Passports taken in FBI search of Mar-a-Lago returned to Trump

First, the NARA has possession of all documents from the presidents you list. They followed all the protocols established at that time.

Second, with Bush Jrs executive order. Yes, it was ruled unconstitutional. However, that is a specific action to that executive order and no such specific action is applied to the Executive Orders in play when and how documents should be declassified. So, that argument is too null and void.

The NARA did not give anyone a pass. The NARA rented/owned that warehouse where the documents were located for the future Presidential Library of Obama. The key here is that the NARA owned them, had possession of them, controlled access to them, etc, and that they were not stuck in some private house basement Obama was living, were they? Again, a null and void argument.

Fourth, no that is not the case with so-called Constitutional Conservatives and RW politicians and rank and file. They don't want equal protection. That is the gimmick, the snake oil, they are selling. Most want two sets of rules. One for the other guys, and one for them so that they can hold on to power as long as possible no matter what. Not saying the Democrats are any better, but you have a false belief of what these guys really represent. It is also why you see and argue that the President is the ultimate authority and there what he says, goes with no if's, and's, or but's. And yet ignore all the required rules and procedures for doing such an action, among other things.

Finally, for over 200 years, political parties have been arguing about what is and what is not Constitutional from freedom of speech to freedom of religion to even the 14th and 15th amendments. So, nothing new here, but the ultimate authority, per the US Constitution isn't the executive branch, not the legislative branch, but the judicial branch. That is why those same constitutional conservatives are upset with equal protection for gay marriage, or for LGBTQ rights, and so forth. So they are not for equal protection.

 

I'm sorry, but bringing up Hitler makes you look desperate. For starters, Hitler was a Fascist, period, and an authoritarian as well. You can make up as many excuses as possible or I can use your argument against you on all Democratic politicians and make you look like Russia, China, or NK. Choice is yours

 

Yes, some people know him, and some people don't. I can guarantee you that an immigration officer in Country X is not going to give way to someone like Trump. He will still ask for the passport and so forth. Even Kobe Bryan was very famous in China, and well-liked, admired even by some, lusted after by a few girls. And yet, when he went through customs, they asked for his passport and he gladly obliged. When the Concorde for British Airways was flying, you could see Princess Diana on the plane if you were lucky enough to be on that flight. And yet, she too went through our customs and presented her passport to our authorities without even having a hissy fit.

but I take it you never traveled at all abroad on your own, have you?

 

Incompetent rebuttal, lacks substance. "you are wrong' is not an argument.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it's not an argument.

 

What still mystifies me, as someone with a passport, why were his passports stored with any documents? It's just something you keep secure.

 

Fatback wrote:
why did they put their grubby little mitts on his property

Whatever it is, it's sophomoric language.

weasel words, ie., vague generalities which cannot be substantiated, are not a merit worthy argument.

You appear to not be aware of the point being made, and so your comment is off point or misses the point I made to Fatback.

 

It's really a moot point. The Espionage charge on the warrant does not depend on any classification regime, only damage assessments.

 

It’s not an arguement, it’s a statement of obvious fact.

It’s like saying the sun came up this morning, it’s a statement of fact that is so obvious it needs no explanation, and the people who demand one are idiots.

 

Tds is not only strong, it is enduring and unsatiated.

 

Yes

 

Sorry, I don't have the time nor inclination to address each point, but all of them are either mischaracterizations or wrong. One, for drill and example, AFAIK constitutional conservatives are mixed and probably evenly divided over same sex marriage. However, they near unanimously correctly say mixed marriage is not a Constitutional question and therefore none of the SCOTUS' business.

 

Well, maybe that's 1.

 

That's a debatable claim. Sorry, that is what an argument is. It's not a self evident fact.

No 'you are wrong' claim is NOT a 'self-evident fact, unless, of course, you are claiming the sky is blue when it is blue and someone says it isn't.

But that is not what you are doing. Your 'you are wrong' is not obvious at all.

Only a brain dead moron cannot distinguish between a self evident truth and a debatable premise.

Only an ignorant imbecile wouldn't know that this is debate forum, of which the entire point to be here is to debate, not offer cop outs because they are too lazy to debate.

Only fool wouldn't know the difference between demanding and asking.

So, please tell this forum you are not a brain dead moron, ignorant imbecile, lazy fool, please please please say it isn't so.

 

LOL coming from anyone on the left that's rich. Take out Hitler if it makes you feelz better. Now do tell us which Rep President raided a an opponent's home again?

 

You really don't understand how all this works but if you want to think his passport might have some super-secret clue then have at it, I can't fix ignorance.

 

If they're going to charge an ex-POTUS with ESPIONAGE(!), then you had better have the goods!! And I'm not talking about taking home some paperwork he should have left at the office, I'm talking about secretly emailing Putin the blueprints for our nuclear subs, or the list of CIA spies in China to Xi. Not some petty ass paperwork snafu bullshit. And I'm not by any means limiting my comment about this to just Trump.

 

IF the DOJ indicts Trump, rest assured, they will have said 'goods'.

"IF".

Whether they will, no one knows but Garland.

I do believe, however, if there is the slightest doubt, Garland will give Trump the benefit of that doubt.

 

He's gotten way too much of that to the point of likely being above the law...

 

For my two cents, I believe an indictment has less than one chance in a million. Bear in mind an indictment is up to a district judge not Garland or any US attorney. On the other hand IMO there is a good chance Garland will file charges against Trump -- probably low enough charges that would not require a grand jury -- as a request for an indictment (which he won't get)