Doc Posted January 10, 2023 Posted January 10, 2023 So because this was "discovered and reported" (days before the election yet not a single word about it to the public and after Mar-a-Lago was raided), it's different. Yeah, OK.
Orlando Buffalo Posted January 10, 2023 Posted January 10, 2023 On 1/10/2023 at 9:53 PM, ChiGoose said: Just to reiterate: whether the documents were classified or not is legally irrelevant here. The second someone is no longer president, they lose the right to possess any presidential documents, classified or not. Expand That is not true, Can you give me a topic of which we can't have access to something that is not classified.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 10, 2023 Posted January 10, 2023 (edited) On 1/10/2023 at 10:15 PM, Doc said: So because this was "discovered and reported" (days before the election yet not a single word about it to the public and after Mar-a-Lago was raided), it's different. Yeah, OK. Expand Holy cr*p--the story gets worse. The documents apparently date from 2013-2016, deal with American interests in Iran, the UK and, get this ---Ukraine--and were first moved to the office in mid-2017 before being discovered last year. One must wonder where they were from 2016-2022, and in fact wonder where they were during Biden's time in office? They were found intermingled with personal papers and matters dealing with his son's death in 2015, and for quite a stretch of time when he was a private citizen and shielded somewhat from government oversight. So, document dealing with top secret issues are left unattended for 6-9 years, exist without rhyme, reason and organization, and it certainly appears Biden considered them his own personal property. Oh, and that little part about informing the American people about the documents two months after an important election...he sure gets some lucky breaks in that regard, huh? Edited January 10, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 10, 2023 Posted January 10, 2023 On 1/10/2023 at 9:15 PM, JDHillFan said: It’s ok to possess classified information for a period as long as 6 years in an unsecured manner so long as you eventually give it back. What’s so difficult to understand? Expand @ChiGoose says anything less than 11 years is considered 'immediately' notifying the federal government if a democrat. 1 1
B-Man Posted January 10, 2023 Posted January 10, 2023 On 1/10/2023 at 1:03 AM, ChiGoose said: Expand On 1/10/2023 at 1:29 AM, Roundybout said: Expand On 1/10/2023 at 2:05 AM, BillStime said: Expand 1
Roundybout Posted January 10, 2023 Posted January 10, 2023 On 1/10/2023 at 11:22 PM, B-Man said: Expand I was hoping for a schmear of contemplation and critical thinking, but I guess that's too much to ask. Republicans are so easily lead. 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 10, 2023 Posted January 10, 2023 On 1/10/2023 at 11:33 PM, Roundybout said: I was hoping for a schmear of contemplation and critical thinking, but I guess that's too much to ask. Republicans are so easily lead. Expand Actually, what you just exhibited is a lack of leadership acumen. If you lead correctly you would have gotten your schmear, especially if the subject was easy to lead as you have suggested.
ChiGoose Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/10/2023 at 10:59 PM, Orlando Tim said: That is not true, Can you give me a topic of which we can't have access to something that is not classified. Expand Under the Presidential Records Act, any presidential documents become property of the archives the moment the president’s time in office ends. This is true regardless of whether or not the documents are classified. So even if a regular citizen may not have any prohibitions against learning the info contained in the documents, possession of the documents themselves without agreement from the archives would be prohibited.
Orlando Buffalo Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 12:06 AM, ChiGoose said: Under the Presidential Records Act, any presidential documents become property of the archives the moment the president’s time in office ends. This is true regardless of whether or not the documents are classified. So even if a regular citizen may not have any prohibitions against learning the info contained in the documents, possession of the documents themselves without agreement from the archives would be prohibited. Expand So you are actually at the point of arguing that the piece of paper it is printed on is now important? Nice job of becoming even more pedantic. BTW you are arguing that Biden is certainly guilty also.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 The Donald's lawyers would have flushed those documents down the toilet. Nothing to see here folks, move along!
Roundybout Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 12:54 AM, ExiledInIllinois said: The Donald's lawyers would have flushed those documents down the toilet. Nothing to see here folks, move along! Expand The ones they didn’t sell to Russia and Iran, you mean 3
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 12:55 AM, Roundybout said: The ones they didn’t sell to Russia and Iran, you mean Expand Yup... 😕 😞
ChiGoose Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 12:44 AM, Orlando Tim said: So you are actually at the point of arguing that the piece of paper it is printed on is now important? Nice job of becoming even more pedantic. BTW you are arguing that Biden is certainly guilty also. Expand I’m explaining what the law is. If the president scrawls notes from a meeting on the back of a BBQ takeout menu, the archives will take that menu into its possession by the end of the president’s term. And yes, Biden also violated the law.
Orlando Buffalo Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 1:36 AM, ChiGoose said: I’m explaining what the law is. If the president scrawls notes from a meeting on the back of a BBQ takeout menu, the archives will take that menu into its possession by the end of the president’s term. And yes, Biden also violated the law. Expand Ok- we do agree on what the law is but I think this more like 5 miles over the speed limit on a highway, technically illegal but not worth the attention. You can obviously disagree.
ChiGoose Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) On 1/11/2023 at 1:42 AM, Orlando Tim said: Ok- we do agree on what the law is but I think this more like 5 miles over the speed limit on a highway, technically illegal but not worth the attention. You can obviously disagree. Expand Generally, I agree. This is only an issue when people are asked to return the documents and don’t, destroy them, or give them away. As I stated earlier, if Trump had just handed the documents over when NARA asked, it would be a nothingburger. Edited January 11, 2023 by ChiGoose 1
BillsFanNC Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 Trump! Russia! Collusion! They're always projecting. Always.
Wacka Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) The dems should be called the tion party (pronounced shun) because all they do is projection nd deception. Edited January 11, 2023 by Wacka
Doc Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/10/2023 at 11:00 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Holy cr*p--the story gets worse. The documents apparently date from 2013-2016, deal with American interests in Iran, the UK and, get this ---Ukraine--and were first moved to the office in mid-2017 before being discovered last year. One must wonder where they were from 2016-2022, and in fact wonder where they were during Biden's time in office? They were found intermingled with personal papers and matters dealing with his son's death in 2015, and for quite a stretch of time when he was a private citizen and shielded somewhat from government oversight. So, document dealing with top secret issues are left unattended for 6-9 years, exist without rhyme, reason and organization, and it certainly appears Biden considered them his own personal property. Expand Yeah, just learned they were moved twice (even once would have been bad enough). There goes the "they just learned about them!" claim. And he wasn't even President so he couldn't declassify them. And they held in an even less secure location than Mar-a-Lago. On 1/10/2023 at 11:00 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Oh, and that little part about informing the American people about the documents two months after an important election...he sure gets some lucky breaks in that regard, huh? Expand That and the fact that no one leaked the news anytime during the 6 days before the election. What a coincidink! There goes the last hope for a criminal conviction for Trump. Again I told y'all he wasn't going to jail over this. Sorry libs you (again) don't got him now. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 12:54 AM, ExiledInIllinois said: The Donald's lawyers would have flushed those documents down the toilet. Nothing to see here folks, move along! Expand The Donald’s home was raided by an armed task force, kept under control of the govt for 10 hours, they seized items outside the scope of the investigation, fought judicial efforts to have an independent third party go through the material and remove items not relevant to the probe, prevailed on appeal, maintain possession of items they have no right to hold, and cited national security as the primary reason they should be allowed to self-report. Meanwhile, confidential attorney-client correspondence is said to be in play, though the DOJ pinky swears they won’t look at anything again that they may probably should not look at. All of the foregoing is completely legal, of course, and if you prefer, brought on by The Donald getting porky over what he should or shouldn’t have. The flip side of the argument you’re making is a career politician scoops up top secret documents apparently over a 3 year time frame, in violation of the law, whereabouts unknown from 2013-mid2017, apparently files them between his Hair Club for men treatment plan, the Macy’s credit card bill and Jill’s student loan documents, and apparently cannot account for who may/may mit have had access. Then, they’re found prior to the election, they fall off the radar for a couple months and stage argument is what brave and honest soldiers they are because they immediately told someone they had documents for 6 years. Trump made his bed, and exposed his throat to his political enemies. You support whatever comes next, I assume. This isn’t about Trump. Biden, too, made his bed, and exposed his throat to his political enemies. He’s sloppy, as is consistent with his political career. An independent review of his actions, especially illegal activity while a private citizen can only be undertaken by an independent special counsel. This is a great opportunity to rebuild some trust in our system, but I sincerely doubt that’s the game plan. Like the 1/6 committee showed, side deals and protecting an ally is the order of the day. 4
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 11, 2023 Posted January 11, 2023 On 1/11/2023 at 3:53 AM, Doc said: Yeah, just learned they were moved twice (even once would have been bad enough). There goes the "they just learned about them!" claim. And he wasn't even President so he couldn't declassify them. And they held in an even less secure location than Mar-a-Lago. That and the fact that no one leaked the news anytime during the 6 days before the election. What a coincidink! There goes the last hope for a criminal conviction for Trump. Again I told y'all he wasn't going to jail over this. Sorry libs you (again) don't got him now. Expand You have more faith in them than I do. I absolutely think they will push forward with any charge they possibly can, and not think twice about any potential issue with Biden. They pitched the idea that 74 year old Donald Trump—one of the most recognizable people in the world—-was an agent of the Kremlin, and people bought it. Now, I think they don’t charge him if he’s got intel that paints the US govt/dem leadership in a bad light, which he likely does. That’s a trade off they could live with.
Recommended Posts