[johnforbes]

"Speaking at the Georgia State GOP convention in Columbus, Georgia on Saturday, former President Trump highlighted the precedent set by the legal fight between Judicial Watch and former President Bill Clinton over audio tapes in Clinton's sock drawer that led to legal precedent regarding records held by former presidents."

Of course, Clowntroller has had it socked to him many times during his tawdry tenure in the dark depravity of the bawdy baths of fetid Frisco.

[Clownkicker]

"That theory is vigorously disputed by national security experts, including former National Archives litigation director Jason Baron, who is now a professor at the University of Maryland, and Bradley Moss of the Mark S. Zaid law firm.

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

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

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


johnforbe repeatedly claims to be a lawyer but he still doesn't understand the first thing about the law. Instead, he falls for any bit of legal propaganda thought up by incompetent two-bit legal minds. He honestly can't see a difference between government documents marked "CLASSIFIED" and a personal diary some guy dictates to himself.

We'll see how Trump fares taking his legal advice from such a dimwitted clown.

[johnforbes]

That is an interesting point, and it is true that an interview (on audiotape or whatever medium) is different.

However, when a president discusses foreign policy as Clinton did with Taylor Branch, it is really impossible not to get into classified matters because top-level diplomacy simply involves that.

But we all know that Obama took millions of pages of docs and stored them in an ordinary locked warehouse in the suburbs where pretty much any garden variety thief could have broken in, so none of this relates to actual questions of legal behavior or the lack thereof.

This is using the mechanisms of law enforcement against your future political foe and everyone knows it.

[Clownkicker]

"However, when a president discusses foreign policy as Clinton did with Taylor Branch, it is really impossible not to get into classified matters because top-level diplomacy simply involves that."-johnfiction

So you're saying Clinton should be prosecuted for keeping recordings in his sock drawer that were never classified. And you think that is comparable to Trump clearly having classified documents at his home? And you believe this because of your silly speculation about not what actually is on the recordings, but what COULD POSSIBLY be on them?

"Your honor, we a charging this guy with a crime because he might have committed a crime.." "No, we have no actual evidence to support the charges. But we have some speculation about it."-Republican prosecutor

It would never hold up in court, counselor. In fact, if you took such a ridiculous case into any court, you would be deafened by the guffaws of laughter coming from the bench.



"But we all know that Obama took millions of pages of docs and stored them in an ordinary locked warehouse in the suburbs..."-johnfibs

You made it up, johnny. Never happened. NARA has control of all those Obama documents and always did.

"Some 30 million documents were moved to a NARA-operated facility in the Chicago area, as the agency explained in a statement Friday, but none were classified."-AP

So it wasn't an "ordinary" warehouse, dummy. It was a NARA-operated warehouse, and they included NO classified documents. You simply made it up instead of asking those who know.


"This is using the mechanisms of law enforcement against your future political foe and everyone knows it."-johnfibs

No, everyone doesn't know it because you made it up. Trump committed crimes by his own admission. It would be a dereliction of duty NOT to prosecute him for those crimes. This is using the mechanisms of law enforcement against a criminal, as you agreed SHOULD be done.

[johnforbes]

No, that was their post facto attempt at a cleanup.

It has been alarmingly clear that Archives has been operating as yet another political entity when it should be, as operated with taxpayer dollars, totally neutral and bipartisan and objective and fair.

Bush Jr had millions of pages, and Obama took millions of pages, and really nobody knows whether there was a classified component to any of that.

Hunter's laptop has been in custody since 2019, loaded with salacious pictures and suggestions of bribery for access to power, and no charges have been filed, so it becomes difficult to pretend the Democrats care about national security.

Also, the Democrats gleefully let in SIX MILLION MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS SINCE 2021, and clearly don't care about national security.

[Clownkicker]

"Bush Jr had millions of pages, and Obama took millions of pages, and really nobody knows whether there was a classified component to any of that."-Disbarredjohnny

If "nobody knows" then why are you pretending you have reason to charge either of them with a crime, dimwit?

There absolutely IS evidence that Trump broke the law.

So evidently the law IS applied equally. When nobody has any evidence of a crime, there is no prosecution. When somebody HAS evidence of a crime, it is prosecuted.

And this is how it should be.

johnforbes really needs to take a few classes in the law.

[johnforbes]

Please, let's go back and review how the system functions.

Mr Forbes does not charge anybody from his vantage point on this fine forum.

Sure, Forbes has a clear, penetrating intellect, a solid education, and charming charisma, but he does not lodge charges from his peerless perch or his sagacious station.

[elklindo69]

Trump kept a copier in the same room with all of the nuclear secrets and war plans. That's probably why Prince Bone Saw for Arabia sent Jared a two billion dollar thank you note. That copier was the best investment that Trump ever made.

[Clownkicker]

Here's a Right Wing Republican telling johnforbes why his attempted distractions from Trump's crimes is nothing more than unprincipled diversion.

It doesn't matter what Clinton or Hillary or Biden may have done. The question is, should Trump be prosecuted for what HE has done?

“Is the answer to the double standard to let Donald Trump escape scot-free? Is the answer to the double standard to revert to no standard at all?” (As johnforbes suggests)

Let's hear from an actual conservative Republican, shall we?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... e520&ei=81
(The man speaks for himself in the imbedded video.)

[johnforbes]

Didn't Biden keep documents, including classified, in his garage since 1974?

Barr the other day was scoffing at Trump, but didn't Barr go to Harvard Law?

The 1917 Espionage Act was aimed at stopping World War 1 spies, and Trump was already through two years of exhaustive efforts to lynch him conducted by pro-Democrat Weissmann and senile Mueller.

This is not a case involving Natasha Fatale:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... ipo=images

[Clownkicker]

“Is the answer to the double standard to let Donald Trump escape scot-free? Is the answer to the double standard to revert to no standard at all?” (As johnforbes suggests)

johnny, your partisan diversion has already been addressed, dummy----- by serious Republicans even YOU can't claim are RINOs.

Whatever you believe the law was designed to do, it is still the law. (Though we are all aware of your contempt for the law.)

If Republicans don't like it, they can write a new law, can't they.

Heck, why should Trump adhere to the laws he campaigned on, saying he would enforce them more rigorously that Democrats do?

[johnforbes]

The Wall St Journal has an article from the lawyer who lost the Clinton sock drawer case,

He is a liberal, but provided an interesting discussion of what the Presidential Records Act allows