jteAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

A sitting POTUS is not bound by any laws of the United States except as provided for under the US Constitution explicitly. Any alleged violation of those laws for a sitting POTUS is the impeachment process.

POTUS is the Executive Branch. He is not head of it, he IS the Executive. As such, he is not bound by any of his rules he creates or that were created prior to him assuming office.

You may not like those facts, but its clear as day in the US Constitution. In fact, its is that way to prevent the sort of ****nannery we are seeing now.

However, since these allegations of inappropriate handling of incumbent POTUS records has occurred after he was no longer in office, there will be a debate on whether the PRA supersedes the Espionage Act. That will likely wind up at SCOTUS and for the sake of our Country then DJT should prevail.

Quit watching CNN to get your talking points folks. We are in brand new territory and the most literal interpretation should prevail. If Dems want to block Trump from running, charge him with Treason, impeach & convict him, of shut the ever living f up for once.

We have elections for a reason. Jailing your political opponents is sort of counter-productive to democratic norms and elections.

---

The taking of a public record or document is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 641. The destruction of such records may be reached under 18 U.S.C. 1361. In both instances, however, proving a $100 loss, the prerequisite to a felony conviction, may be difficult. Thus, neither of these statutes adequately protects government records.

The necessary measure of protection for government documents and records is provided by 18 U.S.C. 2071. Section 2071(a) contains a broad prohibition against destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records. This section provides that whoever: willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2, 000 fine, or both

---

What part of "not bound by any of the laws of the United States" is difficult for you?

If Trump is sent to jail, he'll appeal. So that means he'll have access to his lawyer right? Can he still run for president with his lawyer distributing his message. And pardon himself once elected. If Biden won campaigning from his basement, Trump can win campaigning from jail.

If Trump wins the nomination from jail, pretty dewshy move by Biden not to pardon him and let the American people hear from him and debate.

Fun to think about

Not sure what you are looking for. Prior to the PRA, all presidents kept all documents. Period. For 200 years.

After Nixon debacle, SCOTUS muddied the waters with their rulings.

The PRA attempted to establish a process. A subsequent SCOTUS ruling provided for STRONG deference to be given to incumbent POTUS as to what they can keep and what belongs to the "people".

None of this crap is fun

MagnumLoad said:

---

jteAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

A sitting POTUS is not bound by any laws of the United States except as provided for under the US Constitution explicitly. Any alleged violation of those laws for a sitting POTUS is the impeachment process.

POTUS is the Executive Branch. He is not head of it, he IS the Executive. As such, he is not bound by any of his rules he creates or that were created prior to him assuming office.

You may not like those facts, but its clear as day in the US Constitution. In fact, its is that way to prevent the sort of ****nannery we are seeing now.

However, since these allegations of inappropriate handling of incumbent POTUS records has occurred after he was no longer in office, there will be a debate on whether the PRA supersedes the Espionage Act. That will likely wind up at SCOTUS and for the sake of our Country then DJT should prevail.

Quit watching CNN to get your talking points folks. We are in brand new territory and the most literal interpretation should prevail. If Dems want to block Trump from running, charge him with Treason, impeach & convict him, of shut the ever living f up for once.

We have elections for a reason. Jailing your political opponents is sort of counter-productive to democratic norms and elections.

---

The taking of a public record or document is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 641. The destruction of such records may be reached under 18 U.S.C. 1361. In both instances, however, proving a $100 loss, the prerequisite to a felony conviction, may be difficult. Thus, neither of these statutes adequately protects government records.

The necessary measure of protection for government documents and records is provided by 18 U.S.C. 2071. Section 2071(a) contains a broad prohibition against destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records. This section provides that whoever: willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2, 000 fine, or both

---

What part of "not bound by any of the laws of the United States" is difficult for you?

---

They are also ignoring that the PRA is a law just as equally as the US Code they cite.

They think cause it says "US Code" then whatever it says goes. No, we have a Constitution that says otherwise.

Trying to understand why you belive the law would allow for a president to claim personal ownership over classified national security information. What I can gather from your response is that the law doesn't say explicitly, but a SCOTUS ruling allowed for broad interpretation and deference to SCOTUS. What ruling are you referring to?

Sorry, but as long as they believe themselves to be abiding by their oath of office, they are indeed above the law.

This is kept in check by the impeachment process.

It's all right there in one document if you ever want to read it. Commonly referred to as the Constitution of the United States.

Deference to incumbent POTUS (in this case Trump).

It's a complicated history of the PRMPA, Nixon, SCOTUS ruling on Nixon, the PRA, then EOs of varying degree and conflict from Reagan on.

There have been several cases. Believe all give deference to incumbent POTUS.

I am not teaching you a glass on this. You can research yourself and form your own conclusions.

Way more fun to consider secret service detail in prison. And how the provide for his Office of the FPOTUS. Conjugals with Melania, Bug Mac deliveries, and how much of his $400k in salary gets credited to the commissary.

Libs have this all sorted out for sure.

It's complicated. Got it. Hopefully Trump's lawyers figure it out in time.

Thanks for your help.

I will caveat, these are my conclusions and I am happy to listen to people who have info to the contrary as there are lots of assumptions, but we are way past precedent on this stuff. Way.

So almost all case law will not apply. It's going to get down to what each justice at SCOTUS believes about these records.

Judging by their prior **** shows, they likely reach some bizarre middle ground then punt it back for "Congress to solve".

Congress should, but it should be done in the form of a constitutional amendment put to vote by the states / public.

fka ftc said:

---

Sorry, but as long as they believe themselves to be abiding by their oath of office, they are indeed above the law.

This is kept in check by the impeachment process.

It's all right there in one document if you ever want to read it. Commonly referred to as the Constitution of the United States.

---

Sorry, I agree with you on Trump being rail-roaded, but the statement that presidents are above the law doesn't hold any water. The federal judiciary routinely rules that the president has violated the law and they order him to change course. It's happened to every president in the modern era. And they all comply with the courts and then look for a legal way around it, or work with Congress to change the law so that it's no longer a valid point.

fka ftc said:

---

A sitting POTUS is not bound by any laws of the United States except as provided for under the US Constitution explicitly. Any alleged violation of those laws for a sitting POTUS is the impeachment process.

POTUS is the Executive Branch. He is not head of it, he IS the Executive. As such, he is not bound by any of his rules he creates or that were created prior to him assuming office.

• IANAL: But is seems this is the very point Mark Levin has been citing on his radio show. He is a lawyer and I would trust his judgement more than most posters on this board.

You may not like those facts, but its clear as day in the US Constitution. In fact, its is that way to prevent the sort of ****nannery we are seeing now.

However, since these allegations of inappropriate handling of incumbent POTUS records has occurred after he was no longer in office, there will be a debate on whether the PRA supersedes the Espionage Act. That will likely wind up at SCOTUS and for the sake of our Country then DJT should prevail.

• If I understood correctly Mark Levin also brought up the inappropriate use of the Espionage Act against the President in order to elevate a potential civil violation into a criminal violation.

Quit watching CNN to get your talking points folks. We are in brand new territory and the most literal interpretation should prevail. If Dems want to block Trump from running, charge him with Treason, impeach & convict him, of shut the ever living f up for once.

We have elections for a reason. Jailing your political opponents is sort of counter-productive to democratic norms and elections.

---

President Trump, on the face of it, is a self promoting narcissist and a rude person but no where does that justify the total bull**** he is going through.

The Green Dragon said:

---

Here's the final score:

1. The DOJ and the democrats were going to find their crime. Trump is reckless, brash and gave them plenty of avenues. The DOJ is corrupt.

2. Trump likely broke the law.

---

He committed espionage?

the_batman26 said:

---

Precisely. People who didn't, fortunately, sit through an Admin Law class read something foreboding like "Executive Order" and think it's this all powerful thing, when it's not.

---

Well to be honest, in the past it wasn't, but the Democratic Party leadership is redefining the meaning of "Executive Order" in an effort to destroy the Constitutional Republic. They and others want total control by the Federal government and to hell with the rights and authorities of the States and People.

A small example is the courts allowing the "partial" overturning of previous E.O.s in relation to DACA

Court declares DACA program illegal, but leaves policy intact for nearly 600,000 immigrant "Dreamers" BY CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ

• A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the Obama administration did not have the legal authority to create DACA in 2012, affirming a July 2021 ruling from a federal judge in Texas who barred the Biden administration from enrolling new immigrants in the decade-old program.
• Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said he was "deeply disappointed" by Wednesday's court decision, denouncing the "ongoing uncertainty it creates for families and communities across the country." He said his department would continue processing DACA renewal cases.

Yes, I bet "Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said he was "deeply disappointed" since this miscreant is for total control and illegal elimination of political rivals.

Government by Executive Order is fundamentally a totalitarian exercise of authority.

The Green Dragon said:

---

Here's the final score:

1. The DOJ and the democrats were going to find their crime. Trump is reckless, brash and gave them plenty of avenues. The DOJ is corrupt.

2. Trump likely broke the law.

---

yes on (1) no on (2).

That said, this is a former President. Not some career politician or business person or whatever.

The people heading up this stunt are bat **** insane.

Courts in those instances are referring two different orders on the basis of what authority each branch has.

Shall we play a game? So let's take homicide (to differentiate from murder). If President commits murder of his wife, and let's assume Melania was a foreign spy and Trump strangled her.

Let me know if he gets charged, by whom, and who determines if he was justified, was mistaken, is he impeached? What if she was a double agent and Trump committed treason by killing a US agent?

You may think my example comical or even insane, but these are of the level we are discussing.

Not whether or not someone can call someone's farm a wetland because a bird took a **** in their pasture.

EOs are only valid if they are "lawful" and do not conflict with the constitutional authority of Congress.

This is pay back for previous political moves. A few include, Bill Clinton Impeachment, Obama being stiffed on MG appointment to SC, HC not being elected pres, and Hunter Biden laptop. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Once a Rep (if ever) gets into office, watch the gamesmanship change. There are a growing number of Rep willing to play this game. The government is full of orders and documents that contradict one another leaving loopholes. However, The DEMS are playing in those loop holes they will soon regret. All this crap does is weakens a nation.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Sorry, but as long as they believe themselves to be abiding by their oath of office, they are indeed above the law.

This is kept in check by the impeachment process.

It's all right there in one document if you ever want to read it. Commonly referred to as the Constitution of the United States.

---

Sorry, I agree with you on Trump being rail-roaded, but the statement that presidents are above the law doesn't hold any water. The federal judiciary routinely rules that the president has violated the law and they order him to change course. It's happened to every president in the modern era. And they all comply with the courts and then look for a legal way around it, or work with Congress to change the law so that it's no longer a valid point.

---

Interesting point, thank you. So how many Presidents have been indicted for said violations of the law? Shouldn't all these Presidents that routinely violate the law been indicted for routinely violating the law?

Not a Fox watcher but saw a couple of clips from their shows today on YouTube. Some of their regular legal contributors sound less than optimistic.

fka ftc said:

---

EOs are only valid if they are "lawful" and do not conflict with the constitutional authority of Congress.

---

I agree, however, the case I cited the courts ruled the EO was indeed unlawful yet let it stand for 600,00 DACA exemptions. Again, IANAL so this is very confusing. Unlawful, but lawful for 600,000?

agAngeldad said:

---

This is pay back for previous political moves. A few include, Bill Clinton Impeachment, Obama being stiffed on MG appointment to SC, HC not being elected pres, and Hunter Biden laptop. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Once a Rep (if ever) gets into office, watch the gamesmanship change. There are a growing number of Rep willing to play this game. The government is full of orders and documents that contradict one another leaving loopholes. However, The DEMS are playing in those loop holes they will soon regret. All this crap does is weakens a nation.

---

Dangerous game they are playing and foolish. I was reading some more about that FD 1023 which the FBI had in June 2020. Note that date was after they had Hunter's laptop but months before it went public in October 2020 and was suppressed. Nobody outside of the Biden circle had ever heard of the reference "the big guy" for Joe Biden before October. But that CHS heard that precise term for Joe Biden from the owner of Burisma telling him about the 5 million dollar bribes to Joe and Hunter. Zlochevsky also boasted it would have taken ten years for people to be able to trace the funds due to all of the different accounts they laundered the bribes through.

That is quite a damning corroboration, in my view.

LINK

Glass houses comes to mind.

"Were going to find a crime"

That should concern you or any candidate going forward. But yes: this means no more mean tweets.

richardag said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Sorry, but as long as they believe themselves to be abiding by their oath of office, they are indeed above the law.

This is kept in check by the impeachment process.

It's all right there in one document if you ever want to read it. Commonly referred to as the Constitution of the United States.

---

Sorry, I agree with you on Trump being rail-roaded, but the statement that presidents are above the law doesn't hold any water. The federal judiciary routinely rules that the president has violated the law and they order him to change course. It's happened to every president in the modern era. And they all comply with the courts and then look for a legal way around it, or work with Congress to change the law so that it's no longer a valid point.

---

Interesting point, thank you. So how many Presidents have been indicted for said violations of the law? Shouldn't all these Presidents that routinely violate the law been indicted for routinely violating the law?

---

As I said, I agree that he's being railroaded on politically-driven charges. Absolute disgrace.

Just because past presidents (and the current one) haven't been indicted, doesn't mean they're above the law. It just means that judges and prosecutors typically work with them in good faith to uphold the law. They didn't work with Trump in good faith... instead they pursued a political witch hunt.

Just calling it like it is. That doesn't swing me to becoming a Trump supporter. For a variety of reasons, he's a disaster for another run at the White House. Someone else like DeSantis is a better choice. But Trump is being screwed here, and these commie Dem tyrants need to be held accountable. When the balance of power swings -- and it will eventually -- the Republicans need to extract payback. Cold. And. Hard.

If the IRS, FBI, CIA, etc ever decide they want to remove you they will find a crime to do it with. They can already surveil your phone calls, texts, internet activity, bank accounts, posts on social media, etc. If they can't find an allegation they will then entrap you into committing one. If they don't have probable cause facts to get a warrant they'll find a liar to come up with false facts and then swear to it before a federal judge so they can search you or arrest you. If they still don't have enough they'll fabricate an arrest of one of your associates and threaten him with prison if he doesn't flip on you with false testimony. These people are ruthless. And nothing will happen to them later when their lies are discovered.

If they decide you are a threat to their power or that of say a school board your day may very well be coming. They have laws like RICO, conspiracy and interstate commerce with big penalties that are very vague and definitions that are very broad. The umbrella of their lawfare is huge. Show them the man and they will find a crime. If they charge you and you fight back they will find another allegation and keep going until you run out of money and are broken. But if they discover you are on their side, it won't matter to them what the evidence is. You won't even be investigated much less charged with anything.

It is Donald Trump today. Who will it be tomorrow? Let's put Trump back in office if he is not already in prison so he can wreak havoc on these devils. You are I are next. What is the statute of limitations on your tax returns? Or does that really matter? They can always find a loophole and a corrupt prosecutor/law enforcement officer like Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, Weisman, McCabe, Comey, Wray or Merrick Garland, etc, to exploit it. And a jury friendly to their side somewhere.

Remember Lois Lerner? This is where we are headed in America. And don't run for office if you are a God fearing, conservative patriot. If you overcome their election fraud and win, they are coming for you especially. They hate Trump for a reason and all his 70,000,000 plus MAGA Americans. You stand in the way of all their progressive, global communist plans.

jteAg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

jteAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

A sitting POTUS is not bound by any laws of the United States except as provided for under the US Constitution explicitly. Any alleged violation of those laws for a sitting POTUS is the impeachment process.

POTUS is the Executive Branch. He is not head of it, he IS the Executive. As such, he is not bound by any of his rules he creates or that were created prior to him assuming office.

You may not like those facts, but its clear as day in the US Constitution. In fact, its is that way to prevent the sort of ****nannery we are seeing now.

However, since these allegations of inappropriate handling of incumbent POTUS records has occurred after he was no longer in office, there will be a debate on whether the PRA supersedes the Espionage Act. That will likely wind up at SCOTUS and for the sake of our Country then DJT should prevail.

Quit watching CNN to get your talking points folks. We are in brand new territory and the most literal interpretation should prevail. If Dems want to block Trump from running, charge him with Treason, impeach & convict him, of shut the ever living f up for once.

We have elections for a reason. Jailing your political opponents is sort of counter-productive to democratic norms and elections.

---

The taking of a public record or document is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 641. The destruction of such records may be reached under 18 U.S.C. 1361. In both instances, however, proving a $100 loss, the prerequisite to a felony conviction, may be difficult. Thus, neither of these statutes adequately protects government records.

The necessary measure of protection for government documents and records is provided by 18 U.S.C. 2071. Section 2071(a) contains a broad prohibition against destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records. This section provides that whoever: willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2, 000 fine, or both

---

What part of "not bound by any of the laws of the United States" is difficult for you?

---

Please, please tell me you don't really believe the President is not subject to any law in the U.S.
I mean, nobody can be that naive.
What are we now, Nazi Germany, where the Fuhrer get away with…. Anything?

---

Quote: "Nobody F* with a Biden" The current regime also seems to think so.

Do you remember that classified documents were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop and do you remember what happened after that? That's right - nothing.

Quote:

---

I agree, however, the case I cited the courts ruled the EO was indeed unlawful yet let it stand for 600,00 DACA exemptions. Again, IANAL so this is very confusing. Unlawful, but lawful for 600,000?

---

An ex post facto type of argument. It was in effect, i.e. "lawful" until it was later ruled "unlawful." People are entitled to rely upon what is "lawful" behavior according to the law in effect at the time. When the law gets changed or goes away, their formerly "lawful" behavior cannot become "unlawful" behavior after the fact.

Yes, it is screwy but there is a principle behind that reasoning.

Some documents….and then some.

Bryanisbest said:

---

If the IRS, FBI, CIA, etc ever decide they want to remove you they will find a crime to do it with. They can already surveil your phone calls, texts, internet activity, bank accounts, posts on social media, etc. If they decide you are a threat to their power or that of say a school board your day May very well be coming. They have laws like RICO, conspiracy and interstate commerce with big penalties that are very vague and definitions that are very broad. The umbrella of their lawfare is huge. Show them the man and they will find a crime. If they charge you and you fight back they will find another crime and keep going until you are destroyed. It is Donald Trump today. Who will it be tomorrow? Let's put Trump back in office if he is not already in prison so he can wreak havoc on these devils. You are I are next. What is the statute of limitations on your tax returns? Remember Lois Lerner? This is where we are headed in America. And don't run for office if you are a God fearing, conservative patriot. They are coming for us all. They hate Trump and all his 70,000,000 plus MAGA Americans.

---

The feds will simply plant child porn on a person's device and then arrest them with CNN in tow and broadcast to the world that they're a pedophile with a massive child porn collection.

I grew up in the 80s and loved Ronald Reagan and believed that America was the greatest nation in the world, and it was!

40+ years later America is the epicenter of evil in the world and our government is beyond corrupt.

Here's the good news. Put your faith in Christ and follow him rather than this evil world. Remember, God laughs at the wicked and they will pay a devastating price for their lives of extreme sin and mistreatment of common people. The wicked leaders of America are trading the unimaginable riches of Heaven in exchange for, essentially, a cup of soup here on Earth. They are fools. The joke's on them.

Psalms 37:13-15
but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
for he sees that his day is coming.
14 The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows
to bring down the poor and needy,
to slay those whose way is upright;
15 their sword shall enter their own heart,
and their bows shall be broken.

Quote:

---

When the balance of power swings -- and it will eventually -- the Republicans need to extract payback. Cold. And. Hard.

---

I used to be of the opposite camp. Wallowing in the mud with the pigs just means you both get dirty. And I am repeatedly on record during the Mueller crappola that we just need the rule of law to be trusted and not used as a political weapon.

We are so far passed that particular Rubicon, I really don't know how we can get back to where we were and should be.

If just having a corrupt* prosecutor arrange for an indictment of one's political opponents is where we are, then we are fooked.

*Jack Smith is a Nifong type of guy. Why he was sent over to Europe because they tolerate those types better than we used to. If you don't know who Jack Smith is and why he was smacked down 9-0 by SCOTUS for hi prosecutorial misconduct, look it up. He should have been disbarred and forbiden from working for any government, federal, state and local ever again, a looong time ago. He almost makes Weissmann look more ethical.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree, however, the case I cited the courts ruled the EO was indeed unlawful yet let it stand for 600,00 DACA exemptions. Again, IANAL so this is very confusing. Unlawful, but lawful for 600,000?

---

An ex post facto type of argument. It was in effect, i.e. "lawful" until it was later ruled "unlawful." People are entitled to rely upon what is "lawful" behavior according to the law in effect at the time. When the law gets changed or goes away, their formerly "lawful" behavior cannot become "unlawful" behavior after the fact.

Yes, it is screwy but there is a principle behind that reasoning.

---

Thanks for the reply. I may be completely confused but I was thinking about your post
[url=https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3382073/replies/65024743] 1:44p [/url]

Quote:

---

Executive Orders are more of an Admin Law thing anyway. Not sure why armchair JDs are giving it such weight.

---

My point is that even violating an EO is not converted into an act of espionage by the EOs own terms.

In my feeble mind, seems that until a challenge is made in court the legality of an EO seems undetermined. They seemingly are using an EO for something other than what is was intended for to harass President Trump.