- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/6/22 at 9:15 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I listed them. You ignore them.
Did you reference any cases other than Judicial Watch v. NARA (Clinton tapes)? Did I miss that somewhere?
quote:
a president’s discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will,”
What case is this from? The other two quotes are from JW v. NARA and I don't think they apply here. Don't see any discussion about plenary power.
Posted on 9/6/22 at 9:38 pm to Decatur
quote:
Did you reference any cases other than Judicial Watch v. NARA (Clinton tapes)? Did I miss that somewhere?
Why would I need to? Are you saying the precedent isn’t applicable? If so, why?
quote:
What case is this from? The other two quotes are from JW v. NARA and I don't think they apply here. Don't see any discussion about plenary power.
Same case. Thoughts?
This post was edited on 9/6/22 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 9/6/22 at 10:12 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Same case.
That's not language from case. Nothing about declassification in JW v. NARA.
In JW v. NARA, JW was a private litigant seeking to compel NARA to declare the "Clinton tapes" to be a Presidential record, a power that NARA does not have, not to mention items that they did not have possession of and had no power to seize. Completely different facts from the current matter.
quote:
In addition, the FRA grants the Archivist authority to:
notify the head of a Federal agency of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency that shall come to his attention, and assist the head of the agency in initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records wrongfully removed and for other redress provided by law.
44 U.S.C. § 2905(a)
How about this though?
Did you even read this case? I ask because you quoted from a John Solomon article like it was a quote from the case.
Posted on 9/6/22 at 11:08 pm to Decatur
You’re flailing at the wind.
If this was a Democrat former President being raided by the DOJ of a Republican President, you’d be arguing the opposite.
We know it. You know it. You can stop posting in this thread.
If this was a Democrat former President being raided by the DOJ of a Republican President, you’d be arguing the opposite.
We know it. You know it. You can stop posting in this thread.
Posted on 9/6/22 at 11:13 pm to Jjdoc
100x worse than Watergate.
Posted on 9/6/22 at 11:23 pm to Decatur
quote:
That's not language from case.
Wanna bet?
Posted on 9/6/22 at 11:41 pm to BBONDS25
What page of the opinion is the quote from? I've looked through it but don't see it.
LINK
quote:
a president’s discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will,”
LINK
This post was edited on 9/6/22 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 9/6/22 at 11:52 pm to Decatur
quote:
Decatur
you have to love your passion for beibg wrong all the time 
Posted on 9/7/22 at 5:03 am to Jjdoc
The establishment doesn't follow its own rules. They get to drag this out for weeks, months and years, until the court of public opinion is so poisoned with lies and disinformation, that the target's reputation is damaged beyond repair.
Posted on 9/7/22 at 5:23 am to SouthEasternKaiju
Somewhat true
However in this case, public opinion has shifted drastically to the side of Trump over the past several weeks. You can see it by how defensive and unhinged the press has acted in regards to this recent ruling on a Special Master being appointed.
However in this case, public opinion has shifted drastically to the side of Trump over the past several weeks. You can see it by how defensive and unhinged the press has acted in regards to this recent ruling on a Special Master being appointed.
Posted on 9/7/22 at 5:36 am to BBONDS25
quote:
What basis do you have for this claim?
The FBI privilege review team already flagged the privileged material and prepared it for return. Trump didn't even file his motion regarding privilege for 2 weeks. There will be very little, if any, privileged material remaining.
quote:
like a motion to strike makes the jury forget what they just heard
Sort of, but stronger than that because it can be tracked.
quote:
The judges ruling states a 10 day extension was granted and Biden overruled it. If I am incorrect I will concede. If you are…will you?
Where does the Judge say that? I don't see that in the opinion.
Posted on 9/7/22 at 7:59 am to Decatur
quote:
What case is this from? The other two quotes are from JW v. NARA and I don't think they apply here. Don't see any discussion about plenary power.
I had you as one of the top five most ignorant posters and you are moving up rapidly into the top two
Let’s look at this from your angle please provide one case with a ruling that is different than what has been cited a ball many times all of us will wait for that one case that is different that supports your argument
Posted on 9/7/22 at 9:53 am to Decatur
Apologies. That line was in the justice departments memorandum to the judge. The same justice department that is now saying just the opposite when it comes to Trump. Put that quote aside (although clearly the judge was influenced by it) and look at the quotes that are in the ruling. Please explain to me how that is not applicable as you stated.
Posted on 9/7/22 at 10:41 am to BBONDS25
quote:
That line was in the justice departments memorandum to the judge.
In JW v NARA (Clinton tapes)? Link?
The only place I can find that quote is in a John Solomon article. There’s nothing about declassification in JW v NARA. That was not an issue in that case.
quote:
Please explain to me how that is not applicable as you stated.
I already did. Read from the top of this page.
Posted on 9/7/22 at 11:43 am to Decatur
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/7/22 at 11:45 am
Posted on 9/7/22 at 11:45 am to BBONDS25
Any reply? Are you still pretending to have read any of this?
Posted on 9/7/22 at 11:47 am to Decatur
quote:
Any reply? Are you still pretending to have read any of this?
I read the entire order a few weeks ago and again this am after you posted it. It absolutely destroys your point. So I understand why you want to focus on the one error I made? I’ll look to see if I can find that in the DOJs memorandum. Why are you ignoring the rest of the order that absolutely makes you look ridiculous?
Have you looked on Pacer for the memorandum?
There is a reference on page 296 of the order that states:
Judicial review is barred when it concerns “creation, management, and disposal decisions” of the President. On page 297 it states “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding disposal of documents”. There is a procedure for that which clearly doesn’t apply here. But the ruling does state the President has unconstrained authority regarding disposal of docs.
This post was edited on 9/7/22 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 9/7/22 at 12:41 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Have you looked on Pacer for the memorandum?
It’s not there. Maybe you’ll remember that you grabbed that quote from a John Solomon article.
quote:
There is a reference on page 296 of the order that states:
Is this the section “The Armstrong Decisions Do Not Govern the Question Presented in This Case”? Because I think you are citing language from the Armstrong cases.
Anyway none of those cases have anything to do with declassification, retention of national defense information, executive privilege, etc.
Posted on 9/7/22 at 12:46 pm to Decatur
quote:
It’s not there. Maybe you’ll remember that you grabbed that quote from a John Solomon article.
I don’t deny that. His article says it was in the memo. I have no reason to doubt that. Do you?
quote:
Is this the section “The Armstrong Decisions Do Not Govern the Question Presented in This Case”? Because I think you are citing language from the Armstrong cases.
I am. Which was cited in the judicial watch case.
quote:
Anyway none of those cases have anything to do with declassification, retention of national defense information, executive privilege, etc.
Wait. Are you claiming the President does not have plenary power to declassify documents? Yikes. I thought we were arguing some nuance that might actually give the DOJ a thread to hang onto. If you’re argument is the President cannot declassify…this case is DOA.
This post was edited on 9/7/22 at 12:47 pm
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News