He is a known pot user.
Generally right on the big picture and nice guy, but gets very defensive when he is shown to be posting under the influence.

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Can you provide a link to the the respected constitutional scholar saying those appellate judges received a wink and nod from the DOJ about what their futures would look like if they ruled the "wrong" way?

---

www.doyourownresearch.com/getyourowninfosouces

---

You can't support your claim?

Article II and its Vesting Clause.

If we're saying Congress can meddle in the affairs of the Executive, we're not in a good place. As for him being a former president, I'd think any former president is now in danger of investigation as far as records of "national security" are concerned. We didn't prosecute these things because of their optics.

Im Gipper said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Can you provide a link to the the respected constitutional scholar saying those appellate judges received a wink and nod from the DOJ about what their futures would look like if they ruled the "wrong" way?

---

www.doyourownresearch.com/getyourowninfosouces

---

You can't support your claim?

---

Sorry buddy, my sources are mine. Whether it be for hippy lettuce or information.

You yourself say I am "generally right on the big picture". Most think I am indeed a nice guy, but I do get a terrible case of the ******* in me when I deal with folks who do not take the time to breathe deeply, inhale, and understand the actual facts and practicality of the issues at hand.

Namaste.

Quote:

---

Sorry buddy, my sources are mine

---

As aggiehawg has said: "link or are yuh lying?"

YOU made the claim a constitutional scholar said these things about the appellate judges.

Show your link or it's clear that you are LYING.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Sorry buddy, my sources are mine

---

As aggiehawg has said: "link or are yuh lying?"

YOU made the claim a constitutional scholar said these things about the appellate judges.

Show your link or it's clear thy are LYING.

---

Ok, I am lying. Got me.

You think your name calling matters to me? FBI is crawling all over this place and you want me to post sources. That's… funny.

Why lie about a DOJ that clearly is partisan? Isn't the Durham Report evidence of this? I did hear Robert Barnes mention what you're looking for today via a Rumble live-show. You may not like that source, but it's there.

the_batman26 said:

---

Article II and its Vesting Clause.

If we're saying Congress can meddle in the affairs of the Executive, we're not in a good place.

---

Congress as the legislative power gets to tell the executive what to do in a vast many ways. They make the rules, under Section 8. The executive's job generally is to go do what they're told. That includes making reports, maintaining records, etc. There are a great many laws in this space.

My take is also that Congress requiring the President not destroy records in no dictates how or prevents the President in executing any of his other duties, including those "solely" within his wheelhouse.


There is also generally a well-recognized interest in the public's knowledge about what they're government is and was up to. Hence, we have and long have had FOIA, PRA, FRA, etc.

the_batman26 said:

---

Why lie about a DOJ that clearly is partisan? Isn't the Durham Report evidence of this?

---

That's the thing. Some still blindly believe that even though it is clear via Durham report, Bragg nonsense, Bergdoff *****, Rufflestilsken in Georgia, and so on that if you do not have audio recording of what happened then it obviously didn't happen.

Even though time again and again over the last few years the unfathomable has proven to be normal course of business for DOJ / FBI / Biden Obama regime.

the_batman26 said:

---

Why lie about a DOJ that clearly is partisan? Isn't the Durham Report evidence of this?

---

Lie? Who?

Department of Justuce is EXTREMELY partisan. .

Quote:

---

Congress has long regulated government property. You are saying you believe the PRA as written is unconstitutional?

---

You are. Never applies to anyone unless they are sitting POTUS?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Congress has long regulated government property. You are saying you believe the PRA as written is unconstitutional?

---

You are. Never applies to anyone unless they are sitting POTUS?

---

Haven't seen anyone say that, although I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at anyways. I said PRA says they are to make presidential/personal determinations about documents while they are in office. That's in the plain text of the statute and plain text of court rulings.

Quote:

---

did hear Robert Barnes mention what you're looking for today via a Rumble live-show. You may not like that source, but it's there.

---

Thank you for this. I'll try to find tomorrow. You seem like a sharp guy. So I doubt you consider Barnes a top constitutional scholar. But still interested to hear this take.

Of course, the poster claimed Dershowitz said it. So we'll wait for the secret source on that.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

Article II and its Vesting Clause.

If we're saying Congress can meddle in the affairs of the Executive, we're not in a good place.

---

Congress as the legislative power gets to tell the executive what to do in a vast many ways. They make the rules, under Section 8. The executive's job generally is to go do what they're told. That includes making reports, maintaining records, etc. There are a great many laws in this space.

My take is also that Congress requiring the President not destroy records in no dictates how or prevents the President in executing any of his other duties, including those "solely" within his wheelhouse.


There is also generally a well-recognized interest in the public's knowledge about what they're government is and was up to. Hence, we have and long have had FOIA, PRA, FRA, etc.

---

Ok, but Trump did not DESTROY records. He is accused of possessing them, which he is (arguably) allowed to do so under the PRA and subsequent court cases.

This is not a case of Trump covering up a crime or other malfeasance through destruction of documents. This is a case of "we don't like that you have this information and we want it back" and then a decision of who can possess it at a point in time.

Funny fact, the docs in Trump's possession existed in various copies already in the government possession. So public interest of document retention has been preserved. That dramatically weakens the argument of him giving the docs back.

Edited to Add: Primary purpose of the PRA and other similar acts was the PRESERVATION of records. Not who gets to keep them and where.

How did I know you wouldn't like Barnes when I've only been in the politics forum for maybe 3 days max lol

It's the Viva-Frei show. Obviously it's leans right but it's better than LegalEagle on Youtube amognst other "trendy" legal pundits.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

did hear Robert Barnes mention what you're looking for today via a Rumble live-show. You may not like that source, but it's there.

---

Thank you for this. I'll try to find tomorrow. You seem like a sharp guy. So I doubt you consider Barnes a top constitutional scholar. But still interested to hear this take.

Of course, the poster claimed Dershowitz said it. So we'll wait for the secret source on that.

---

Wait as long as you want. Same regarding reason Trump lawyers quit. Same for why people have turned on Trump and will continue to do so. Threat of life being ruined is a powerful threat.

And you want it printed on a card and recorded on tape in order to believe it, despite time and time again being shown these things are occurring.

Keep your blinders on buddy, I am sure the road ahead is just as straight as the media tells you it is.

That argument was litigated last year, as most predicted, it failed fantastically, and for Trump's sake I sure hope he isn't depending on that moving forward

But you do you

TXAggie2011 said:

---

That argument was litigated last year, as most predicted, it failed fantastically, and for Trump's sake I sure hope he isn't depending on that moving forward

But you do you

---

I always do. Some of us have the intestinal fortitude, intelligence and wit to chart our own courses in life.

So I take it you're totally against Unitary Executive theory? No matter who the POTUS may be?

Quote:

---

Haven't seen anyone say that, although I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at anyways. I said PRA says they are to make presidential/personal determinations about documents while they are in office. That's in the plain text of the statute and plain text of court rulings.

---

Really? You going with that in light of the Berman court decision? Because that judge sure as hell didn't say that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Haven't seen anyone say that, although I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at anyways. I said PRA says they are to make presidential/personal determinations about documents while they are in office. That's in the plain text of the statute and plain text of court rulings.

---

Really? You going with that in light of the Berman court decision? Because that judge sure as hell didn't say that.

---

She absolutely said it.

Quote:

---

In the Court's view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

I know this crap seems to be more complicated than it should be but the difference on the EO that I and others were discussing, was particular to Trump's situation. And it had no criminal penalties attached.As EOs generally do not have as to Americans and foreigners within our physical jurisdiction, with the exception of diplomatic immunity.

---

Thanks for the clarification.

Apparently destroying records IS cooperating if you're a Clinton

But again (D)ouble standards

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

How did I know you wouldn't like Barnes when I've only been in the politics forum for maybe 3 days max lol

---

Why would anyone Ike Barnes? He's a fraud. Even tried to lie about representing Sandmann. He's definitely not anything close to being a con law expert.


On another note, this whole cottage industry of YouTube law, experts is laughable. Many of them had very little, if any, experience in the area of law, they are claiming to be experts on. Not talking about Barnes on this,

---

You can't deny they've found audiences and are profitable. They're routinely referenced on trial threads, even by our resident counsel.

Antifa put out a statement saying they will be in front of the Miami federal courthouse on Tuesday to celebrate Trump’s charges.

MAGA folks said they’re flying in to support Trump on his first court date— also planning to be in front of the Federal courthouse.

Heads up. Recipe…

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) June 12, 2023

will25u said:

---

Antifa put out a statement saying they will be in front of the Miami federal courthouse on Tuesday to celebrate Trump’s charges.

MAGA folks said they’re flying in to support Trump on his first court date— also planning to be in front of the Federal courthouse.

Heads up. Recipe…

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) June 12, 2023

---

Hopefully a giant sinkhole opens up and swallows everything for a 3 block radius.

the_batman26 said:

---

How did I know you wouldn't like Barnes when I've only been in the politics forum for maybe 3 days max lol

---

Its not that I don't like him, he's just trying to make a living. I don't consider him a top constitutional scholar. Do you? Does anyone for that matter?

Quote:

---

It's the Viva-Frei show. Obviously it's leans right but it's better than LegalEagle on Youtube amognst other "trendy" legal pundits.

---

Is this the Viva-Frei show you were referencing? Want to make sure before I spend 50 minutes listening! LOL. Thanks again!

GET THIS HIGHLIGHT TO TRUMP: @barnes_law breaks down the Federal indictment. pic.twitter.com/JZ045X0HTV

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) June 12, 2023

Don't expect to even see donald at the court. There's a tunnel system and no tv access in court.

Who is in command of Trump's detail? Biden is ultimately, correct?

Can Biden make changes to Trump's detail? That would be the next thing to look for. Replace Trump's selected detail with Biden loyalists.

They show they do not care about optics and accusations of weaponization. Hell, they will make up some story about how the SS detail was complicit in the boxes hoax.

That's the one. Many don't like Barnes but he made solid points on this whole thing.

Law scholars are a dime-a-dozen these days, it seems. We don't exactly have Holmes-es and Cardozos anymore.

will25u said:

---

Antifa put out a statement saying they will be in front of the Miami federal courthouse on Tuesday to celebrate Trump’s charges.

MAGA folks said they’re flying in to support Trump on his first court date— also planning to be in front of the Federal courthouse.

Heads up. Recipe…

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) June 12, 2023

---

It's going to be a carnival of stupidity and impotent rage.

the_batman26 said:

---

That's the one. Many don't like Barnes but he made solid points on this whole thing.

Law scholars are a dime-a-dozen these days, it seems. We don't exactly have Holmes-es and Cardozos anymore.

---

I'm not a big fan of Barnes but you are right, he did make some good points. One of which I have been wondering about regarding the forum shopping using dueling grand juries in both DC and Florida on the exact same matter.

Even without the shady misconduct in the DC grand jury, that was very questionable to me.

And his theory about Biden using Trump's indictment as justification for Biden pardoning Trump, himself, Hunter, etc. is interesting.

aggiehawg said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

That's the one. Many don't like Barnes but he made solid points on this whole thing.

Law scholars are a dime-a-dozen these days, it seems. We don't exactly have Holmes-es and Cardozos anymore.

---

I'm not a big fan of Barnes but you are right, he did make some good points. One of which I have been wondering about regarding the forum shopping using dueling grand juries in both DC and Florida on the exact same matter.

Even without the shady misconduct in the DC grand jury, that was very questionable to me.

And his theory about Biden using Trump's indictment as justification for Biden pardoning Trump, himself, Hunter, etc. is interesting.

---

This I could absolutely see. The great unifier standing there and saying "let's put all this nastiness aside, and bring everyone back together" then resign. He has to wake up from his root canal though or we are stuck with Kamala.