What is this thread all about?
Just a place for general discussion. A place to unload whats on your mind and talk about anything - personal, health, help needed, achievements, daily highs and daily lows, theories, predictions and what have you.
Does not need to be Q related.
The issue is that being cleared to view a document is not the same as being cleared to take the document home with you after you aren't President anymore. Those documents belong to the government, not to you or your administration. For him to still have classified documents, and crucially, to present these in court, he will have to have been legally still President. And this opens up all sorts of questions about whom still in the fed is on Trump's side, how many, has Biden been allowed a fake Presidency as a ruse, etc.
Also, I honestly think this is going to pop off after the upcoming midterms, not before. I wouldn't be surprised if this all gets dragged out another six months, because even if someone wasn't profiting from it, that slow pace is just the nature of the beast.
Interesting info can you please link to the legislation related to this?
At this point its not even a question!
I was not aware the current dogma was that Trump is so in control and that he never stopped being President. Good to know.
The point I was trying to get at is there's a bit of a chicken-egg problem here. If Trump "stole" documents that are actually still under his purview because he's still President, they continue to be evidence against him until he proves he's actually President. Doesn't matter what's on those documents if they were classified and he took them without telling the proper authorities. They stop being evidence against him if it's proven he was actually President all along. But if those documents in question ARE the proof, he can't force them to be unveiled as a suspected criminal.
Since the entire crux of the case is around the improper declassification of classified documents, it'll take more than just the request of the accused to unseal the docs. There are a lot of moving parts of the legal-judicial system that make it as easy as possible for the government to keep its secrets secret.
There were two different points I was making, not related to each other.
First, I was asking for the legistlation that says a ex President with all the security clearances still intact is not allowed to have any classified material in his possession with absolutely no exceptions.
As for Biden being a real president, it's up to each Anon to watch him in action daily and decide for themselves if that is true.
And in case you missed it, this is a good resource: http://devolution.link/
I mean it's more up to us to wait through the next two years, right? Like, if he isn't actually President there's no way he'll be allowed a full four (if they decide to switch to Harris to counter the dementia narrative), much less to serve another four.
There are exceptions! None of those exceptions include "taking stuff without telling the proper people and following the proper procedure as mandated". I say mandated because I honestly think it's more of an executive branch thing than a legislative branch thing. Regardless, you wouldn't let Obama take home documents that belong to the government (since the title of President changes, the current President is essentially renting access to the government's property), and then claim it was okay that he didn't follow precedented procedure because he declassified the documents with his mind. Regardless of the classification, the papers are still all property of the government!
Which is why I believe your two points should be intertwined - this would be much less of an issue if it turns out Trump is still actually President, because he still is able to rent handling permissions. Not a zero issue, because storing classified documents in a location as insecure as Mar-A-Lago is iffy in and of itself (which is why I was surprised that Trump didn't run with "it was planted" as the first and only narrative).
Of course, if he has been the secret official President this whole time, he can't serve in 2025, can he? That would be clearly unconstitutional. I dunno, it's all a little murky.