the_batman26 said:

---

You clearly do, when it's the same topic you've been on for the last hour lol. I even used your own language.

---

I don't know what you're asking or why you're saying I've responded to you before.

What question did you ask that you didn't like my response to? More than happy to try to answer with my opinion

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gee.

Now I know I was a much better lawyer than you are.

That's pretty much out there. Was that a joke?

---

If you agree the PRA is pretty much irrelevant at this point, save us all some time and stop *****ing about it

---

Why would I agree that Trump was never a President and because of that the PRA never applied?

Because that is what you are saying. PRA doesn not apply to Trump, and to only Trump only.

I asked why, on legal grounds, you hold that opinion?

---

I have never said the PRA doesn't apply to Trump. Does that help?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gee.

Now I know I was a much better lawyer than you are.

That's pretty much out there. Was that a joke?

---

If you agree the PRA is pretty much irrelevant at this point, save us all some time and stop *****ing about it

---

Why would I agree that Trump was never a President and because of that the PRA never applied?

Because that is what you are saying. PRA doesn not apply to Trump, and to only Trump only.

I asked why, on legal grounds, you hold that opinion?

---

I have never said the PRA doesn't apply to Trump. Does that help?

---

So it applies but is irrelevant. Got it. Walk me through this expert logic / counsel again?

You mentioned "a federal judge did not say the POTUS has wide discretion (especially after he's out of office) to define what's a presidential and personal record."

If not NARA either, who does?

If it was all pra **** then they would have sued when subpoenaed instead of lying.

PRA is just the loudest internet argument now that there is a tape where Trump says **** is still classified.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

So, again, who has power to assert sweeping authority? If not NARA? I'd like an answer this time instead of "well, idk but Judicial Watch holds NARA can't."

---

I don't know what I'm talking about

---

FIFY

Heated much?

Manhattan said:

---

If it was all pra **** then they would have sued when subpoenaed instead of lying.

PRA is just the loudest internet argument now that there is a tape where Trump says **** is still classified.

---

Buddy, I posted the original "Mar-a-Lago Raided by FBI" thread that disappeared. Within the first couple of pages I referenced the PRA and provided links and quotes of the text.

I said then the PRA was at the heart of the issue.

So do not try and say PRA is just the current "chatter". It was at the center of the issue day one. But Rachel Maddow skipped that part of her research.

the_batman26 said:

---

You mentioned "a federal judge did not say the POTUS has wide discretion (especially after he's out of office) to define what's a presidential and personal record."

If not NARA either, who does?

---

No one has wide discretion, outside of Congress, I suppose, because Congress wrote and can change the definitions.

POTUS gets to make decisions (when they are in office) but they are not without the constraint of the law, via the possible judicial review of "initial…decisions."

Ah, you're the guy that kept kicking and screaming at all of us telling you Trump's civil suit was going nowhere.

Yes, you've got a great track record. I'm listening much more closely now

TXAggie2011 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

You mentioned "a federal judge did not say the POTUS has wide discretion (especially after he's out of office) to define what's a presidential and personal record."

If not NARA either, who does?

---

No one has wide discretion, outside of Congress, I suppose, because Congress wrote and can change the definitions.

POTUS gets to make decisions (when they are in office) but they are not without the constraint of the law, via judicial review of "initial…decisions."

---

You seem to have missed the part where we are governed ultimately by the US Constitution, not Congress.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ah, you're the guy that kept kicking and screaming at all of us telling you Trump's civil suit was going nowhere.

Yes, you've got a great track record. I'm listening much more closely now

---

The lying Bergdorf *****? Yea, it will be overturned on appeal. It has HUGE flaws. Again, our justice system is to be applied equally. In that case, it most certainly did not.

Next…?

Except Congress can't either. That's a definite no.

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ah, you're the guy that kept kicking and screaming at all of us telling you Trump's civil suit was going nowhere.

Yes, you've got a great track record. I'm listening much more closely now

---

The lying Bergdorf *****? Yea, it will be overturned on appeal. It has HUGE flaws. Again, our justice system is to be applied equally. In that case, it most certainly did not.

Next…?

---

No, the PRA case which the 11th Circuit slapped down and SCOTUS refused to review

It shouldn't have gone anywhere, but your camp will do anything to punish the man for mean tweets lol

Thank you for not addressing my first sentence shows how scared you are if your idol actually doing something wrong.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ah, you're the guy that kept kicking and screaming at all of us telling you Trump's civil suit was going nowhere.

Yes, you've got a great track record. I'm listening much more closely now

---

The lying Bergdorf *****? Yea, it will be overturned on appeal. It has HUGE flaws. Again, our justice system is to be applied equally. In that case, it most certainly did not.

Next…?

---

No, the PRA case which the 11th Circuit slapped down and SCOTUS refused to review

---

Oh, that one. well, yes, given that again the scuttle is those appellate judges received a wink and nod from the DOJ about what their futures would look like if they ruled the "wrong" way. Even guys like Dershowitz have pointed that out.

Man you are lost.

His counsel doesn't have to present it at subpoena though.

the_batman26 said:

---

It shouldn't have gone anywhere, but your camp will do anything to punish the man for mean tweets lol

---

Trump filed it, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Manhattan said:

---

Thank you for not addressing my first sentence shows how scared you are if your idol actually doing something wrong.

---

I don't think Trump has missed a step in the process. The DOJ, the White House and NARA have missed a few steps, but cards are played when they are needed.

The DOJ is so far outside norms and precedent that the wisest course is to let them play their hand first, then decide how to respond.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

It shouldn't have gone anywhere, but your camp will do anything to punish the man for mean tweets lol

---

Trump filed it, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

---

You could be honest and correctly state the SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal at that point, not "refused to hear it" indicating that the appeal was not valid.

My point is it's clear this lawfare is being sprung after 7+ of years of *trying* to find something to strip him from power. You don't have to like the man personally to see it's childish nitpicking.

the_batman26 said:

---

Except Congress can't either. That's a definite no.

---

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

Quote:

---

Oh, that one. well, yes, given that again the scuttle is those appellate judges received a wink and nod from the DOJ about what their futures would look like if they ruled the "wrong" way. Even guys like Dershowitz have pointed that out.

---

LOL. Cannon was rightfully smacked down for her baseless ruling.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh, that one. well, yes, given that again the scuttle is those appellate judges received a wink and nod from the DOJ about what their futures would look like if they ruled the "wrong" way. Even guys like Dershowitz have pointed that out.

---

LOL. Cannon was rightfully snacked down for her baseless ruling.

---

That's your take, but it's not the one most well experienced constitutional scholars take.

Don't let the Trump hate misguide you here.

Separation of Powers Doctrine is doctrine for a reason.

Typical response. You don't know the ruling, so revert to the "you hate Trump" crutch.

I don't hate Trump. Have said several times he's getting screwed here and MAL should not have been raided.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

Except Congress can't either. That's a definite no.

---

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

---

Are the diapers Biden wears government property?

Are the panties of little girls who visit the White House to see Uncle Pedo Joe government property?

If so, our Republican House should be able to subpoena those things. Instead, the FBI refuses to even let them peak at UNCLASSIFIED docs known to be in their possession.

"Congress has long regulated government property" doesn't even make sense. Again, we have a Constitution which mentions something about 3 separate but equal branches of government and such.

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh, that one. well, yes, given that again the scuttle is those appellate judges received a wink and nod from the DOJ about what their futures would look like if they ruled the "wrong" way. Even guys like Dershowitz have pointed that out.

---

LOL. Cannon was rightfully snacked down for her baseless ruling.

---

That's your take, but it's not the one most well experienced constitutional scholars take.

Don't let the Trump hate misguide you here.

---

The 11th Circuit (with 2/3 being Trump appointees was unanimous) both in their September and their December rulings, the 11th Circuit declined en banc review, and SCOTUS also "declined" to review it.

But sure.

fireinthehole said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Can't bring myself to care after reading the indictment.

Trump gets hammered by the DOJ and media but the guy just isn't smart. He brings a lot of it on himself.

If he goes down for something like this, that's on him. And it is another piece of evidence that he, Biden and Clinton should not be running the country.

---

Who do you think should "run" the country?

---

We the People

Im Gipper said:

---

Typical response. You don't know the ruling, so revert to the "you hate Trump" crutch.

I don't hate Trump. Have said several times he's getting screwed here and MAL should not have been raided.

---

I do know the ruling little fella.

Maybe it's not the Trump hate that misguides you, it may be some other affliction.

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?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh, that one. well, yes, given that again the scuttle is those appellate judges received a wink and nod from the DOJ about what their futures would look like if they ruled the "wrong" way. Even guys like Dershowitz have pointed that out.

---

LOL. Cannon was rightfully snacked down for her baseless ruling.

---

That's your take, but it's not the one most well experienced constitutional scholars take.

Don't let the Trump hate misguide you here.

---

The 11th Circuit (with 2/3 being Trump appointees was unanimous) both in their September and their December rulings, the 11th Circuit declined en banc review, and SCOTUS also "declined" to review it.

But sure.

---

So to confirm, federal judges should always rule favorably based on who appointed them. If they don't, that means they were super duper judicious in their decisions?

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

the_batman26 said:

---

Separation of Powers Doctrine is doctrine for a reason.

---

And Congress has a lot of powers, including creating rules for the government, amongst others.

What powers does a (former, no longer the) President have which are infringed by Congress saying records must be preserved?