Rebuttal as follows:
1) These documents, ie the documents raided by the FBI, were removed from the White House BEFORE he left office. The National Archives confirmed this and have been "negotiating" with the former President since he left office. Many of the items and documents are personal memos and memorabilia from his time in office. This is not abnormal and not in the slightest bit irregular. Presidents for more than 50 years have kept such to be turned over to their respective Presidential libraries. The National Archives maintains awareness of them in case the items do not eventually end up in such libraries. That's why they asked President Trump to secure them (the padlock broken by the FBI search team).

2) The President of the United States has full authority to declassify any document he/she chooses. This power is unique to the President of the United States. As several former Federal Prosecutors have pointed out: good luck prosecuting a former President of the United States for having classified documents.

I would strongly encourage you not to jump to hasty conclusions, else you become like so many of "our liberal friends. They know so many things that just aren't so." - Ronald Reagan

That's what I thought. He declassified the documents, didn't he, before he took them anywhere?

This is funny. My son-in-law is 100% Chinese. I just love him to pieces! But even his own father found a way to live in the Philippines his entire life before he made it to American soil. I don't think any of him or his brothers would give one hoot about being called "Oriental" as long as they were able to be full-fledged Americans for the rest of their lives (as they are). I do worry about people targeting him.... but he's pretty engaging. Only a person who didn't know him could possibly ever hate him.

Yes, but you have to prove that he wasn't authorized to remove the material. As President of the United States, he has the ultimate clearance AND the power to declassify documents literally at will. According to legal scholars, trying to make something like this stick against the President or former President is nearly impossible as a result. (Even former Presidents are given extreme latitude even extending to current events.)

Other mitigating factors involved include:
1. Conflict of interest from the sitting Attorney General. Remember, this was the man whose nomination for SCOTUS was pulled after Trump won office. To say Garland has a bone to pick with Trump is an understatement. Garland admitted yesterday that he personally authorized the raid on Trump's Mar A Lago residence.
2. Conflict of interest from the judge approving the warrant. This guy is known to have defended clients of the Lolita Express, aka Jeffrey Epstein's pedophilia ring. Also of note is that he is a provisional judge serving part of an eight-year term, not your typical Federal judge with a lifetime appointment. The judge also openly posted criticism of Trump on her personal Facebook page.
3. Trump had already complied with the National Archives' request to secure the documents in question, among which are personal memos from foreign leaders and memorabilia from his time in office which are his by right and law.
4. The agents executing the warrant denied Trump's lawyers the right to oversee the seizure. This is a gross violation because the oversight is there to verify the contents weren't tampered with during the process. Any objective judge could easily invalidate all the evidence gained on this one item alone (assuming that there are discrepancies).
5. The nature of the raid itself. Why send in 30 officers when all it took was a simple request to see the items in question? Because this wasn't about compliance, but about planting evidence and intimidation.
6. The FBI admits waiting until Trump was away from the residence to conduct the raid. Why? If the material is that damning, you wouldn't care if he were there or not.


Why did Trump authorize the increased penalties? See Sandy Berger - the Clinton aide who was convicted of removing and destroying unique documents from the National Archives. Which leads us to...
7. Why such disparate treatment of Hillary Clinton, who is KNOWN to have been compromised and was illegally and knowingly peddling classified documents in full violation of the statute posted above? Why was Hillary Clinton deposed in front of one of her own attorneys - another witness? Why were several of Hillary's aides granted complete immunity even before their testimony had been heard? Why did the FBI telegraph their intentions and then wait two weeks to confiscate the devices in question - only to receive 1/10th of the devices in question and none of them in functioning condition? Why was Hillary Clinton not jailed for tampering with and destruction of evidence?

"real human beings are flawed beings, in most cases deeply flawed."
Wow, where is this coming from?

If you think Hank Rearden represents the "immoral businessman" in Atlas Shrugged you probably have the worst reading of it in history!.

AND it needs to be one that is on HIS SIDE. That's not a given!

The first fact you claim is without basis as President Trump very publicly declassified all documents in his possession. That rests the case. But Not the case that Biden and Clinton and Bush and Hussein with their refusal to turnover their records in accordance to law.

Declassification end of story time.

Keep in mind that Trump is a real person and Reardon only fictional. It's easy to romanticize the fictional. Far more difficult to accept the fact that real human beings are flawed beings, in most cases deeply flawed.

So, the married Hank Rearden jumping in the sack with Dagny doesn't count as an "immoral businessman"? Rules for thee, but not for me? [I didn't down vote it, either]

Many of us worry about the same thing. He needs one hekuva security detail!

jack1776 Classic. I provide facts, you call me a troll. This is why I don't engage with people who are not really interested in rational discourse.

I feel for you, this line of thought seems very diluted and confused. So many things here to address:

“as a private citizen” – how is this known? Seems like this would have been done when he was present.

“removed classified documents” – how do you know he didn’t declassify them?

“from the White House” – How do you know these were originally in the white house? Just saying this might be important in court.

How is this different than any other president that has left office?

“against federal law” – what is against federal law, exactly what statute did he violate? I want specifics as you seem so knowledgeable.

“he himself increased the penalty for a violation of that particular law from one year to five years while he was President” – Okay, but I don’t see how this makes him guilty?

“So, fact: he was aware of the law and the penalty for violating it and proceeded anyway” – That seems like a leap, a big leap.

You see, Hilary Clinton had tons of classified e-mails on her server that were deleted and never investigated. Obviously, she wasn’t prosecuted because she didn’t intend to store these thousands of e-mails on her private e-mails server away from normal audit and review process.

I don’t usually like to troll but when I do, I love Trolling a troll.

A thought just occurred to me.....isn’t the Deep State amazing! Here we are standing on the precipice of economic disaster, and they’ve got us arguing over alleged “crimes” against us, committed by a guy who has been out of office almost 2 years. All while ignoring the very obvious “crimes” being committed by the guy who’s in office right now. Polling indicates that even his own side doesn’t want him to run again. But, OrangeManBad!
Well played Deep State! Well played.
We may all pity the people in Cuba, North Korea, China, Venezuela. But, at LEAST they know who’s ACTUALLY calling the shots in their governments.
Marinate on that for a bit before returning to our normally scheduled programming.

Please see my reply to Markus_Katabri.

I have presented facts on here before and been accused of spouting propaganda, but here we go again--

Fact: he, as a private citizen, removed classified documents from the White House to his personal residence.

Fact: that is against federal law.

Fact: he himself increased the penalty for a violation of that particular law from one year to five years while he was President.

So, fact: he was aware of the law and the penalty for violating it and proceeded anyway.

I think you are confusing facts with feelings…
Please tell me what criminal acts Trump has committed?

List them please, I will wait…

Markus_Katabri

18 U.S.C. 1924 Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Penalty increased under President Trump

Pub. L. 115–118 SEC. 202. INCREASED PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL AND
RETENTION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL.
Section 1924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ‘‘one year’’ and inserting ‘‘five years’’.

Awaiting investigation/prosecution:
- Obama fast and furious – or - Guns for the other team.
- Obama Iran payoff – or – midnight cash flight
- Targeted IRS prosecution of conservatives – or – punish and shutdown potential rivals
- Destruction of evidence – or – personal e-mail server (who does that?)
- e-mail Server boy walks - or - Giving a pardon to a witness to a crime must be a crime, obstruction?
- Obama release Gitmo detainees – or – free range hunting
- Benghazi – or – the precursor to Afghanistan
- DNC operative, Seth Rich, dead – or – Hillary killed him
- Falsifying evidence and obtaining search warrants on false pretenses – or – The wiretap – or – pee party
- CIA running a program to compromise the influential – or – Epstein Island
- Epstein’s death – or – Hillary killed him
- Obstructing Justice – or – The tarmac meeting
- Promoting violent riots across America – or – This isn’t your typical J6 style peaceful protest
- Aiding and abetting the criminal – or – delivering pallets of bricks to a riot
- The Clinton Foundation – or - Running a non-profit like a laundromat
- I’m running out of energy to keep writing these down, the Biden Epic begins…
- Ukraine biolabs – or – why? WTF, we said so, why? WTF
- Ukraine business deals – or – Just like the client foundation, only bigger and better.
- Afghanistan withdraws – or – Cash, arms, facilities, from America as a gift. I think directed by the CCP
- Illegal Search and seizure – or – The Mar-a-Lago straw

This just off of the top of my head, I'm sure there is more... A lot more...

Very rational argument, imo. +1

Most of you know I’m NOT a Trump fan. But, he hasn’t done anything to justify being imprisoned. Or, let me rephrase......
I’ve seen NO QUALIFIED EVIDENCE that implicates him.
How do I know that statement is true? Because if there was ANY after the Mueller Investigation, Impeachment #1, Impeachment #2, 6 years worth of vitriol and the FBI RAID........they’d have him in custody by now.
For those of you that think so...please cite statute that he violated and present evidence of such.
PS we value objectivism here so your feelings are disqualified as evidence.

craigerb Yes, unfortunately Q gets quoted more than Rand.

cragerb Agreed.

freedomforall Thank you. The thumbs down doesn't bother me. Everyone has a right to their opinions.

There is nothing I can say that will convince anyone who is a Trump fan that he has done anything wrong, let alone that he has done anything criminal, so why bother?

That is a bad attempt at a redirect, didn't enlist enough rage to distract your opponent. When your ready to discuss like a grownup, please let me know, but for now, I'm sorry to say that I cannot have a discussion with you.