anything besides a WSJ opinion piece?
 
volsrock said:
Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978


U get that part..stupid fuck
Click to expand...

An army of lawyers in the DOJ and the National Archives disagree with you, dick.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117297065/trump-documents-history-national-archives-law-watergate

"For the first two centuries of U.S. history, outgoing presidents simply took their documents with them when they left the White House. The materials were considered their personal property.

But for the past four decades, every presidential document — from notebook doodles to top-secret security plans — is supposed to go directly to the National Archives as the material is considered the property of the American people.

So when former President Donald Trump left office on Jan. 20, 2021, all his records should have traveled from the White House to the National Archives, according to Jason R. Baron, who served as director of litigation at the National Archives for 13 years."

Sorry, you're just wrong!
 
volsrock said:
Link to the law that states be cant!
Click to expand...

Here you go:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117297065/trump-documents-history-national-archives-law-watergate

For the first two centuries of U.S. history, outgoing presidents simply took their documents with them when they left the White House. The materials were considered their personal property.

But for the past four decades, every presidential document — from notebook doodles to top-secret security plans — is supposed to go directly to the National Archives as the material is considered the property of the American people.

So when former President Donald Trump left office on Jan. 20, 2021, all his records should have traveled from the White House to the National Archives, according to Jason R. Baron, who served as director of litigation at the National Archives for 13 years.

You're welcome, dickhead.
 
volsrock said:
AG of Florida should be making the case right now to a Grand Jury to Indict the whole bunch for Felony Armed Home Invasion and issue a Governors Warrant for all of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and then they should go to Cape Canaveral and solve the Moon Landing Hoax!
 
volsrock said:
Link to where he was asked and refused
Click to expand...

Here you go, shithead:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-on-documents-sought-nara-not-theirs-mine-nyt-2022-8

"Former President Donald Trump railed against attempts by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to retrieve a trove of documents, saying "it's not theirs, it's mine," according to The New York Times.

That is the response that several advisors told the paper that Trump gave to White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy Patrick Philbin.

The two men were given the job of dealing with NARA in the chaotic closing weeks of Trump's presidency.

The Times, citing unnamed sources, described their interactions with Trump as the FBI investigated what became of the information."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top