Welcome to America

I am sure the LEOs and Court personnel will be crying and telling him this is an unfair prosecution.

Biggest fuc#ing echo chamber on the internet. Brandon&Heel's Up, LMAO.

Biggest fuc#ing echo chamber on the internet. Brandon&Heel's Up, LMAO.

Where are all your GOP buddies? Too busy to post?

I have come to the conclusion,

Biggest fuc#ing echo chamber on the internet. Brandon&Heel's Up, LMAO.

Guess as long as your politicians are lily white.

Biggest fuc#ing echo chamber on the internet. Brandon&Heel's Up, LMAO.

Not many Trump voters left in South Walton.

Biggest fuc#ing echo chamber on the internet. Brandon&Heel's Up, LMAO.

Biggest fuc#ing echo chamber on the internet. Brandon&Heel's Up, LMAO.

Doggie man, good to hear from you!
Now stop lurking and join the conversation.

Biggest fuc#ing echo chamber on the internet. Brandon&Heel's Up, LMAO.

I was wondering when the idiot Trump humpers would chime in. I guess it took a drunken stupor for you to build up the courage.

Political Persecution, I wonder if that works both ways?

My favorite part of yesterday was trump telling the judge and Jack Smith exactly what he thought of them in person just like he does at the keyboard and at rallies.

Judicial Watch: Clinton Sock Drawer Audio Tape Case Exonerates Pres. Trump | Judicial Watch


Special counsel Jack Smith is currently investigating the 45th president for his handling of classified documents since departing the White House. But Farrell says the ruling in this specific case from 2012 exonerates Trump from any alleged wrongdoing.


“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “
“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.


In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”


Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

Former Top Department of Justice Official Blows Up Jack Smith's Case Against President Trump With One Tweet - Notices Key Item on Third Page of the Federal Indictment That Is "Grounds for Granting a Motion" to Dismiss | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger | 165


CNN “reported” on May 31 that federal prosecutors had “obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which former President Donald Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran.” The network claims this destroys Trump’s argument that he declassified everything.


Jeffrey Clark, who served as an assistant attorney general in the Trump administration, says the leak is grounds for having the case tossed. Moreover, it proves Biden’s corrupt DOJ was the source of the leaks rather than Trump’s attorneys.

Biggest fuc#ing echo chamber on the internet. Brandon&Heel's Up, LMAO.

Joe got your back.

Here's the party screaming political persecution, politically persecuting someone.

Judicial Watch: Clinton Sock Drawer Audio Tape Case Exonerates Pres. Trump | Judicial Watch


Special counsel Jack Smith is currently investigating the 45th president for his handling of classified documents since departing the White House. But Farrell says the ruling in this specific case from 2012 exonerates Trump from any alleged wrongdoing.


“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “
“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.


In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”


Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

All of it pertains to a sitting President not a former one.

Former Top Department of Justice Official Blows Up Jack Smith's Case Against President Trump With One Tweet - Notices Key Item on Third Page of the Federal Indictment That Is "Grounds for Granting a Motion" to Dismiss | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger | 165


CNN “reported” on May 31 that federal prosecutors had “obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which former President Donald Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran.” The network claims this destroys Trump’s argument that he declassified everything.


Jeffrey Clark, who served as an assistant attorney general in the Trump administration, says the leak is grounds for having the case tossed. Moreover, it proves Biden’s corrupt DOJ was the source of the leaks rather than Trump’s attorneys.

Trump's defense team has every right to try and use that argument.

Joe got your back.

Careful if he's a trump supporter, well we know how those allegiances go.

ANALYSIS: How Strong Is the Case Against Trump? (theepochtimes.com)


“If this indictment is as weak as it appears to be, from what has been disclosed so far, it may be the most dangerous indictment in political history,” law professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News on Friday.


“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz continued.


“I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor added.

ANALYSIS: How Strong Is the Case Against Trump? (theepochtimes.com)


“If this indictment is as weak as it appears to be, from what has been disclosed so far, it may be the most dangerous indictment in political history,” law professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News on Friday.


“It has to be at least as strong as the case against Richard Nixon, which we will remember led not to Democrats to demand his resignation, but Republicans, his own colleagues came to him and said, this case is so strong that we can’t support you,” Dershowitz continued.


“I haven’t seen any suggestion that Republicans agree with this indictment,” the professor added.

During Monday's episode of The Dershow podcast, Dershowitz likened the indictment's purported July 2021 recording of Trump discussing a classified document with people who lacked security clearances—and saying that he did not declassify the material—to a gun with "Trump's fingerprints on it."

Judicial Watch: Clinton Sock Drawer Audio Tape Case Exonerates Pres. Trump | Judicial Watch


Special counsel Jack Smith is currently investigating the 45th president for his handling of classified documents since departing the White House. But Farrell says the ruling in this specific case from 2012 exonerates Trump from any alleged wrongdoing.


“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “
“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.


In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”


Farrell points out that this ruling has existed without challenge or question for ten years.

You are buying RW propaganda from the same people who told you the election was stolen.

But in a 2012 opinion, the trial judge overseeing Judicial Watch’s lawsuit ruled that even if the tapes should have been designated to be presidential records, she could not order the National Archives to recategorize them.

“The [Presidential Records Act] does not confer any mandatory or even discretional authority on the archivist,” wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in that 2012 ruling. “Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the president.”

That language, as I’ll explain, has emboldened Trump supporters who contend that under Jackson's analysis, the Justice Department had no authority to seize documents from Mar-a-Lago.
That theory is vigorously disputed by national security experts, including former National Archives litigation director Jason Baron, who is now a professor at the University of Maryland, and Bradley Moss of the Mark S. Zaid law firm.

Both Baron and Moss told me by email that there are clear distinctions between the audiotapes at issue in the Clinton case and the classified records in the Trump criminal case.

The Clinton tapes, Baron said, “were in the nature of a diary or journal in recorded form,” fitting the definition of a personal record in the Presidential Records Act. But the documents with classified markings that were seized from Mar-a-Lago, Baron said, “were official government records that should never have been transferred out of the government's hands.”

Moreover, Moss said, the question of whether the documents were personal or presidential records is beside the point in a case involving the Espionage Act, like the one against Trump.

“Whether as a presidential record or a personal record, the records at issue in this indictment still have classification markings and contain information relating to the national defense,” he said.