Former official told investigators Trump had 'no standing declassification order' regarding documents, filing says
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
A president has no standing in declassification? He is literally the embodiment of the only person with the ability to. Are you really that stupid?
Ummm if you're not going to read the article at least (try to) read the headline correctly or maybe not commenting is your best choice.
They want to change that in the future for all Presidents. Can't have him actually trying to run his Branch of Government. They want their unelected friends doing that.
Who declassified all the documents that Biden stole and stored in an unsecured office in D.C. and his garage in Rehoboth Beach ?
Last edited:
Why waste your time on nonsense. The President can declassify Michelle’s dick picsUmmm if you're not going to read the article at least (try to) read the headline correctly or maybe not commenting is your best choice.
Obama better hope he didn't because they were sold to foreign countries. That would be embarrassing for him. Possible criminal action if he knew Joe and Hunter were going to do that. Personal gain vs Duty.
Both had classified documents but of course you understand the issue is that Trump wouldn't give them back while Joe did, right? He also tried to cover up his efforts to not give them back. Jack Smith will explain it all including the part where Trump didn't declassify any of it which apparently will be news to some on the board. Click the link above.
He didn't give them back. They came and took them. He wasn't President when he illegally took them to start with. Go sit in the corner.
They have access. Selling the information for personal gain like the Biden family did is definitely a no go.
Poor @moe ...desperate, defeated and delusional...unable to find a better policy his worthless side can use to defeat Trump...still hoping on a wing and a Prayer for something...anything...that will stop "Orange man bad" from returning to power.
@moe
Well 'ya could at least give me some credit for trying...for Pete's sake!
Hey @moe ...keep it up maybe one day you'll come up with something?
'ol @moe knows I'm about to rock his world and there isn't a damn thing he can do about it!
@moe
Now do you Trumpers see why I'm so miserable?
@moe
Hey @moe ...keep it up maybe one day you'll come up with something?
'ol @moe knows I'm about to rock his world and there isn't a damn thing he can do about it!
@moe
Well I read it...and once again it quotes an "unidentified source" who's comments can't be verified, cross referenced or even corroborated! Moreover the name of the so called "administration insider" is heavily redacted in the FBI 302 on the information. Which means even if someone wanted to verify what the source told prosecutor Jack Smith, we can't know the exact details or the full extent of his comments? Why not? Because the "unidentified source" even refused to have his/her information recorded for accuracy, so we have to rely on FBI 302 notes for what was said. How convenient? Of course we all know that FBI 302's are thoroughly fact-checked and always absent of any tampering right @moe ?Ummm if you're not going to read the article at least (try to) read the headline correctly or maybe not commenting is your best choice.
Why can't the source be identified, at least to authenticate his/her information? Hell the case is already been filed! Could it be his/her name is being kept under wraps because this is just another "fake news" hit piece designed to paint Trump as guilty even before hard exculpatory evidence is presented?
Hmmm...could be??????
Last edited:
Democrats love them some unnamed sources, can't get enough.Well I read it...and once again it quotes an "unidentified source" who's comments can't be verified, cross referenced or even corroborated! Moreover the name of the so called "administration insider" is heavily redacted in the FBI 302 on the information. Which means even if someone wanted to verify what the source told prosecutor Jack Smith, we can't know the exact details or the full extent of his comments? Why not? Because the "unidentified source" even refused to have his/her information recorded for accuracy, so we have to rely on FBI 302 notes for what was said. How convenient? Of course we all know that FBI 302's are thoroughly fact-checked and always absent of any tampering right @moe ?
Why can't the source be identified, at least to authenticate his/her information? Hell the case is already been filed! Could it be his/her name is being kept under wraps because this is just another "fake news" hit piece designed to paint Trump as guilty even before hard exculpatory evidence is presented?
Hmmm...could be??????
Almost all of the Trump hit pieces they try to pass along include unnamed or anonymous sources. That article he linked to was full of "quotes" from someone who we can't even identify. Tells you all you need to know.
Ask Adam Schiff. He knows. He saw it all
The sad thing about all of the lies he's told is no one's ever gone back and called him out on any of 'em! Why not?
Because I'm a pencil neck freak! They're all scared of me.
You are so f'ng clueless with reality.
You are so f'ng clueless with reality.
You are so f'ng clueless with reality.
You are so f'ng clueless with reality.
You are so f'ng clueless with reality.
You are so f'ng clueless with reality.
