Just something to consider in the docs case.

Quote the "rule." But funny how you openly admit that he's ****ed on the evidence and can only be saved if the evidence is shelved. Great job!

 

You LITERALLY just said his only hope was for the facts to NOT come out!

 

Quote me saying that. Are you still having a hard time figuring out what "literally" means?...lol

 

Like I said, don't ever tell someone else to stay on topic.

 

That was the excuse you offered. Remember? The only hope you could come up was that maybe the case would get delayed long enough so that the policy you haven't quoted would kick in and the evidence would no longer be considered. You have a hard time remembering your own posts.

 

Ok, quote my exact comment.

 

Or what?

 

Please read your own post. Which I have quoted before. It is post number 74.

 

You post my exact comment, or admit you're talking out of your ass AND you don't know what "literally" means.

 

I. Already. Have. And. I. Told. You. Which. Post. It. Was. At. Well. Try reading. It would save both of us a lot of time.

 

I have no idea if it could be obtained via a FOIA request because I do not know the rules about how FOIA requests are processed.

See what I did there? I did not claim to know something if I don't know about it. A lesson you should take to heart.

793(e) makes no mention of classification therefore the classification of any documents is completely irrelevant.

 

No, there is no "rule"
There is a policy...but if the prosecution extends into the primary season or even the general election season, then too bad so sad for Trump.

 

Rule, policy, same difference. The rule/policy can't be ignored to get Trump. That's unconstitutional.

 

There is a HUGE difference.

Violating a policy is nothing. There is no enforcement on policy. And violating a policy, in no way, is unconstitutional

Violating a rule is the equivalent of breaking a law.

 

Rules aren't laws.

 

Then why did you say it was "unconstitutional" to "violate" them? And, just a reminder, I asked you to provide said "rule" and you didn't provide it. Sounds like you made it up.

 

Because of the equal protection clause.

 

There is no violation of the equal protection clause (which you definitely haven't read) here. And here's your third reminder that you haven't cited the supposed "rule" you mentioned.