A question on the documents

When a president leaves office, he has enough classified information in his memory to sell us out if he wanted to. Prosecuting for having classified documents is not something one can honestly argue from a position of concern for national security. This is a political move. (AKA election interference.)

Biden, on the other hand will not have national secrets in his memory when leaving office. At this point, he can hide his own Easter eggs!

 

List them.

 

It doesn't matter, you will simply claim that whatever source is lying.

 

I never said that, to begin with.

What I said and factually so, the president has supreme classification authority and yes, he can declassify anything he chooses.

 

Then why is it criminal to do so? Why have others been prosecuted for doing so? Why should Trump be the sole exception? When has anyone been proven to have INTENTIONALLY retained this kind of document and not been prosecuted for it? The only political move I'm seeing here is from, well, you. You are trying to give him a political out. You are saying the law shouldn't apply to him because of his party.

 

The law he's being prosecuted under has nothing to do with classification level. But thank you for confirming you think that @popscott 's argument, that the President has such power, is complete bull ****.

 

You can't... LMAO!

You're believing whatever Jack Smith says because he's going after the Bad Orange Man.

 

Um, what law is he being charged with??

 

Lol, dude, Orange Man said he had the docs. Live with it.

 

Point proven.

 

He said they were declassified.

 

. . . you can't be ****ing serious. I apologize for assuming you were willing to treat this seriously in any way. So long.

 

We're you trying to prove you don't have a clue? If so, then yes, point proven...lol

 

You questioned whether or not he HAD them. Not whether or not they were still classified. He had them. And even his own lawyers aren't willing to advance the argument that he declassified them, by the way.

 

You said he isn't being charged under the Espionage Act. If not, then what law is he charged with?

 

Dude, you've openly admitted that you don't even know what the charges are. So don't lecture others about not having a clue.

 

Reading fail. I never said he wasn't charged under the Espionage Act. These refusals to read are getting really old.

 

I questioned whether, or not they were classified and I also question the origin of the documents that the FBI produced as evidence.

 

Yes, that's what you pivoted to, changing your tune, when you realized your original claim was baseless. It's called shifting the goalposts.

 

No, you said he isn't charged under the Espionage Act. Tell us what he's charged with....

 

The rules won't allow me to say what you're doing...lol

 

Another reading fail. I didn't say he wasn't charged under the Espionage Act. He was. I said the prosecution has nothing to do with classification level. It doesn't. Read.

 

The Espionage Act is about classified documents...lol

 

Same. I'll have to limit myself to observing that you refuse to read my posts before "responding" and that you are shifting the goalposts.

 

If you had read the charges (you haven't) you'd know that isn't what the Espionage Act charges are about. It's about national security documents. Classification has nothing to do with the charges.