Just admit it!

First off, it's leftist. Secondly, leftist liberal democrats aren't smart enough to know the difference. They just wanna be oppressed. It's like being addicted to drama but not knowing you're addicted to drama.

Fascism is where the government has control over corporations. Corporatism is where corporations have control over the government. Communism is where the government IS the ultimate producer of all things. None of these ideologies take into account human nature or the human condition.

Which one are we headed toward now? We're in a mixture of the three. It's one thing to be riding two horses; eventually, one horse will force you off onto the other, or you will hit the ground. But three horses at the same time means inevitable disaster. This attempt at such tyranny will fail, and We, the People, will prevail as our Constitutional Republic prescribes.

No.

God Save the Queen man... They want a Shadow Dictator to rule the country via Avuncular Puppet.

This guy couldn’t find his way out of a paper bag

That's not honesty. That's you projecting your wishful thinking of another party with an opportunistic photo.

That is... if we're honest.

Okay. Since we're being honest. Answer the following question with a yes or a no:

1. Has the Biden admin ever pressured companies to silence dissent of his policies or negative information about Biden?

2. Did Biden lie about his son's laptop being Russian disinformation?

3. Did Biden say that children don't belong to their parents when the children are in the classroom?

4. Has Biden ever spoken incoherently?

5. Did Biden use the FBI to intimidate parents who go to school board meetings?

6. Did Biden push vaccine mandates?

7. Did Biden limit oil drilling in America, making us again dependent on other countries for oil?

8. Has Biden done anything to limit the number of illegal immigrants coming into America?

So, do you want me to answer questions without adding context? Isn't that a dishonest question?

I suppose that for someone who thinks in binary terms and doesn't understand context, that if they tick a few things in their checkbox, that makes someone 100% of what they imagine, in spite of it being farther from the facts.

Let's flip the script and ask you the same questions that points to Authoritarianism that wants to govern the US from the Right Wing:

1. Have members of your party not called for the banning of books?
2. Have members of your party not sought to cull the rights of free speech and expression of the LGBTQ community?
3. Have members of your party not sought to mix church and state further together?
4. Have members of your party not sought to overturn the 2020 election in spite of a glaring lack of evidence?
5. Have members of your party denied or sought to reduce the severity of the January 6th incident, reducing it to the equivalent of a "Tour?"
6. Have Members of your party sought or offered pardons to convicted criminals involved in the J6 incident?
7. Have members of your party identified another party as intrinsically evil?
8. Have members of your party sought to delegitimize the scientific method in spite of a lack of substantial evidence to portray the means by which the methods used for vaccination were flawed?
9. Have members of your party sought to isolate indefinitely those who are at risk of COVID for the convenience of those not at risk, rather than working together as a nation?
10. Have members of your party not called to take action against political officials as perceived enemies for the reason that "their country is in danger?"
11. Have members of your party not sought out to completely remove a woman's right to make her own choices regarding reproductive health?

You see, when you speak in binary terms, you can make anything fit your narrative.

The whole point of memeing is to break something down into its most simple terms and to remove all of the relevant context that makes the subject more important to carefully consider. "The Left Can't Meme" because we know that there's often too much info on a subject to make it an effective meme that communicates the entirety of the message. Though, they do try I suppose, to speak on a level thee right can understand.

No, the GOP has never called for the banning of books. They just don't want pornographic books like genderqueer on the shelves of children's libraries.

Have I got a video to share with you.... Because it shows that you're misinformed. You may not be a liar, but you might be uninformed about how radical your party is. Regardless, the statement that the GOP never called for book banning, is false.

Also, your definition of "pornographic" content is extremely loose. At least there's a District in Utah that lives up to its own standard, they banned the bible out of a school.

You did not share that video with me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYvt8IIwC2s

“You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” That was used in a court ruling, recently.

Adults can read those books.

Which books?

So we should debate on whether or not we tell kids that their peers have two moms or two dads? Jesus Christ.

oh? What's your evidence for that?

Are the democrats actively undermining your ability to vote?

Like, have they passed a law at the state level saying that if any 1 polling place in the largest county in the state runs out of paper ballots for more than 2 hours, they can invalidate the election results for that 1 county? And then call for a new election at a time of their choosing instead of when the county?

Like that?

They’re undermining election security so that our voices get drowned out. It’s not about who can vote, it’s about whether it will make a difference.

Oh. I see. So you agree that election officials can be incompetent by not properly preparing for election day? They can blame further mistakes on that one "hic-up." There is no reason for election officials to run out of ballots when they have the number of registered voters before election day. And don't use the excuse that not every registered voter votes, which would be a waste of money. People in government are pros at wasting money on frivolous things; however, being prepared for voting day isn't one of them.

I'm not surprised by your response. I'm not surprised by your complete lack of logical reasoning and critical thinking. It's tough breaking free from liberal media mockingbird mind control. But, I will give you credit for how you ask the question: Are the Democrats actively undermining your ability to vote? That's a prudent question to ask. Thankfully I think critically. And when I critically consider your question, I find that no one actively undermines your ability to vote. At least directly. It's what happens after your vote has been cast. That should be the real question. And you would be asking if you thought critically with some logical reasoning mixed in.

Are you familiar with history? Another Joe, Joseph Stalin, once said, "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." said in 1923; Boris Bazhanov The Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary (1992) For decades, the uniparty (predominantly democrats) have run elections. And to be clear, running elections include everything from printing ballots, setting up polling stations, operating machines, and so on and so forth. Elections, for the most part, have gone left unchecked. Do you remember the "hanging Chad" debacle with George Bush and John Kerry? The uniparty manufactured this to distract We the People. BTW, Bush is a son of a bitch. You should research his family line. Democrats and RINO Republicans are intertwined so carefully to hold on to power in mysterious ways and for mysterious reasons.

Break the chains of bondage, my friend. Get off the plantation. Think and research for yourself. Understand why the deep state cabal/uniparty/whatever you want to call them wants to keep the American people distracted with petty bullshit questions like: Are the democrats actively undermining your ability to vote?

You're thinking critically, huh?

You've neatly avoided answering the question I asked: are the Democrats undermining democracy?

Because here in Texas, the Republicans are doing exactly that by taking away the autonomy of Harris County- the only county they're doing this to- to run it's own elections.

Every other county in Texas is fine.

It's just Harris they want to be able to overturn if they don't like the results.

I mean, it's probably a coincidence that Harris has the largest population in Texas. And it votes overwhelmingly Democratic.

But back to my original question: What evidence do you have that "leftist democrats want a dictator to rule America"?

Feel free to use as many charts and graphs as you like. Just make sure to cite your work from accredited sources, and not places like freedomeagle1776.squarespace.net.

Can you make up your mind about your question? Is it: Are the democrats actively undermining your ability to vote? Which I answered: I find that no one actively undermines your ability to vote. Or is it: are the Democrats undermining democracy? Which I will answer: No they're not undermining democracy. They're using democracy as it has always been used. Democracy undermines itself.

"Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty. When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never." -John Adams

We are a Constitutional Republic that is meant to keep democracy in check.

And to your last question: What evidence do you have that "leftist democrats want a dictator to rule America"? Oh... I don't know... How about the long-standing tradition that no president ever has had to go through what Trump has gone through? Which I hope you realize will come back to bite them. Setting a precedent like that is dangerous to corruption. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden are now on the table to be fully scrutinized for the corruption they engaged in to undermine our Constitutional Republic. It's not just leftist democrats who want full control of this country, it's the RINOs too.

As far as what's going on in your county, be careful of how the media and politicians will use your emotions to sway your opinions. The way I understand it, as is happening in many areas of the country, transparency is imperative. And like a frog in slow boiling water, We the People became complacent and blindly trusted our public officials to do what is right with little to no oversight by us. That is changing. With that change, those who thwart it do so to playing to emotions by saying things like "undermining democracy" or "targeting elections" or any other phrase that appeals to an emotional knee-jerk response.

"It's a trap," Admiral Ackbar exclaimed as he turned about quickly in his chair. Don't buy into it. That's what the uniparty wants from you. Our election process needs to be unequivocally transparent. There is nothing wrong with keeping things above board for all to see. Can you agree with that? Can you?

Democrats stay in power because weak Rinos allow them to. The foundation of the Republican party was bring freedom to blacks during the 1800s against the whigs which then became democrats. Republicans stood for the Republic which stands for the minority. Ironically, the democrat party came into being to usurp the ideal of The Republic through the failures of democracy (see my John Adams quote). We the People are standing up to these greedy politicians and they don't like it. Unfortunately, they trick folks like yourself into thinking the things you do so you stay distracted to what these greedy politicians don't want you to see.

Turn off the mainstream and tune into your own research from sources that the mainstream attempt to undermine. There's a reason prophets in the Bible were silenced or killed; truth is a motherf**ker!!

Your answer is: "How about the long-standing tradition."

You mean the long tradition of not committing crimes while in office?

Because Nixon didn't get that memo on that tradition.

That's why he resigned. So he wouldn't be removed from Office. Ford pardoned him (which requires the receiver to admit guilt over the crimes being pardoned). That's a finer point of American law that most Americans, and certainly someone from outside the country wouldn't know.

And let's be clear: holding a President accountable for their actions isn't a "consequence."

It's a desired result.

If there is evidence of a crime, it needs to be investigated. If it's determined there was a crime, then the responsible parties need to be held accountable. Indicted. And then have a trial in front of a jury of their peers. I don't care who, President or not. They need to be held to the rule of law.

And I can tell you've been fed the "constitutional republic" line by whomever you work for. You've been told to position it as a good thing. That democracy is bad.

Here's something they don't explicitly say in American history courses: the truth is that the founders of this country only wanted white dudes who owned land (and slaves) and were rich to be able to vote.

Not women. Not anyone of color. Not immigrants.

Just them.

So, that's what you're defending. You're defending rule by an elite wealthy minority.

I'll take democracy. Yeah, it's messy. Yeah, it takes a lot more work. We changed how Senators were elected to a democratic process. Next we need to get rid of the electoral college.

But it's better.

Thanks.

That's a shit-ton of ignorance and public school indoctrination right there.

I'm glad Trump is going through what he is going through. He broke no law. Legal precedent proves that without it needing to go to trial. You're savvy enough to understand that. Presidents have the authority and the privilege to declassify anything and everything they choose. It has been that way since the founding of this nation. Read the AI-created articles of the indictment. It's all nonsensical lawfare.

As for the long-standing traditions of not holding past presidents accountable for corruption or acts outside the Constitution, that will change. Do you ever think for a moment that Trump could have baited the uniparty into going after him to set a precedent to hold past presidents accountable for their corruption and acts outside the scope of the Constitution? You probably haven't. Public schools don't teach critical thinking; they teach emotional thinking, which you have marvelously demonstrated. Furthermore, your misunderstanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work, coupled with your vast ignorance of the historical matters that went into the creation of said Constitution, prevents you from appreciating what our Founders created. Many of them wanted freedom for all Americans, not just a few. Unfortunately, your government-sponsored indoctrination of today has infected your grasp of their true intentions. You have made to think: "Here's something they don't explicitly say in American history courses: the truth is that the founders of this country only wanted white dudes who owned land (and slaves) and were rich to be able to vote." That isn't the truth if you were to read the writings of these men. But, I applaud your attempt to continue a talking point that only serves to confuse.

Isn't it rather interesting that the 17th Amendment came into effect the same year the Federal Reserve central bank was created and shoved down our throats by fiat? Why is that? Could it be that having state legislators appoint senators was a check on democracy like the Electoral College. The 17th Amendment is nothing more than a violation of the State's rights. Clearly, you have complete disregard for the minority protections of the Constitution against mob-ruling democracy.

You said: "I'll take democracy. Yeah, it's messy. Yeah, it takes a lot more work." Funny. Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, said the same thing. He also hates America.

It's been a blast. You're a lost cause.

Wow, that reply was just dripping with anger and frustration if I ever heard it.

LOL! If that's your reality, go with it, and miss the whole point!!

Facts are irrelevant to perspective.

Facts without proof is just conjecture. Liberals don't care about facts or evidence. You all make up evidence to fit your desired facts. The fake Russian Dossier is a perfect example of this. Bought and paid for by your Queen Hillary herself.

"Queen Hillary?" That's a new one. Who's making things up now? xD

"Liberals dont care about facts or evidence."
Right, which is why we asked for evidence for election fraud that MAGA still hasn't provided but swear it exists... (because they care about facts with evidence.)

Please. your rhetoric is as weak as your platform. You had your time to shine, and your entire party blew it and everyone sees through it.

Wow. This was some Grade A Qanonsense AND being wildly anti-democratic.

You really worked at this. I admit it, I'm impressed.

1) When you say, "Trump put himself in legal jeopardy in order to expose the other Presidents" outloud, that seems like a reasonable thing that happens in the really real world?

Like, for real. Does that sound rational to you?

Because it's not.

2) It doesn't matter if he magically declassified them with his brain magic (he didn't), he no longer had the right to retain those records.

Because he ceased being President. He no longer had the right to be in possession of those documents.

That's why he's facing obstruction charges. He tried to hide all the government documents in his bathrooms.

You can read the indictment here: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf


2) https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/

Note the year that white dudes who didn't own property got the right to vote. It's towards the end of the piece. Spoiler Warning: it's not the year the Constitution was ratified.

3) Wow, you're firmly in the camp of being anti-democratic. You do a nice job of tying in that conservative "shoving down our throats" to cover up the anti-democracy sentiment. But you clearly think that there should be a ruling elite and that people shouldn't vote.

Because the 17th Amendment puts more power in the people's hands by letting them directly elect Senators, just like they can Representatives.

How do you then propose the minority keep a check on democracy when it threatens individual sovereignty?

You can read that indictment as much as you want. It's not law. The law has been set through the Constitution and backed by the precedent set by previous litigation. Familiarize yourself with the case against Bill Clinton, where Judicial Watch attempted to sue Bill Clinton over recordings he kept. Bill Clinton, a former president, won.

"Ceased being president," you said. Well, Clinton ceased being president, too. But you forget they rightly took these documents with them the day they left office. There isn't a magic line drawn on the White House lawn that prevents any president from parting ways with documents that belong to them. Your emotional hatred towards Trump makes that difficult for you to realize.

Nice try putting words in my mouth. The Constitution is there to protect the people against a ruling elite. Which you will find in your LOC link: "The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property.... " Pay particular attention to the words, Republican Constitution. That, my friend, is your check on democracy. All American citizens have the right to vote. But, then, how do we protect ourselves, as a whole, from the threat of mob rule?

Have you not read any of the founder's writings on the issue of slavery? No. You haven't. Your biases are based on lies that they were all enslavers and never wanted to free the slaves prevent you. If you haven't read their personal thoughts on the slavery issue, your argument is invalid. Furthermore, the logic behind thinking that past wrongs should negate any future movement is absolutely flawed. If we were to go by that logic, all of humanity is doomed, for we all have committed trespasses against one another. Believe it or not, many of the founders were disgusted by the enslavement of human beings. They framed the Constitution to deal with this issue over time. They knew that time aids in the changing of hearts and minds. A far cry from what today's ruling elite think: "Let's go into foreign nations and force democracy on its citizens!" That's some straight-up Bush New World Order bullshit there.

1) the case of Judicial Watch v NARA over the Clinton Tapes.

IN case anyone would like actual facts over SnackSize claims: https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives-records-admin

The core: President Clinton enlisted historian Taylor Branch to assist him in creating “an oral history of his eight years in office.” So, Bill brought in a civilian to interview him from time to time about what he was going through as President and his thoughts on current events.

They created a personal record. A Diary.

Judicial Watch claimed that the tapes should be considered part of the Office of the President and part of the Clinton Archive because Branch left the recorder on while Pres. Clinton took a few phone calls.

The Judge tossed the lawsuit out because the The Presidential Records Act of 1978 is very clear what constitutes a Presidential Record. That record is something CREATED BY the Federal Government for use BY THE PRESIDENT as part of their executive or ceremonial duties.

The PRA also clearly defines a personal record. It's something created by a private or non-public character that does not impact or related to the official capacity of the President (that exec and ceremonial stuff). The PRA also clearly separates a personal journal and diary from the Presidential Records and declares them personal.

Because they are recording the thoughts of the President at the time.

Branch was a civilian. He was helping Clinton record a personal journal of his time as President.

This is clearly covered by the PRA as a personal record.

What Trump is dealing with is the exact opposite.

Those confidential documents, regardless if they were magically declassified by Trump's Mind Powers or not, were prepared by Federal Employees for use by the Executive Branch to make decisions about national defense.

Clearly putting them into the domain of NARA and the archives.

2) You're an authoritarian who even now still argues against democracy. You are anti-democratic.

3) You claim many of the founders were disgusted by slavery yet... a whole bunch of them still owned slaves! And made no efforts to outlaw it. They didn't even count Black Americans as whole people for the census. They certainly weren't allowed to vote. Of the first 12 Presidents of the US, only Adams and his son Q Adams didn't own slaves. Washington himself kept slaves until the day he died.

ON PAGE 3 OF THE INDITMENT...UNDER "a."

they have Trump quoted saying "As President i could have declassified it," and, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still secret".

Do you see the word "and" ? That is NOT part of what he said ....they took 2 DIFFERENT PARTS and put them together in one sentence as if that is what he said!

They did this with digging up video of him talking to people in the PAST just after he won in 2016, to make him look bad.

We do NOT know what the whole statement was or how many DIFFERENT sentences there were that they combined to make it sound like he had this as a single continuous sentence! ... I used to work in T.V. .... this is a DAILY thing they do, when putting a news story together called a PACKAGE .... they start with 2 cameras one facing each person the interviewer and the one being interviewed and cut sections together to make a "STORY".

STOP AND LISTEN TO THE WORDS....do they even SOUND LIKE WORD CHOICE AND PLACEMENT THAT HE USES??? We have heard him speak how many times and he uses parenthetical phrases all the time.....do not know what that is...LOOK IT UP...DON'T LET BIDENS WIFE, THE ENGLISH TEACHER, BE SMARTER THEN YOU!

BUT THIS IS STILL A SECRET.

Which makes it 1) a classified document and 2) STILL A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT that is clearly covered by the Presidential Records Act as a Presidential Record and not a Personal Record.

Because there is no universe where a Pentagon plan for invading another country is a personal document for anyone.

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U. S. 507, 444 U. S. 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 389 U. S. 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 345 U. S. 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, 92 U. S. 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.

Art. II duties, the courts have traditionally shown the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities." United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 418 U. S. 710 (1974). Thus, unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs. See, e.g., Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83, 345 U. S. 93-94 (1953); Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137, 346 U. S. 142, 346 U. S. 144 (1953); Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U. S. 1, 413 U. S. 10 (1973); Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 420 U. S. 757-758 (1975); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296 (1983).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/

Bruh. No one disputes the ability of a sitting President to declassify things.

There is a process that must be followed. It's not magic brain powers that declassify things. It's a process that involves various departments so they know what needs to be redacted or not redacted in a Freedom of Information Act Request.

But let's pretend that a President does have those magic brain powers to declassify things with just a thought.

He doesn't. But let's pretend that he does.

Now, in the example you posted there is this, "courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs."

And I agree. A President should have the autonomy of authority in military and national security affairs.

A sitting President using magic brain powers could declassify national defense documents. (remember, we're pretending. President's don't actually have these magic brain powers). So, even if Trump had magic brain powers to declassify documents while he was a sitting President- those documents are still documents prepared by federal employees for use by other federal employees in matters of national defense.

Clearly placing them in the Presidential Records area and NOT in the Personal Records area as clearly defined by the Presidential Records Act.

As a former President, he had no right to have them. Even if they were declassified. (which they weren't).

Your example is proof that he was violating the Presidential Records Act.

1) You've forgotten two central points in the Trump case: There is NO mens rea. And Trump never had a chance to go to court to say those documents were his. Again, past presidents have held on to far more than Trump.

For shits and giggles, you want to argue Clinton had a "diary," let's define diary.

Diary means a template (electronic or paper) in which households and/or household members record all items of daily consumption and/or expenditure; Diary means the register in which all papers received are entered. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/diary This sounds to me like Trump kept a diary! ;-)

2) I am not anti-democratic, I am a original intent Constitutionalist!

3) You throw out the baby with the bathwater--which is a very authoritarian thing to do! The fact they owned slaves doesn't make their hopes any less valuable. Don't we always say, "it was a different time then?" Many of them struggled with the issue, including Washington, who did free them when he died. Can't you give him a little credit for that? Are we to completely erase and disregard anything of value a person has done because he wasn't perfect? Are we to erase history because it has things that make us feel uncomfortable? That's what you are advocating for. History is filled with mistakes. It's human to make mistakes, and it's human to learn from them. But if you go and erase that history, we will only repeat those mistakes. Yes, America has made errors in the past. But as a country, we can learn from them and grow from them. Our founders put in motion the mechanisms that one day would end slavery and segregation and give women the right to vote and reverse probation; that was a stupid idea, to begin with. Our Constitution gives us the ability to make a more perfect union--not a perfect union, but a more perfect union than it was prior. We grow! You have such a pessimistic view of our country.

And you trust what they say in the indictment is true? You don't question it at all? You trust Jack Smith, who's been proven to be a hack prosecutor where even the Supreme Court smacked his bitch ass down.

I had to respond here because, for some reason, I'm unable to on your response.

Where were the documents
1) In a secured room in Mara Lago
2) Under the control of the secret service, an agency of the US government for trolls from Rio Linda
3) Guarded by CCTV 24/7
4) FBI advised on security two months before which was implemented
5) Government could enter, inspect and even take any document without warrant as they had the keys and codes necessary. At most Trump could sue.
6) Trump did not refuse the National Archives, he challenged them legally as was his right!

The basis of this crime is Trump to custody of the documents. this is a lie!

These documents were not found next to the Corvette nor in an abandoned office nor in Pence's secret document stash.

No mens rea, huh?

For those of you following along, it's knowledge or intent to commit the crime.

Again, you really need to read the indictment.

Because he knew. He was told he had to return the government documents. He had his lawyers "search" the place to make sure they were all found.

We know now that he ordered Walt to move the boxes around to make sure the lawyers didn't find them. There's footage from his own security cameras of Walt, his 'body man', moving boxes around the building so they won't be found when the lawyers searched the place.

But the lawyers found the ones he left to be found. They sealed them up and gave them back to NARA. He, through his lawyers, provided a signed statement that there were no more government documents in Mara Lago.

There's a recording of him where he's being interviewed by documentations where he whips out some paperwork, says that it's classified (and that since he's no longer President, so he can't declassify them).

Interestingly, he's not being charged for the documents he did return. He's only being charged for the ones the FBI pulled out of Mara Lago.

So. If you'd read the indictment, you'd know that he knew it was a crime.

JFK Jr is dead. No argument here. You really should look deeper into the CDC and how much the UN has crept into the United States. Qanon isn't a thing. That was a term created by the MSM. There is Q and there are anons. But no Qanon. I'm sure you haven't researched it thoroughly. What amazes me is you seem like an intelligent person, yet you don't see the corruption that has plagued this nation for decades. Well before Trump ever thought about running for president. Which, btw, Trump has had the same platform regarding this country since the 80s. He didn't want us to go to Iraq and lambasted the republicans who did. He knows this country has a Military Industrial Complex problem and he started doing something about it. Ross Perot back in the late 80s and early 90s was a voice in the wilderness and no one wanted to listen. I was young then, but something about him made sense. But as the years rolled on I was distracted by the nonsense. I was fooled by Bush jr and didn't want to believe 911 was an inside job. At least my head didn't. My gut was telling me something different. Trump gets on the scene and had the balls to stand up to everyone. What's so wrong with that? The uniparty has bullied Americans for far too long. This country is supposed to be directed by We the People. Do you realize that the amount of money this government spends on needless bullshit is why there's so much poverty in this country? Do you realize that if we weren't taxed to death, and there wasn't a central bank (the federal reserve) families could prosper with just on just one income? Do you have any idea the American people have been robbed for over a hundred years all because of what happened on Jekyll Island? You can scoff at Trump all you want, but he wants to do away with the robber barons in this country. You can scoff at the Q movement all you want, but it was that movement that motivated a shit ton of people to research for themselves. NXVIM was first discussed on the Q boards. From there the information spread and eventually, the MSM had no choice but to report on it, especially considering the court cases that resulted. The anons on the Q boards discussed Epstein until the MSM had no choice but to talk about it. Have you ever seen the footage of Amy Robach discussing how she wanted to break the Epstein story but ABC nixed it? Why do you think that is? The researchers on the chan boards were like a dog with a bone; they weren't letting anything go. But you do you!

It must be nice taking things at face value. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

You're not "aware"
You're not "doing the research"

You listen to a bunch of crazy people who make shit youtube videos.

Qanon isn't real.

The CDC isn't a private company owned by the UN.

JFK Jr is dead.

Just like all the other crazy nonsense they spew.

What's with not allowing replies? Don't like hearing the truth about shit!?

It's the rules of the site, muh dude.

Once you get to the Orange level, there's only 1 reply left.

And while we are being distracted by this manufactured lawsuit, the UN encroaches on our sovereignty as a nation and individually. The CDC isn't who you think they are.

"Interestingly enough, the CDC is a private corporation OWNED by the UN. Allow that to percolate. They have “sovereignty” in our health and disease outbreak management. What? They are a GOV (government) site. Are they a government though? No. The non-profit company created by Congress called the CDC non-profit is, but THE CDC in itself, is not."

"Any entity with sovereignty, in any territory in the USA that they may occupy, have complete control of our health? Our health and rights afforded to us by our Constitution are priceless, but apparently both are owned by the UN?"

https://toresays.com/2019/10/28/un-claims-sovereignty-in-utah/

Of all the things that never happened, this is in the top 5. More Qanonsense.

The CDC is part of the Department of Health & Human Services.

They've even got a .gov website. Which are only available to US Governmental departments.