(09-12-2022 05:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 05:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The leaks are coming back to bite Garland in the ass. Trumps team points out the hypocrisy of their claiming the documents are too sensitive for a special master to look at when they are leaking what the documents are about:

And I've been saying this ever since NARA rushed a "corrective" statement out that all of Obamas records were at NARA. NARA initially said they had all of Obamas documents, then backtracked and said they had all of the documents, but some were still in Chicago. So its like they tried to say Trump withheld documents whereas Obama didnt, yet Obama withheld them as well.

This statement is a kick to the gonads of Tanq contention that Trump doesnt have a right to the documents.

Thats because he's simply emotionally irrational on the issue of Trump. He doesnt even understand this is a marginal case. It literally lives in the margins of constitutional law. This is NOT about you or me---or even Hillary. This is about a former president and the inside baseball mechanics of the transfer of power. A president is the personification of the Executive Branch. Even the legal validity of the code violations the warrant is based on are in question when used against a president (or ex-president). There are questions as to whether a sitting president can waive the executive privilege of a former president. The current case literally hinges on questions of constitutional authority between branches and even within branches. The idea it is not a marginal case is preposterous. The ONLY reason you waste time and DOJ resources on this is for purely political reasons.

ONLY for political reasons. Not having anything to do with some ******* who stores highly classified information in the basement of a hotel, blows of subpoenas on it, and lies to the investigators when they show up.

ONLY political reasons. Got it. Lolz.

You think Trump and his attorneys have a Constitutional defense on lying about the presence of the documents? A "marginal" one indeed. Please do tell.

I dont think I have ever heard of a Constitutional rationale for plain old obstruction, plain old perjury, and plain old lying to a Federal agent. Cant wait to hear this one.......