ChiGoose Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 21 minutes ago, Doc said: The unprecedented raid and claims of obstruction were to placate the TDS'ers who are desperate to nail Trump anyway they can. Again the NA has lost track of material for decades but suddenly Trump's case became an urgent matter. LOL! No I care more about Joke having classified material he never had any business having, some of which had to have been stolen from a secured area, lying haphazardly around his home and open to anyone getting their hands on it, namely his drug-addled corrupt POS son. Trump got raided solely because of Trump’s actions. If he had done what Hillary, Biden, and Pence did, this would all be behind him. I do not understand why that is so hard to grasp. 1
Warcodered Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 23 minutes ago, Doc said: The unprecedented raid and claims of obstruction were to placate the TDS'ers who are desperate to nail Trump anyway they can. Again the NA has lost track of material for decades but suddenly Trump's case became an urgent matter. LOL! No I care more about Joke having classified material he never had any business having, some of which had to have been stolen from a secured area, lying haphazardly around his home and open to anyone getting their hands on it, namely his drug-addled corrupt POS son. You do realize that Senators do also have access to classified materials right? 1
Doc Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Roundybout said: As opposed to what Donny had at Mar A Lago where anyone could get their hands on them, namely his coke head weirdo son? Cokehead? That's a new one. But the dispute was over what Trump thought he could declassify. Which is the major difference between all the cases since he was POTUS and could do that and they couldn't. But OK, fair enough. Then both should go down for it, right? 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Trump got raided solely because of Trump’s actions. If he had done what Hillary, Biden, and Pence did, this would all be behind him. I do not understand why that is so hard to grasp. I'm not sure why you're having trouble grasping the fact that they found more classified materials months after November. Meaning he didn't disclose to the authorities (and not just the public) that he had more. But I guess "I didn't know I had them" works for you, eh? 1 hour ago, Warcodered said: You do realize that Senators do also have access to classified materials right? They have access but cannot remove materials from a SCIF. And again, they have no ability to declassify material. Edited March 31, 2023 by Doc
ChiGoose Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 35 minutes ago, Doc said: I'm not sure why you're having trouble grasping the fact that they found more classified materials months after November. Meaning he didn't disclose to the authorities (and not just the public) that he had more. But I guess "I didn't know I had them" works for you, eh? It was good enough for the authorities. They believe that he wasn’t aware of them. Helps when you cooperate. Plus, if he was aware of them and the authorities weren’t, why turn them over at all?
Doc Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: It was good enough for the authorities. They believe that he wasn’t aware of them. Helps when you cooperate. Plus, if he was aware of them and the authorities weren’t, why turn them over at all? LOL! Gee I wonder why? So "I didn't know" is good enough for you. OK. Again this is all political and if the Dems want to get Trump for it, the Repubs will do the same. The difference being they don't need to do much to be able to impeach him.
ChiGoose Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 9 minutes ago, Doc said: LOL! Gee I wonder why? So "I didn't know" is good enough for you. OK. Again this is all political and if the Dems want to get Trump for it, the Repubs will do the same. The difference being they don't need to do much to be able to impeach him. From what we know, the government would be unable to sustain a conviction against Biden. Any half decent defense attorney would win that case easily and a good one would win it before trial. Meanwhile, someone fresh out of law school who spends their evenings sniffing glue would be able to get a guilty verdict on the Trump case. If it wasn’t political, but instead was 100% just following the law, the only difference would be that Trump would have been indicted months ago.
BillStime Posted March 31, 2023 Posted March 31, 2023 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: From what we know, the government would be unable to sustain a conviction against Biden. Any half decent defense attorney would win that case easily and a good one would win it before trial. Meanwhile, someone fresh out of law school who spends their evenings sniffing glue would be able to get a guilty verdict on the Trump case. If it wasn’t political, but instead was 100% just following the law, the only difference would be that Trump would have been indicted months ago. Amazing - these “independents” sure like to get in the weeds and go out of their way to defend Trump.
Doc Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 36 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: From what we know, the government would be unable to sustain a conviction against Biden. Any half decent defense attorney would win that case easily and a good one would win it before trial. Meanwhile, someone fresh out of law school who spends their evenings sniffing glue would be able to get a guilty verdict on the Trump case. If it wasn’t political, but instead was 100% just following the law, the only difference would be that Trump would have been indicted months ago. Right. Because there's a time limit to return classified materials? How long did Joke have his and how long was it before the next batches were found? Again, "I didn't know I had them" isn't a valid defense even for a glue sniffing grad. The crime is having them, period But I realize it's how you justify going after Trump but sparing Joke.
Warcodered Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 55 minutes ago, Doc said: LOL! Gee I wonder why? So "I didn't know" is good enough for you. OK. Again this is all political and if the Dems want to get Trump for it, the Repubs will do the same. The difference being they don't need to do much to be able to impeach him. Yeah they just need to get over half of the House to create article of Impeachment and they're so good at all agreeing that it only took them 15 tries elect their Speaker. Then what, they're not going to remove him that takes 2/3 of the Senate and they don't even have half, so congratu*****inglations? 1
Doc Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 10 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Yeah they just need to get over half of the House to create article of Impeachment and they're so good at all agreeing that it only took them 15 tries elect their Speaker. Then what, they're not going to remove him that takes 2/3 of the Senate and they don't even have half, so congratu*****inglations? The House would be no problem. As for the Senate, unlikely but a similar situation didn't stop the Dems from impeaching Trump twice. And who knows, maybe a bunch of Dem Sens want Joke gone?
ChiGoose Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 2 hours ago, Doc said: Right. Because there's a time limit to return classified materials? How long did Joke have his and how long was it before the next batches were found? Again, "I didn't know I had them" isn't a valid defense even for a glue sniffing grad. The crime is having them, period But I realize it's how you justify going after Trump but sparing Joke. Since you are still struggling to understand the differences in the cases, I made this handy chart for you: This is how the law works around these cases. It's may not be how you like it but it is how it is. You can keep saying Biden knew about the docs but so far there is ZERO admissible evidence to demonstrate that. As all of the people correctly criticizing Nancy Pelosi are pointing out: it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. Based on what we know, Biden would walk if he was charged for the documents case. If Biden's column looked like Trump's, then he should be indicted too. 1 2 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 (edited) This may be as deleterious to MAGA's as the indictment https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-undercuts-key-fox-news-defense-as-he-sends-dominion-suit-to-trial/ar-AA19kdLs “The checklist of things that Dominion has to prove in order to win the case has just gotten a lot shorter,” said Sonja West, a law professor at the University of Georgia. The ruling also knocks down a key pillar of Fox’s defense — that it was simply reporting on newsworthy statements from public figures, in this case a sitting president and his advisers. Davis wrote that Fox undermined this line of defense by failing to also report statements from government officials and the company debunking claims of fraud. https://www.mediaite.com/analysis/judge-scorches-fox-news-claim-their-dominion-coverage-was-protected-opinion-sending-media-case-of-the-century-to-trial/ Edited April 1, 2023 by redtail hawk 1
Doc Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 10 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Since you are still struggling to understand the differences in the cases, I made this handy chart for you: This is how the law works around these cases. It's may not be how you like it but it is how it is. You can keep saying Biden knew about the docs but so far there is ZERO admissible evidence to demonstrate that. As all of the people correctly criticizing Nancy Pelosi are pointing out: it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. Based on what we know, Biden would walk if he was charged for the documents case. If Biden's column looked like Trump's, then he should be indicted too. Spiffy chart. Where's the "Deleted files after being told not to" row? Or the "Didn't turn over all documents initially and some were later found in his garage next to his car and therefore he couldn't claim he didn't know they were there" row? Go back and fix it (although admittedly that last one will be tough to fit in there). Look, I realize you're having trouble with the whole "a sitting President and can't be indicted" thing. So again I'll say that the Repubs have more than enough to impeach Joke if the Dems want to indict Trump over this. Not turning over documents on their timeline means jack ***** when other had theirs for decades. The issue is having documents you're not supposed to have in the first place and none of those others ever had any authority to declassify documents, which was Trump's argument. 1
Wacka Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 Where is the" made documents available to crackhead son and the hookers he picket up" line?
ChiGoose Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 13 minutes ago, Doc said: Spiffy chart. Where's the "Deleted files after being told not to" row? Or the "Didn't turn over all documents initially and some were later found in his garage next to his car and therefore he couldn't claim he didn't know they were there" row? Go back and fix it (although admittedly that last one will be tough to fit in there). Look, I realize you're having trouble with the whole "a sitting President and can't be indicted" thing. So again I'll say that the Repubs have more than enough to impeach Joke if the Dems want to indict Trump over this. Not turning over documents on their timeline means jack ***** when other had theirs for decades. The issue is having documents you're not supposed to have in the first place and none of those others ever had any authority to declassify documents, which was Trump's argument. You should actually read the FBI’s report on Hillary and the deleted files. Not that you’d believe it since you seem to only believe things that fit you narrative, regardless of the truth. And once again, you would need to prove that Biden knew those other documents were there and intentionally did not return them. There remains zero evidence to support that. You can make assumptions and you can claim whatever you want, but so far there is nothing that could be introduced in court to show that Biden was aware of those documents and refused to turn them over. Remember when everyone here was complaining about the FBI taking stuff from Trump that wasn’t the documents? Some of that was his personal documents that were mixed in his desk drawer with the classified docs. The purpose of confiscating those is because they can show that Trump was still using the documents after he was president. If Biden had documents dated post presidency that he was personally using mixed in with the classified docs, that could be used to show that he knew about the documents and didn’t turn them in. But we don’t have that. Any defense attorney will be able to successfully argue with the evidence we have that Biden himself was unaware of the documents and there’s nothing we know of that would refute that beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 1
Doc Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 Just now, ChiGoose said: You should actually read the FBI’s report on Hillary and the deleted files. Not that you’d believe it since you seem to only believe things that fit you narrative, regardless of the truth. And once again, you would need to prove that Biden knew those other documents were there and intentionally did not return them. There remains zero evidence to support that. You can make assumptions and you can claim whatever you want, but so far there is nothing that could be introduced in court to show that Biden was aware of those documents and refused to turn them over. Remember when everyone here was complaining about the FBI taking stuff from Trump that wasn’t the documents? Some of that was his personal documents that were mixed in his desk drawer with the classified docs. The purpose of confiscating those is because they can show that Trump was still using the documents after he was president. If Biden had documents dated post presidency that he was personally using mixed in with the classified docs, that could be used to show that he knew about the documents and didn’t turn them in. But we don’t have that. Any defense attorney will be able to successfully argue with the evidence we have that Biden himself was unaware of the documents and there’s nothing we know of that would refute that beyond a reasonable doubt.
BillsFanNC Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Good old @ChiGoose His/her/their theme song... Edited April 1, 2023 by BillsFanNC 1
Doc Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 12 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Good old @ChiGoose His/her/their theme song... Essentially their gripe comes down to "he didn't return the documents fast enough." It went from "he had nuclear secrets!"...to that. Because they're desperate for anything.
ChiGoose Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 2 minutes ago, Doc said: Essentially their gripe comes down to "he didn't return the documents fast enough." It went from "he had nuclear secrets!"...to that. Because they're desperate for anything. Nope. The issue is not returning the documents the moment they are discovered. The evidence shows Biden did and Trump didn’t. If that changes, it changes things. But so far, that’s the difference. 1 1
Doc Posted April 1, 2023 Posted April 1, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Nope. The issue is not returning the documents the moment they are discovered. The evidence shows Biden did and Trump didn’t. If that changes, it changes things. But so far, that’s the difference. Nope? LOL! That's exactly what I said. So you don't care about other people illegally in possession of classified material they had no business having since they can't declassify it (unlike Trump) and which could have fallen into the wrong hands...your issue is he didn't return it fast enough. Got it.
Recommended Posts