Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, September 21, 2022

A federal appeals panel has lifted a judge's hold on the Justice Department's ability to use classified records seized from former President Donald Trump's Florida estate in its ongoing criminal investigation.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

...The ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is a victory for the Justice Department, clearing the way for it to immediately resume its use of the documents as it evaluates whether to bring criminal charges in its investigation into the presence of top-secret government records held at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House....

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-09-21 08:00 PM | Reply

Finally. GOOD.

#2 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-21 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Won't the totally not political supreme court just overturn this anyway?

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-21 08:13 PM | Reply

Let's hope that the SC puts national security over the one-man crime wave that is orange -------.

FWIW the 11th court justices who made the decision were 2 Trump appointees and 1 Obama. the decision was a serious refutation of most of what Loose Cannon has done so far.

#4 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Two of the three judges who issued this ruling were Trump appointees.

"Plaintiff suggests that he may have declassified these documents when he was President. But the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified,...the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal."

abcnews.go.com

"[Trump]has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents," the judges wrote. "Nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents."

BOOM. Trump is not President and has no power to declassify or even to have access to ANY of these documents. That belongs to the PRESIDENT of the United States - something he's not.

www.reuters.com

#5 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-21 09:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The only people who didn't see this coming are those who get their news from Trump~Q networks and go to pray at his demented Rallys.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2022-09-21 09:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#5 ... But the record contains no evidence ...

Why do we see this phrase so often, oh so often, in judicial rulings in lawsuits brought forth by fmr Pres Trump and his supporters?

Why?

This is why fmr Pres Trump and his supporters want to try cases in the court of social media, where the existence of evidence s not needed.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-09-21 09:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

For our part, we cannot discern why Plaintiff would have an individual interest in or need for any of the one-hundred documents with classification markings. Classified documents are marked to show they are classified, for instance, with their classification level. They are "owned by, produced by or for, or . . . under the control of the United States Government." And they include information the "unauthorized disclosure [of which] could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security." For this reason, a person may have access to classified information only if, among other requirements, he "has a need-to-know the information." This requirement pertains equally to former Presidents, unless the current administration, in its discretion, chooses to waive that requirement.

Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. Nor has he established that the current administration has waived that requirement for these documents. And even if he had, that, in and of itself, would not explain why Plaintiff has an individual interest in the classified documents.

Plaintiff suggests that he may have declassified these documents when he was President. But the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified. And before the special master, Plaintiff resisted providing any evidence that he had declassified any of these documents. In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal. So even if we assumed that Plaintiff did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.

int.nyt.com

This excerpt from the ruling is a complete and utter repudiation to Trump's insane arguments and a total smackdown of Judge Cannon and her unsupportable conclusion that the Government needs to prove that documents clearly marked as classified are indeed classified.

In reality, based on the complete logic of this ruling, Trump really has no place to go in furtherance of his claims of having personal interest in documents that are clearly the property of the US Government whether or not he may have issued some secret declassification while President. Declassification does not make them Trump's property, end of story.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 09:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

- a red herring

An orange whale, more like....

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2022-09-21 09:34 PM | Reply

Trump......Trump.....TRUMP......BOO!!!!!!!!!!

*Run for your lives! The Stay Puff Orange Marshmallow Man is coming!!!*

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-09-21 09:38 PM | Reply

And btw, since the 11th Circuit has pretty much made it clear that the classified documents indeed belong to the US Government and that Trump has no conceivable claim to any personal interest in government property, the DOJ could bring charges against Trump tomorrow for violating the Espionage Act since the predicate criminal elements of that law have already been made due to Trump stealing the documents and then lying and concealing them from NARA and the FBI. Of course, it won't happen that fast, because any damage that may have been caused by any unlawful disclosure of any of the document's information hasn't yet been determined.

Trump is having a very bad week and it couldn't be happening to anyone who deserves it more than he does.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 09:39 PM | Reply

Hey, you were the one that thought it and the rest of us are still paying for it.

#12 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-21 09:40 PM | Reply

#12 was for #10 - obviously.

#11 - He and his three crooked and spoiled spawn.

#13 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-21 09:41 PM | Reply

@#8 ... Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. ...

Worth repeating, in bold...

... Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. ...

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-09-21 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump: those are mine

11th Circuit: nope. They're the government's

Trump: but I declassified them

11th: no, and also: still the government's if you did

Trump: but I want them

11th: people in hell want ice water.

Angry Staffer

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 09:44 PM | Reply

The Espionage Act. The Logan Act.

In the history of this country how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted under either law? Keep in mind Alger Hiss wasn't even prosecuted, much less convicted based on either of these (he was convicted of perjury and served less than 4 years of a 5 year sentence).

I seriously hate to be a wet blanket on y'all's collective wet-dream but let's be realistic here.

#16 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-09-21 09:48 PM | Reply

Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy, BTW.

#17 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-09-21 09:49 PM | Reply

-I seriously hate to be a wet blanket on y'all's collective wet-dream

now now....I don't think you hate it.

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 09:50 PM | Reply

Damn. You got me.

#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-09-21 09:53 PM | Reply

The Espionage Act. The Logan Act.
In the history of this country how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted under either law? Keep in mind Alger Hiss wasn't even prosecuted, much less convicted based on either of these (he was convicted of perjury and served less than 4 years of a 5 year sentence).
I seriously hate to be a wet blanket on y'all's collective wet-dream but let's be realistic here.

#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You're not very bright.

www.justsecurity.org

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 09:59 PM | Reply

Of course, ------- also faces slam dunk cases for retaining government documents (i.e. theft) and obstruction (i.e. not returning the 100+documents that were subpoenaed.

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:00 PM | Reply

www.vox.com

The Espionage Act is actually a series of statutes under 18 US Code Chapter 37 related to the collection, retention, or dissemination of national defense or classified information. The Mar-a-Lago search warrant referred to Section 793 " "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," which doesn't just cover "spying" in the sense that many think of when they hear the term. Section 793 specifically states that people legally granted access to national defense documents " people like the former president " are subject to punishment should they improperly retain that information.

Can the lying PoS honestly say ------- did not improperly retain national defense information?

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:03 PM | Reply

22

who are you talking about?

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 10:06 PM | Reply

In the history of this country how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted under either law?

Do you ever stop before sticking your foot straight down your gullet?

Espionage Act of 1917

21st century

*In 2001, retired Army Reserve Colonel George Trofimoff, the most senior U.S. military officer to be indicted under the Act, was convicted of conducting espionage for the Soviets in the 1970s"1990s.[89]

*Kenneth Wayne Ford Jr. was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 793(e) for allegedly having a box of documents in his house after he left NSA employment around 2004. He was sentenced to six years in prison in 2006.[90]

*In 2005, Pentagon Iran expert Lawrence Franklin, along with AIPAC lobbyists Rosen and Weissman were indicted under the Act. Franklin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to disclose national defense information to the lobbyists and an Israeli government official.[91] Franklin was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison, but the sentence was later reduced to 10 months of home confinement.[92]

*Jeffrey Alexander Sterling, a former CIA officer was indicted under the Act in January 2011 for alleged unauthorized disclosure of national defense information to James Risen, a reporter for The New York Times, in 2003. Risen published the leaked material in his 2006 book State of War, which revealed details about the CIA's covert spy war with Iran. Risen refused to reveal the source of his information when subpoenaed twice by the Justice Department. The indictment stated that Sterling's motive was revenge for the CIA's refusal to allow him to publish his memoirs and its refusal to settle his racial discrimination lawsuit against the Agency.[95]

*Thomas Andrews Drake " In April 2010, Thomas Andrews Drake, an official with the NSA, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 793(e) for alleged willful retention of national defense information. The case arose from investigations into his communications with Siobhan Gorman of The Baltimore Sun and Diane Roark of the House Intelligence Committee as part of his attempt to blow the whistle on several issues, including the NSA's Trailblazer project.[96][97][98][99][100][101] Considering the prosecution of Drake, investigative journalist Jane Mayer wrote that "Because reporters often retain unauthorized defense documents, Drake's conviction would establish a legal precedent making it possible to prosecute journalists as spies."[102]

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 10:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The Espionage Act. The Logan Act.
In the history of this country how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted under either law? Keep in mind Alger Hiss wasn't even prosecuted, much less convicted based on either of these (he was convicted of perjury and served less than 4 years of a 5 year sentence).
I seriously hate to be a wet blanket on y'all's collective wet-dream but let's be realistic here.
#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You remember Reality Winner, right? She got 5 years for 1 document!

------- had 100, +scores of empty Top Secret folders

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:08 PM | Reply

*Shamai Leibowitz " In May 2010, Shamai K. Leibowitz, a translator for the FBI, admitted sharing information with a blogger and pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3) to one count of disclosure of classified information. As part of a plea bargain, he was sentenced to 20 months in prison.[103][104]
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim " In August 2010, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a contractor for the State Department and a specialist in nuclear proliferation, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 793(d) for alleged disclosure in June 2009 of national defense information to reporter James Rosen of Fox News Channel, related to North Korea's plans to test a nuclear weapon.[105] [106][107]

*Chelsea Manning, US Army Private First Class convicted in July 2013 on six counts of violating the Espionage Act.[108]
Chelsea Manning " In 2010, Chelsea Manning, the United States Army Private First Class accused of the largest leak of state secrets in U.S. history, was charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which incorporates parts of the Espionage Act 18 U.S.C. 793(e). At the time, critics worried that the broad language of the Act could make news organizations, and anyone who reported, printed or disseminated information from WikiLeaks, subject to prosecution, although former prosecutors pushed back, citing Supreme Court precedent expanding First Amendment protections.[109] On July 30, 2013, following a judge-only trial by court-martial lasting eight weeks, Army judge Colonel Denise Lind convicted Manning on six counts of violating the Espionage Act, among other infractions.[108] She was sentenced to serve a 35-year sentence at the maximum-security U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.[110][111] On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence to nearly seven years of confinement dating from her arrest on May 27, 2010.[112][113]

*John Kiriakou " In January 2012, John Kiriakou, former CIA officer and later Democratic staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was charged under the Act with leaking information to journalists about the identity of undercover agents, including one who was allegedly involved in waterboarding interrogations of al-Qaeda logistics chief Abu Zubaydah.[114][115] Kiriakou is alleged to have also disclosed an investigative technique used to capture Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002.[116] He was sentenced to 30 months in prison on January 25, 2013, and was released in 2015.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 10:09 PM | Reply

22
who are you talking about?

#23 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Even though you are being obtuse

The Lying PoS implied no one has been convicted of the Espionage Act.

I posted a link showing around a dozen have been.

Then I posted an article which describes the Espionage Act: Section 793 specifically states that people legally granted access to national defense documents " people like the former president " are subject to punishment should they improperly retain that information.

------- obviously retained such information. Thus should be indicted for the Espionage Act

But the Lying PoS can act like he isn't defending ------- and you can act like you aren't defending the Lying PoS.

#27 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*Edward Snowden " In June 2013, Edward Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act after releasing documents exposing the NSA's PRISM Surveillance Program. Specifically, he was charged with "unauthorized communication of national defense information" and "willful communication of classified intelligence with an unauthorized person".[117]

*Reality Leigh Winner " In June 2017, Reality Leigh Winner was arrested and charged with "willful retention and transmission of national defense information," a felony under the Espionage Act.[118] Her arrest was announced on June 5 after The Intercept published an article describing Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, based on classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents leaked to them anonymously.[119][120] On June 8, 2017, she pleaded not guilty and was denied bail.[118] On June 21, 2018, Winner asked the court to allow her to change her plea to guilty[121] and on June 26 she pleaded guilty to one count of felony transmission of national defense information.[122][123] Winner's plea agreement with prosecutors called for her to serve five years and three months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.[124]

On August 23, 2018, at a federal court in Georgia, Winner was sentenced to the agreed-upon length of time for violating the Espionage Act. Prosecutors said her sentence was the longest ever imposed in federal court for an unauthorized release of government information to the media.[125]

*Terry J. Albury " Albury was indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. In 2018, he pled guilty and was sentenced to 4 years in prison. Albury was a 17-year veteran of the FBI. He stated that he was motivated to inform the public about the systematic racist and xenophobic practices he witnessed as the only black agent in the Minneapolis field office, and the son of an Ethiopian refugee as he was tasked with surveillance of Muslim and immigrant communities.[126]

*Julian Assange " On May 23, 2019, Australian editor, publisher, and activist Julian Assange was charged with violating the Espionage Act by seeking classified information.[127] The case has been described as having significant implications for press freedom and the First Amendment.[127]

#28 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 10:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*Daniel Hale - in 2019, US Air Force veteran and military contractor Daniel Hale was indicted on three charges under the Espionage Act for leaking classified documents about the US military's drone program to a journalist. The journalist was not named in the indictment but is likely to be a reference to Jeremy Scahill, a journalist for The Intercept, who wrote Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield and published the Drone Papers.[128] In April 2021, Hale pleaded guilty to one count, under the Espionage Act, of unlawful retention and transmission of "national defense information". The prosecution asked that a trial on the remaining charges be postponed until after sentencing.[129]

*Donald Trump - On August 12, 2022, an unsealed FBI search warrant revealed that Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, was under investigation for possible violations of the Espionage Act. On August 8, 2022, the FBI raided his Mar-a-Lago home and found classified material.[130][131] That classified material allegedly included materials related to nuclear weapons.[132] The Justice Department also became concerned that Trump was storing official presidential records at his home in violation of the Presidential Records Act which mandates that all presidential documents be preserved and submitted to the National Archives.[133]

en.wikipedia.org

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 10:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just to point out the obvious

Obama didn't
Bush the Lesser didn't
Clinton didn't (nor did Hillary btw)
Bush the Elder didn't
Reagan didn't
Carter didn't
Ford didn't

------- DID improperly retain NDI

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-The Lying PoS implied no one has been convicted of the Espionage Act.

STop. You're the lying POS. He asked how many.

What he implied is not very many....though he didn't give a number.

You're the lying POS

Why don't you tell him to get back to his dental patients in Detroit, Twoothy?

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 10:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#24 - That's 7, if I counted right, in Tony's list, there are 5 in common with the 10 TruthHurts posted in #20, which leaves another 5 from TruthHurts list, and 2 from Tony's list. That means that between those two posts there are 17 charged, prosecuted, and sentenced under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Jeff said "In the history of this country how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted under either law? Keep in mind Alger Hiss wasn't even prosecuted, much less convicted based on either of these (he was convicted of perjury and served less than 4 years of a 5 year sentence)."

So the answer appears to be 17, so more than it appears you thought. HIss wasn't in either sources.

#32 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-21 10:17 PM | Reply

"Obama didn't
Bush the Lesser didn't
Clinton didn't (nor did Hillary btw)
Bush the Elder didn't
Reagan didn't
Carter didn't
Ford didn't"

well, none of them weren't charged anyway.

You act like you know something.

You know nothing except what everyone else knows, boy.

I think (useful word you might try some day...as it's the truth) Trump did everything he's accused of.

most everyone accepts that.

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 10:19 PM | Reply

-So the answer appears to be 17, so more than it appears you thought.

did he say 16 or less?

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 10:21 PM | Reply

My list was 21st Century only and that's only 21 1/2 years. There were many prosecutions in the 20th Century too.

And ICYMI, Trump was interviewed on camera by Hannity tonight claiming that he declassified documents while he was still President "in his mind by thinking about it" and "that there doesn't have to be a process."

Who wants to be the first to tell him that declassifying doesn't make the documents his, they still belong to the US Government and he has no personal interest in them whatsoever?

#35 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 10:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Declassifying is a red herring, tony.

It's illegal for him to possess the docs, they belong to the American people, more specifically the archives.

#36 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-09-21 10:25 PM | Reply

"declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal."

www.usatoday.com

#37 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-09-21 10:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump is an expert at denying things that don't matter while he commits real crimes.

For example "collusion" is not a crime.

#38 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-09-21 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

did he say 16 or less?
#34 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-09-21 10:21 PM | FLAG:

How many do you think he implied, Eberly? I mean since your questioning me - and all he offered was ZERO.
Why don't you tell us all how many you thought Jeff was talking about with his post. It'll be fun!

#39 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-21 10:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#36 see #8.

My posts were in response to Dipsquew's skepticism as to whether the Espionage Act has ever been charged. The answer is a resounding yes, it's been used dozens and dozens of times over the last century.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 10:36 PM | Reply

-Why don't you tell us all how many you thought Jeff was talking about with his post. It'll be fun!

you miss the point. If I cared, which you do, I would have asked since he didn't offer a number.

It's better to assign a low number so you can piss and moan about it.

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 10:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

There was no need to ask.
It was obvious what he thought.
Obvious to even you.
You'd have admitted that if you were interested in being honest and not a contrarian.

#42 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-21 10:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I seriously hate to be a wet blanket on y'all's collective wet-dream but let's be realistic here.

#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-09-21 09:48 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy, BTW.

#17 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-09-21 09:49 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

-I seriously hate to be a wet blanket on y'all's collective wet-dream
now now....I don't think you hate it.

#18 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-09-21 09:50 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Damn. You got me.

#19 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I just want to point out that the logical conclusion to the Lying PoS' posts is that he is happy that ------- will not be successfully prosecuted for breaking the Espionage Act.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:40 PM | Reply

There was no need to ask.
It was obvious what he thought.
Obvious to even you.
You'd have admitted that if you were interested in being honest and not a contrarian.

#42 | POSTED BY YAV

He just enjoys being a trash person.

#44 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"My posts were in response to Dipsquew's skepticism as to whether the Espionage Act has ever been charged. The answer is a resounding yes, it's been used dozens and dozens of times over the last century."

Exactly - and I counted 17 in just the two citations given. This is obviously significant and serious, and nothing like what Jeff was clearly and obviously trying to imply.

#45 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-21 10:41 PM | Reply

I think (useful word you might try some day...as it's the truth) Trump did everything he's accused of.
most everyone accepts that.

#33 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Then why are you defending someone defending -------? Other than to continue being a trash person.

#46 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:42 PM | Reply

-being honest and not a contrarian.

It's not an either/or. I can be both.

"trash person" - from someone who incompetently attempts to out posters.

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 10:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-Then why are you defending someone defending -------?

I'm not defending him. He doesn't need my help.

I mean...he's a ------- ------- dentist from Detroit lying about who he really is. You know who he is...a dentist from Detroit.

#48 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 10:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-being honest and not a contrarian.
It's not an either/or. I can be both.
"trash person" - from someone who incompetently attempts to out posters.

#47 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-09-21 10:43 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

-Then why are you defending someone defending -------?
I'm not defending him. He doesn't need my help.
I mean...he's a ------- ------- dentist from Detroit lying about who he really is. You know who he is...a dentist from Detroit.

#48 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Who is doing the outing?

#49 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:50 PM | Reply

This is obviously significant and serious, and nothing like what Jeff was clearly and obviously trying to imply.

Of course it is! I think all of us would be outraged if our government was unable to keep our most closely held secrets secure and Espionage Act cases were as routine as Trump lawsuits.

I'd written out a post that a reboot ate and lost my thoughts, but we keep letting righties take us down rabbit holes, putting the onus on us to explain why Trump outrages us instead of keeping the focus on just how uniquely vile Trump is as the only person in US history to assume the presidency who ALWAYS places his own interests and agendas before those of the United States and its security and well-being.

It's simply unfathomable that a former US President would take classified documents that obviously don't belong to him and place them where our enemies can access them if he didn't already willingly share their information by his own volition to those unauthorized to see it. Of course every action taken in response to something Trump affirmatively did or set in motion is often unprecedented. Trump's perfidy is unprecedented!

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-21 10:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-Who is doing the outing?

Outed. Past tense.

You did, of course.

You're pretending you didn't now?

You used to defend that act.

Now you're pretending you never did that?

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 10:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

where's my 'eberly' when people were badly attempting to dox me?

: D

#52 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-09-21 10:55 PM | Reply

The 11th Circuit Smackdown of Judge Aileen Cannon

www.youtube.com

Even two Trumpers on the Court couldn't ignore the facts. I call that progress, lol.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2022-09-21 10:56 PM | Reply

@#19 ... Damn. You got me. ...

Not really.

Your comment got itself. The other commenter merely pointed that out.

Do try harder.

#54 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-09-21 10:57 PM | Reply

52

I saw him do it. Many folks were here. It was not long after J6 and twoothy was on his perpetual period over it. He was just off his rails and couldn't help himself.

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 11:00 PM | Reply

I never said I didn't believe you.

#56 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-09-21 11:01 PM | Reply

@#33 ... You know nothing except what everyone else knows, boy. ...

Slurs aside...

How do you know that the alias you are responding to knows nothing except what everyone else knows?

In my visits to this most august site, I've seen aliases who do not know even a portion of what others aliases seem to know.

I've also seen aliases that know a whole lot more than other aliases. Indeed, I have learned from those aliases.

So, please provide some manner of substantiation for your assertion.

thx.

#57 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-09-21 11:03 PM | Reply

"... Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. ..."

Looks like the court didn't buy the argument that he needs to personally possess the documents in order to write his memoirs.

#58 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-09-21 11:06 PM | Reply

-How do you know that the alias you are responding to knows nothing except what everyone else knows?

many many many years of experience with him here.

-I've also seen aliases that know a whole lot more than other aliases. Indeed, I have learned from those aliases.

agreed.

you can reveal all you've learned from truth if you'd like.

You, BTW, are a poster I have learned from. Truth? yeah......not a damn thing.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-21 11:08 PM | Reply

@#59 .. many many many years of experience with him here. ...

That is an avoidance of the question. If you take the time to think about it, you may see why.

For starters, how do you know the extent of "what everyone else knows" and then how do you know that the alias only knows that? Your comment is weakening your position because of the unsubstantiated, and sweeping, assumptions it makes.

... you can reveal all you've learned from truth if you'd like. ...

You are going to have to explain that a bit more because I've not a clue what it is you've said.


#60 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-09-21 11:23 PM | Reply

Even two Trumpers on the Court couldn't ignore the facts. I call that progress, lol.
#53 | POSTED BY CORKY

It's not, though.
Not going backwards is not the same as going forwards.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-22 12:10 AM | Reply

Anytime there's a legal topic here, Jeff will invariably show up and ---- the bed. Looks like this time Elderly decided to get under the covers and roll around in it.

What a sad, predictable dump this place is.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2022-09-22 06:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

"Anytime there's a legal topic here, Jeff will invariably show up and ---- the bed. Looks like this time Elderly decided to get under the covers and roll around in it.

What a sad, predictable dump this place is."

1000x newsworthy.

#63 | Posted by Angrydad at 2022-09-22 07:33 AM | Reply

Remember when dotard took office and one of the first things he did was sign a law that changed stealing classified documents from a misdemeanor to a felony punishable with five years in jail?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHH

Irony just died.

His latest excuse of "a lot of boxes were packed up and moved" would be acceptable if HE DIDN'T GET CAUGHT WITH CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS IN HIS OFFICE DESK DRAWER WITH HIS PASSPORT. The revelation that the NAR and DOJ saw them MOVING BOXES of classified documents AFTER THEY WERE TOLD NOT TO just makes it worse.

It could have been cleared up easily with him sending the documents back and allowing the DOJ and the archives in to retrieve them.

So why was he hell bent on keeping them? Was he under pressure to do so from our enemies? Bragging rights? Sell them? Trade them for no prosecution over 1/6?

Why would a supposed smart person be so damn arrogant about them?

The entire thing stinks.

The judge that put her partisanship ahead of national security should resign in shame. Why would she embarrass herself so badly? Is she that unqualified?

"A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit was rather unsparing in unanimously granting the Justice Department a reprieve from Cannon's order barring them from reviewing documents with classified markings seized from Mar-a-Lago. The stay is temporary, but the reasoning is firm.

They repeatedly rejected not just the Trump legal team's lack of arguments, but also Cannon's acceptance of them. Indeed, they suggested it was inexplicable that Cannon ruled for Trump even by her own logic.

The ruling really kicks into gear when the judges address what a 1977 Supreme Court case considered the "foremost consideration" in deciding whether a court such as Cannon's should exercise jurisdiction in such a case: whether the government "displayed a callous disregard for ... constitutional rights" in its seizure.

The judges say Cannon conceded that it hadn't displayed such disregard, but then disregarded that consideration all the same " and say she thus "abused" her "discretion."

Indeed, Cannon's apparent lack of curiosity " best exemplified by her acceptance of the Trump legal team's claims that the documents might have been declassified without actually stating as much " was a feature of the remainder of the opinion. The judges repeatedly note Trump's lawyers weren't even compelled to furnish arguments on some of the crucial matters at hand. And they say that even if they had been, it might not have mattered."

Well that's the fault of the Federalist Society for pushing such an unqualified candidate.

#64 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-09-22 07:53 AM | Reply

NIXON

"Well that's the fault of the Federalist Society for pushing such an unqualified candidate."

And one so unqualified that she only passed her bar exam by a whisker.

I doubt if she was even clever enough to collect her "fee" from Trump up front.

#65 | Posted by Twinpac at 2022-09-22 08:07 AM | Reply

So, posting personal information that was posted previously is ok. As that is what I allegedly did, you are ok with what I did.

Thanks

#66 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-22 08:27 AM | Reply

The Espionage Act. The Logan Act.
In the history of this country how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted under either law? Keep in mind Alger Hiss wasn't even prosecuted, much less convicted based on either of these (he was convicted of perjury and served less than 4 years of a 5 year sentence).
I seriously hate to be a wet blanket on y'all's collective wet-dream but let's be realistic here.

#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

We've come full circle.

1. The docs were planted
2. They weren't planted but they were Trump's documents
3. Okay he can't have classified documents but he declassified them
4. They aren't declassified but its not like they'll prosecute people for this

#67 | Posted by Sycophant at 2022-09-22 08:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Anytime there's a legal topic here, Jeff will invariably show up and ---- the bed. Looks like this time Elderly decided to get under the covers and roll around in it."

As usual, liljoe shows up and gets it wrong.

He's half right. Bell is incorrect and I agree with retorts to him. I only took issue with the drama of assignment of numbers and extremes.

There is no need for the drama but some here have nothing but that to contribute.

"What a sad, predictable dump this place is."

What do you think is missing?

What changes do you suggest?

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-22 09:12 AM | Reply

Wow. I can't believe my one post generated so many responses.

All I was trying to do with that post was manage expectations.

A lot of people here are getting sexually excited over the prospect of Trump being convicted of a crime and tossed in prison. I would have thought after the Mueller dud and countless stories about "the walls are closing in" you all would be a bit more cautious with your expectations and would be a bit more skeptical of the information our lapdog press is being spoonfed by the FBI and DOJ.

I care and don't want to see people on this site being put on a suicide watch if this doesn't go anywhere.

#69 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-09-22 09:31 AM | Reply

"So, posting personal information that was posted previously is ok. As that is what I allegedly did, you are ok with what I did."

Twoothy must really be worried about this because he can't quit lying about it.

Again for those who don't know ... ...

Twoothy was in a bad mood while arguing with Bellringer. A really bad mood. Pissed off and emotional.

He believes bell is a previous poster named Jeffj. Jeff was a former poster who also listed his real name on his user page.

Twoothy in a fit of rage and dismay googled that name and found a dentist in Detroit with the same name. Jeff was from Michigan and made reference to that fact many times over the years he posted here. He never said he was a dentist nor do I remember what his profession was.

But twooth couldn't help himself. He posted the webpage of this dentist specifically to OUT THE PERSONAL IDENTITY OF A POSTER HERE.

Fortunately twoothys incompetence ironically provided a benefit.

Jeff was not that dentist and Bell not or may not be Jeff anyway

So nobody actually had their personal identity poster here.

But the attempt from twoothy was clear and intentional.

IIRC, this happened about a year and a half ago or so.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-22 09:40 AM | Reply

-I care and don't want to see people on this site being put on a suicide watch if this doesn't go anywhere.

Or attempt to out the personal identity of a poster here.

Now get back to your ------- patients!!

#71 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-22 09:43 AM | Reply

He never said he was a dentist nor do I remember what his profession was.

He wasn't/isn't a dentist as far as I know. I still have his phone number, but in reality we've never actually spoken. We did exchange emails frequently years ago.

#72 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-22 09:47 AM | Reply

A lot of people here are getting sexually excited over the prospect of Trump being convicted of a crime and tossed in prison.

Haven't you been told repeatedly to stop trying to speak for other people that you have no idea about? All you do is express your own exaggerated fears through what you wrongly perceive others are feeling or experiencing. You do it to me all the time - as I sit here literally laughing that you think just because we express hyperbolic thoughts that we'd actually feel about things as you do.

I can only speak for myself, but at this point it's just heartening to realize that Trump has more potential threats to both his ill-gotten wealth and future liberty than at any other time in his miserable life. And none of this had to be. Trump had everyone in law enforcement cowed and bamboozled had he stayed in his lane and just finished his life as a reality star celebrity. But he effed around and with Russia's assistance became President.

And now the rest is history ... along with being future news. Trump got his wish, he dominates news cycles and now heads a major political party and an entire movement. But he exposed his corrupt underbelly and cannot escape his organized criminal proclivities and is now seeing his past acts drudged up in the process. So the posse is still on his tail. So be it.

#73 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-09-22 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Holy crap, that interview with Hannity was an embarrassment an disaster all wrapped up into one.

If Trump runs, he's not winning......he's got way too much baggage at this point. And he can no longer carry the load.

#74 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-09-22 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm curious to see if Trump's lawyers take this particular issue to SCOTUS, where they are almost certain to lose (though there are probably 1-3 justices willing to agree with his absolute contortion of the law). Any procedural gurus know how much time he has to do that?

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2022-09-22 11:16 AM | Reply

Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents. ...

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-09-21 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag

His lawyers probably think "I needed them to pay for a couple of golf tournaments at my sh*thole golf course and cemetary" is not a good legal strategy.

I'm sure they asked him why he has them and his response was "Because I am the President."

The man has lost his marbles.

He just won't accept the reality that he was the sh*tiest president in history and the voters hate him.

I'm curious to see if Trump's lawyers take this particular issue to SCOTUS

Some lawyers will do anything for enough money, right Rudy?

#76 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-09-22 11:55 AM | Reply

#67

trump was on hannity last night and said that;
1) he could decertify docs just by thinking about it
2) With so many agents at MAL for the search, he thinks that they were looking for Hillary's e-mails.

This comedy just writes itself

#77 | Posted by northlimadawg at 2022-09-22 12:22 PM | Reply

Here is the text from that part of the interview on hannity

Let's start with what he said. Here's the exchange between Hannity and Trump (bolding is mine):

Hannity: Is there a process " what was your process to declassify?

Trump: There doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it. You know, there's " different people say different things, but as I understand there doesn't have to be.

If you're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying, it's declassified. Even by thinking about it, because you're sending it to Mar-a-Lago or to wherever you're sending it.

And there doesn't have to be a process. There can be a process, but there doesn't have to be. You're the president, you make that decision. So when you send it, it's declassified. We " I declassified everything.

Now, I declassified things, and we were having a lot of problems with NARA. You know, NARA is a radical left group of people running that thing, and when you send documents over there, I would say there's a very good chance that a lot of those documents will never be seen again.

There's also a lot of speculation because of what they did, the severity of the FBI coming and raiding Mar-a-Lago. Were they looking for the Hillary Clinton emails that were deleted, but they are around someplace?

#78 | Posted by northlimadawg at 2022-09-22 12:29 PM | Reply

#70 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Full of lies, half truths and disinformation, as usual.

#79 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-22 12:46 PM | Reply

#79 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-09-22 12:46 PM | FLAG: Despicable POS still lying. Everyone here can see it

#80 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-22 12:56 PM | Reply

Bell not or may not be Jeff anyway

Lol

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2022-09-22 01:05 PM | Reply

81

sorry "may or may not"

but yes, I do know who Bell is.

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2022-09-22 01:08 PM | Reply

Hillary Clinton???

There he goes with that name again. Trying to gin up that ol' tried and true.

Somebody should tell Trump that the chant has changed from Lock Her Up to . . . LOCK HIM UP!

#83 | Posted by Twinpac at 2022-09-22 01:15 PM | Reply

82 I wasn't laughing at your grammar. Hadn't even noticed. Just thought it was funny you'd pretend there's any doubt about who Bellringer is.

#84 | Posted by JOE at 2022-09-22 01:32 PM | Reply

I'm Bellringer. I ring bells and sometimes I clean clocks.

#85 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-09-22 01:35 PM | Reply

---

#86 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-22 02:00 PM | Reply

Ruh-roh. Judge Cannon's backtracked on her ruling in favor of the former guy. Oops. Trump and his attorneys now have no right to review, hold, have, handle any classified documents.

#87 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-22 02:06 PM | Reply

I don't care who DingDong thinks he is. We can all see who he really is. A hateful troll.

But I do care that Trumpy is finally facing Justice.

Indictments are soon to follow.

Can't wait to ring the bells for that.

#88 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-09-22 02:09 PM | Reply

Judge Cannon's backtracked on her ruling in favor of the former guy.

Minor technical point, but she didn't do that because she wanted to. She was uniformly smacked the ---- down by 3 of her superiors.

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2022-09-22 02:28 PM | Reply

Seems Trumpy's only way out now is violence.

Unfortunately.

Stand back and stand by.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-09-22 03:00 PM | Reply

From Cannon - issued today:

The term "seized material" in the Court's Order Appointing Special Master [ECF No. 91]
is modified to include all materials seized on August 8, 2022, except the approximately
one-hundred documents bearing classification markings [ECF No. 91 2].
2. Paragraph 5(b)(i)(bb) of the Order Appointing Special Master is hereby STRICKEN
[ECF No. 91 5].
3. Paragraph 6 of the Order Appointing Special Master is hereby STRICKEN [ECF No. 91
6].

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 104 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2022 Page 2 of 2
CASE NO. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 22nd day of September 2022.
cc: counsel of record
2
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
storage.courtlistener.com

#91 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-22 03:06 PM | Reply

Sorry for messing up the bolding. It was supposed end after "markings".

#92 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-22 03:07 PM | Reply

I realize that's what Cannon did. What i'm saying is she only did that because she had to based on the appeals court ruling. She would not have unilaterally amended her order in that manner absent Trump getting blown the ---- out on appeal.

#93 | Posted by JOE at 2022-09-22 03:09 PM | Reply

Absolutely. There's no way she would have done it otherwise. That was a smackdown she heard loud and clear. And by 2 Trump appointed judges (out of 3) no less. Until she actually rescinded that portion, however, which she did today - I wasn't' going to assume a damn thing about her actions.

#94 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-22 03:14 PM | Reply

Only Donald Trump could take something as benign as Archives (NARA) and call them radical......

Where documents go only to never return!! LOL

#95 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-09-22 04:11 PM | Reply

From Special Master this afternoon

Judge Raymond Dearie, who was appointed special master by Judge Aileen Cannon, gave Trump's team until Sept. 30 to submit a declaration on a number of key issues, including what appeared to be a reference to suggestions by Trump allies that some of the evidence the FBI said it had seized was somehow planted. Dearie asked Trump's lawyers on Thursday to provide an affidavit on "a list of any specific items set forth in the Detailed Property Inventory that [Trump] asserts were not seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022."

Dearie also told Trump's team to list any specific items that the former president believes were described incorrectly in the FBI's inventory list or that he believes were located somewhere different in Mar-a-Lago than where the bureau says the item was collected. The special master also asked Trump to provide a detailed list of any items that he believes were seized by the FBI but weren't listed in the property inventory.

"This submission shall be [Trump's] final opportunity to raise any factual dispute as to the completeness and accuracy of the Detailed Property Inventory," the special master said.

#96 | Posted by northlimadawg at 2022-09-22 05:00 PM | Reply

Dearie also told Trump's team to list any specific items...

Specifics? Seriously? Lewzer is more of a "People are saying" kinda guy.

#97 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-09-22 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"a list of any specific items set forth in the Detailed Property Inventory that [Trump] asserts were not seized from the Premises on August 8, 2022."

^
I hope they just list everything.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-22 06:23 PM | Reply

Where documents go only to never return!! LOL

#95 | POSTED BY BRASS30

The whole thing IS laughable and unbelievable. Historically unbelievable. To think he thought he could get away with whatever he was planning to do with them. Btw- He has never said what he was planning to do with them. It's pretty important you know. And it's bound to be "verly interesting".

America! What a country. What a show.

When you are living in the middle of an historic event of this magnitude it's hard to really see how historic it really is from the inside.

But this is Yuuuge even.

#99 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-09-22 06:57 PM | Reply

What Trump was caught doing, and probably what Trump was planning, is the classified documents equivalent of Guy Fawkes.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-22 07:04 PM | Reply

In the history of this country how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted under either law?
#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Most of that history was before Trump signed bill that made 18 U.S. Code 1924 law.

"Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

Trump, being an officer by virtue of his office, possessed 100 documents or materials containing classified information of the United States. He knowingly removed such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

That's 100 counts. Give him 100 years. Send a message to all future elected officials that they cannot break the law with impunity.

#101 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-09-23 12:17 AM | Reply

"Lawfare" offers a balanced analyses of the 11th Circuit Courts' opinion.

"The Eleventh Circuit Cleans Up the Mess" www.lawfareblog.com

#102 | Posted by et_al at 2022-09-23 12:52 AM | Reply

Trump, being an officer ...

Sure about that? www.google.com

#103 | Posted by et_al at 2022-09-23 01:15 AM | Reply

I seriously hate to be a wet blanket on y'all's collective wet-dream but let's be realistic here.

#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Given the fact that he's FPOTUS, now would be the perfect time to set an example case.

Trump, above all else, requires to be made an example of. Anything less is merely kicking the can down the road.

#104 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

off

#105 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 11:24 AM | Reply

What he implied is not very many....though he didn't give a number.

It's an uncommon crime and less common to have such a high ranking official.

Y'all keep acting norms apply here. Just stop.

#106 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Declassifying is a red herring, tony.

It's illegal for him to possess the docs, they belong to the American people, more specifically the archives.

#36 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

I keep seeing this statement and I think it's a bad line of thought.

Declassification isn't a red herring. They were classified and remain classified. He stole state secrets and some of them are now missing.

That's in an entirely different league than retaining documents in violation of a record keeping law.

The fact that Trump's corruption and criminality is so multifaceted can't be underplayed.

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

+scores of empty Top Secret folders

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-21 10:08 PM |

Every time I see this and the speculation about what was in them, all I can think of is how the Ukraine call summary was stored.

#108 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2022-09-23 11:49 AM | Reply

I care and don't want to see people on this site being put on a suicide watch if this doesn't go anywhere.

#69 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I'm seeing this trite phrase more and more.

As if any reaction to a lack of consequences for Trump makes one hysterical and suicidal.

Y'all are pathetic.

#109 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I care and don't want to see people on this site being put on a suicide watch if this doesn't go anywhere.

#69 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I call Boul-Sheht on every word of that boul-sheht Jeff.

BOULSHEHT!

#110 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2022-09-23 01:22 PM | Reply

I'm Bellringer. I ring bells and sometimes I clean clocks.

#85 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-09-22 01:35 PM | REPLY

But he never lights lamps.

#111 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-09-23 03:08 PM | Reply

He stole state secrets and some of them are now missing.
That's in an entirely different league than retaining documents in violation of a record keeping law.
The fact that Trump's corruption and criminality is so multifaceted can't be underplayed.

#107 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2022-09-23 11:41 AM | FLAG:

But the even bigger mystery is that he's still a free, man trolling the Brandon administration.

And before you get all wound up, Matt Gaetz isn't going to be prosecuted either - schitty witness credibility.

Now go pet your emotional support animal.

#112 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-09-23 03:12 PM | Reply

#112 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Why are you so willfully ignorant of context?

#113 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-09-23 03:17 PM | Reply

Now go pet your emotional support animal.

#112 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Or your gun, if you're a republican.

#114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-09-23 03:20 PM | Reply

Now go pet your emotional support animal.

#112 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

FFS you really think this stings? You really think you saying that shows anything more than what a sycophantic moronic turd you are?

You think Gaetz getting away with raping a minor and political corruption is a good thing? You think Trump getting away with stealing state secrets and probably selling them is a good thing?

You're even more pathetic than I stated at first.

#115 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 03:20 PM | Reply

Matt Gaetz isn't going to be prosecuted either - schitty witness credibility.

#112 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Do you believe he did drugs and had sex with underage girls?

I thought your party was all about fighting the pedophiles and protecting our children from perversion.

#116 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-09-23 03:26 PM | Reply

You think Gaetz getting away with raping a minor and political corruption is a good thing? You think Trump getting away with stealing state secrets and probably selling them is a good thing?
You're even more pathetic than I stated at first.

#115 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2022-09-23 03:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG

You want to know what I support, you stupid mf'er? I support facts, and so far you don't have the facts to do anything about either case you just mentioned. But you won't admit it, you'll just dance around shouting the same garbage that got you where you are.

You want justice at the altar of the burning constitution. --- you

#117 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-09-23 03:49 PM | Reply

You want justice at the altar of the burning constitution.

Lmao. Trumpers are such ------- drama queens.

#118 | Posted by JOE at 2022-09-23 03:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You want to know what I support, you stupid mf'er? I support facts"

^
This is a person who doesn't believe fossil fuels are causing Global Warming because we don't have enough facts.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-23 03:55 PM | Reply

Lmao. Trumpers are such ------- drama queens.

#118 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2022-09-23 03:50 PM | REPLY |

You're free to whip out your facts anytime you get good and ready, counsel.

#120 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-09-23 04:05 PM | Reply

This is a person who doesn't believe fossil fuels are causing Global Warming because we don't have enough facts.

#119 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-09-23 03:55 PM | REPLY

For every $cientist you can find pushing that religion, I can find 2 more who'll say they're a liar.

#121 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-09-23 04:09 PM | Reply

For every $cientist you can find pushing that religion, I can find 2 more who'll say they're a liar.
#121 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

^
Thanks for acknowledging you can't tell truth from fiction.
Sadly, low IQ folks like you are a dime a dozen.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-09-23 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're free to whip out your facts

"Facts are wasted on the willfully stupid"
-Me, 2022

#123 | Posted by JOE at 2022-09-23 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You want justice at the altar of the burning constitution. --- you

#117 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

LOL you hysterical moron.

What happened with Trump are known FACTS.

So spare me your supposed interest in facts you pathetic --------.

#124 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 04:20 PM | Reply

Lmao. Trumpers are such ------- drama queens.

#118 | POSTED BY JOE

Worse, they're completely lacking in self-awareness drama queens.

That stupid ---- declares he cares about facts and libruls are burning the Constitution...while he defends someone who stole classified documents, has stonewalled the courts at ever chance and attempted to stay in power by undermining the very Constitution he claims he loves so much.

------- idiot. Gives stupid canned answers that he's too ------- stupid to see how absurd they are in this context.

#125 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 04:24 PM | Reply

You want justice at the altar of the burning constitution. --- you

#117 | Posted by lfthndthrds

How much did you care about the constitution on 1/6 and every day since then?

#126 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-09-23 04:24 PM | Reply

For every $cientist you can find pushing that religion, I can find 2 more who'll say they're a liar.

#121 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

No, you can't.

Jesus Christ you're such a stupid, moronic -------.

#127 | Posted by jpw at 2022-09-23 04:25 PM | Reply

For every $cientist you can find pushing that religion, I can find 2 more who'll say they're a liar.

#121 | Posted by lfthndthrds

No you can't. You can find paid liars to say climate change is a hoax.

Free life hint - the more people a conspiracy would involve the dumber you are for believing it. A worldwide conspiracy to fake climate change would involve hundreds of thousands of people, so you are SUUUUUPER stupid for thinking that could happen.

#128 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-09-23 04:26 PM | Reply

LOL you hysterical moron.
What happened with Trump are known FACTS.
So spare me your supposed interest in facts you pathetic --------.

#124 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2022-09-23 04:20 PM |

No, a moron relies on Rolling Stone magazine to feed him the "facts"

Ffkn parrot

#129 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-09-23 07:25 PM | Reply

Facts

The DoJ subpoenaed all documents marked classified that were in -------- possession.

------- handed over some documents marked classified and handled them as classified-knowledge of his retaining classified documents.

------- certified that that was all the documents he possessed-corrupt intent to hide documents.

The DoJ obtained a search warrant, performed a search and found over 100 documents marked classified, TS, TSCI. Scores of empty TS folders found implying other documents still missing.

Those are facts that prove theft of government documents, espionage (retention of NDI) and obstruction (not fully satisfying the subpoena and lying that he did).

Cry in your cornflakes

Why do you think it is so hard for ------- to provide a coherent defense? Let's see, FBI planted them, he declassified them secretly, he declassified them through the Force, Obama did it, Executive Privilege, Personal Documents, A-C privilege from scribbling on TS documents, etc. etc. etc.

#130 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-23 07:40 PM | Reply

BTW the facts I posted can easily be found on the dockets for the various SDFL courts. They are not contradicted by -------- filing.

The subpoenas, -------- certification (through his attorneys and custodian of records), ------- providing a secure folder containing TS documents, the results of the search warrant-all on court filing documents that were sworn to by DoJ personnel and NOT denied by -------- people.

#131 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-09-23 07:44 PM | Reply

Fun information: Trump was ordered by court after court to turn over documents related to the Jan 6th insurrection to the January 6th committee. He went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court told him to turn everything over. All justices except Thomas, of course. The documents were in the possession of NARA (National Archives).

NARA turned over what they had - but apparently even though Trump was ordered by the Supreme Court to turn everything over, it looks like some of the documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago were supposed to be turned over to NARA and then to the January 6th committee. Trump kept them

If this is true this means Trump defied SCOTUS and actively obstructed justice. We will have to wait to see what comes out, however Cohen has stated that this is exactly what Trump did.

#132 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-23 08:37 PM | Reply

Fun information: Trump was ordered by court after court to turn over documents related to the Jan 6th insurrection to the January 6th committee. He went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court told him to turn everything over. All justices except Thomas, of course. The documents were in the possession of NARA (National Archives).

NARA turned over what they had - but apparently even though Trump was ordered by the Supreme Court to turn everything over, it looks like some of the documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago were supposed to be turned over to NARA and then to the January 6th committee. Trump kept them

If this is true this means Trump defied SCOTUS and actively obstructed justice. We will have to wait to see what comes out, however Cohen has stated that this is exactly what Trump did.

#133 | Posted by YAV at 2022-09-23 08:37 PM | Reply

No, a moron relies on Rolling Stone magazine to feed him the "facts"

Ffkn parrot

#129 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The thing about FACTS is you can get them from places other than rolling stone.

You just wont hear them very often on the propaganda channels you listen to.

#134 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-09-23 08:39 PM | Reply

Rolling Stone articles are well sourced and often based on interviews. They're pointed, sure. But its easy enough to set that aside. Like most media.

#135 | Posted by horstngraben at 2022-09-23 08:47 PM | Reply

#129 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Nobody's refuting them with logic nor evidence, including you.

You're just choosing ignorance.

Swallow it.

#136 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-09-23 09:25 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort