An Indictment of the Indictment - Razör Rants
(odysee.com)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
As every intelligent person knows, the Presidential Records Act declares everything a President takes with him after leaving office is automatically declassified, and every shred of paper is his personal property.
This is not how the act actually functions.
Please go read the actual words.
https://www.archives.gov/news/topics/presidential-records-act
Under the PRA, the official records of the President and his staff are owned by the United States, not by the President.
The Archivist is required to take custody of these records when the President leaves office, and to maintain them in a Federal depository. These records are eligible for access under FOIA five years after the President leaves office. The President may restrict access to specific kinds of information for up to 12 years after he leaves office, but then records are reviewed for FOIA exemptions only. This legislation took effect on January 20, 1981, and the records of the Reagan administration were the first to be administered under this law.
The President has full declassification authority.
Full.
Complete.
Total.
Bill Clinton used this same authority.
They have no case. Trump will be fine.
But of course a doomer like you would pretend not to know things.
That is not how this works.
A former President cannot just magically say any documents he has are declassified.
There is a specific process they need to go through.
And you think you are privy to more information on how this works than President of the United States Donald Trump?
Peace. All will be well.
onetruephilosoraptor is a DeSantis shill with TDS that’s now apparently not above supporting transparent persecution of his political rivals. There is case law precedent concerning Clinton doing something similar that explicitly states documents the president takes on the way out of office is considered his personal property. To say otherwise would be to subsume some authority regarding declassification that is above the fucking president, which yea surprise, there isn’t, and courts have refused to say there is.
Oh, let's give him some credit. He's not "supporting" the persecution, he's just accepting that it's not persecution because Trump really did do all this stuff and oh well, that's just the law, don't'cha'know. Such a shame. By golly, I guess that means we'll all have to vote for DeSantis when Trump goes to jail for this totally legitimate, if unfortunate, indictment!
You’re getting downvotes for the thick sarcasm, but thank you for encapsulating DeSantis supporters’ increasingly apparent position on this. DeSantis has shown himself to be Jeb! reincarnate, and his supporters are just as retarded or disingenuous to boot.
You are not even looking at the legal issues at the heart of the case.
I have said time and time again I don't support any selective prosecution.
Regardless of what any of us thinks about this case, various lawyers who have extensive knowledge in this domain state there is potentially a strong case here against Trump unlike the Bragg case.
Why don't you look at what different lawyers have to say about this before you attack me with irrelevant ad-hominems?
Please look at these various analyses about this case:
https://archive.is/agqao
https://archive.is/fOZ4u
https://archive.is/eaSU5
Please go look at what Jonathan Turley, Andrew McCarthy and Judge Napolitano have to say on this case.
This is Andrew McCarthy's take: https://archive.is/agqao
This is Jonathan Turley's take: https://archive.is/fOZ4u
This is Judge Napolitano's take: https://archive.is/eaSU5
Don't take this the wrong way but why on Earth would you listen to any of those people?
The Grand Jury who submitted this indictment were PURPOSEFULLY NOT INFORMED ABOUT PREVIOUS PRECEDENT.
You need to understand what that means and then you'll completely understand what is happening.
Jonathan Turley: Says Alvin Bragg's case against President Donald Trump is "legally pathetic."
Andrew McCarthy: Defends three-letter agencies. Swamp.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Fired by Fox News for being based, learned his place, cringe since. Betrayed Donald Trump numerous times.
Why do you take the easy road?
"You don't have to work hard to be negative. You don't have to work hard to be a pessimist. You don't have to reach a certain level of consciousness in order to be negative. We all can easily do it. Being optimistic and positive is what takes work."
Rush Limbaugh
You are talking about things that are irrelevant to the legal issues at the heart of the federal documents case. That is not the same as Bragg case.
Just look at the articles.
This is Andrew McCarthy's take: https://archive.is/agqao
This is Jonathan Turley's take: https://archive.is/fOZ4u
This is Judge Napolitano's take: https://archive.is/eaSU5
YouTube
My favorite part of this is not his attacking the charges in the first half but the second half where he talks about the significance of Trump, why the political prosecutions continue to happen, and why he must win.
Thanks for posting this. Will watch after wotk
This was an incredibly sobering rant. The second half on why he is being attacked makes me see several others like him, and how they were attacked. It also shows the DeSantis plan, which is fine by me if the governor continues down his path after this.
The process is the punishment
I always forget that bit