The Walls be Closing

[Doc]

48 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

You keep ignoring that Trump obstructed the investigation. That’s the crucial difference between the two. 
 

Had he just done what Biden did, he wouldn’t have been charged. 

 

And you keep ignoring that Hur found evidence that Biden willfully retained classified information.  And shared some with his ghostwriter.  And he had that information for many more years than Trump did and stored some in his garage.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc]

19 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

"Oral history."  The joke just writes itself...

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

And you keep ignoring that Hur found evidence that Biden willfully retained classified information.  And shared some with his ghostwriter.  And he had that information for many more years than Trump did and stored some in his garage.  

I’m not ignoring it. Like I said, electeds get away with a lot around this stuff, likely because the laws were written with the millions of public and private sector employees in mind, not former elected officials. 
 

Had Trump taken the documents and forgotten about them and they were discovered years later, he still wouldn’t get charged *unless* he refused to return them when asked. 
 

That’s the difference. It remains the difference. All of this other nonsense is just to deflect from the fact that it was Trump’s actions *after* he was asked to return them that got him charged. 

[BillStime]

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m not ignoring it. Like I said, electeds get away with a lot around this stuff, likely because the laws were written with the millions of public and private sector employees in mind, not former elected officials. 
 

Had Trump taken the documents and forgotten about them and they were discovered years later, he still wouldn’t get charged *unless* he refused to return them when asked. 
 

That’s the difference. It remains the difference. All of this other nonsense is just to deflect from the fact that it was Trump’s actions *after* he was asked to return them that got him charged. 

 

Initially you said/believed that he never knew he had classified information and it was "spillage" thanks to his underlings.  Now it appears you're saying that knowingly possessing classified material and not giving it back is OK because he wasn't asked for it back (which is what is truly nonsense).  Is that what you're saying?  Because I don't want to put words in your mouth...

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Initially you said/believed that he never knew he had classified information and it was "spillage" thanks to his underlings.  Now it appears you're saying that knowingly possessing classified material and not giving it back is OK because he wasn't asked for it back (which is what is truly nonsense).  Is that what you're saying?  Because I don't want to put words in your mouth...

I’m saying that if a former elected has government docs in their possession, they do not get charged if they cooperate and turn them over when asked. Like it or not, that’s just how it works. 
 

If you actually read Hur’s report, the evidence they could use to charge Biden for willful possession was a single comment he made. In all of the tapes with his ghostwriter, he never again mentioned them, none of the information ended up in the book. The documents were not even found in the house he was in when he made the comment (and they were in a “badly damaged box surrounded by household detritus”), and he had been out of office for barely a month (while in office, he was permitted to keep such files at his home).
 

No jury would convict on that fact pattern. 

 

If the Trump case had the same facts, Trump wouldn’t have been charged because there would be no likelihood of a conviction. 

 

He got charged because, unlike Biden or Pence, Trump obstructed the investigation and lied to the Feds. That’s certainly enough to be able to prove intent to a jury. 
 

The thing that has the right so made is that they mistakenly believe the cases are the same and Trump is being treated differently. They are not because Trump ensured his indictment by his own actions after the documents were discovered by the Feds. 

[BillsFanNC]

⬆️ 

 

Hand waving bloviating?

 

100%

[L Ron Burgundy]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m saying that if a former elected has government docs in their possession, they do not get charged if they cooperate and turn them over when asked. Like it or not, that’s just how it works. 
 

If you actually read Hur’s report, the evidence they could use to charge Biden for willful possession was a single comment he made. In all of the tapes with his ghostwriter, he never again mentioned them, none of the information ended up in the book. The documents were not even found in the house he was in when he made the comment (and they were in a “badly damaged box surrounded by household detritus”), and he had been out of office for barely a month (while in office, he was permitted to keep such files at his home).
 

No jury would convict on that fact pattern. 

 

If the Trump case had the same facts, Trump wouldn’t have been charged because there would be no likelihood of a conviction. 

 

He got charged because, unlike Biden or Pence, Trump obstructed the investigation and lied to the Feds. That’s certainly enough to be able to prove intent to a jury. 
 

The thing that has the right so made is that they mistakenly believe the cases are the same and Trump is being treated differently. They are not because Trump ensured his indictment by his own actions after the documents were discovered by the Feds. 

How many times do you think you've spelled this out here?  At least 10.

[ChiGoose]

28 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

How many times do you think you've spelled this out here?  At least 10.

I don’t expect people to understand all of the legal ins and outs so I’m happy to explain it. 
 

But after some point the ignorance goes from understandable to willful. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This is just factually incorrect.

 

Instead of taking the very simple and correct explanation (leeway is granted to electeds if they don't obstruct), it paints Trump as a victim of a vast conspiracy that just does not exist.

 

The idea that there is a "protected class" of powerful people who are above the law that exists but doesn't include the guy with a golden toilet is laughable. 

 

If Trump had intentionally taken the documents, told his people that he did so to sell them to Iran for cash, but the government asked for them before he did so and he returned them all, he'd be fine. It's not some grand conspiracy, it's an idiot being an idiot and causing himself problems.

 

FYI: If you hire a lawyer, listen to them...

Jeez, between crazy "grand conspiracy" talk, golden toilets and money laundering through Iran, I feel like I tuned in to hump day on The View.  You would be in the Joy Behar role.

 

It seems silly to argue with a true believer, so I'll leave it at this.  If you're certain there are not political, personal or power plays in government, you haven't been paying attention.  If you're certain that every person is treated in the same way, every time as the wheels of justice grind onward, you're incredibly naive. 

 

Here's what I know.  In the old days, back when LL Cool James Comey spoke about Hillary Clinton, he stated the following:

 

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

 

After detailing the evidence that the FBI found evidence that classified information was:

• Improperly stored;
• On a personal system;
• in violation of a federal statute..making it a felony to mishandle...intentionally or in a grossly negligent way...

 

...And so on.  He indicated that no reasonable prosecutor would bring an action against her, for activity that seems quite clearly criminal based on the standards as he shared them.  I'll move past the part where what's "unreasonable" to one person may be quite "reasonable" to another (and both might be considered reasonable), and that stating that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case is wholly and not subtly different than "no evidence of a crime was found". 

 

When we look to Biden's activities, we know that after declaring Trump's behavior outrageous, Team Biden supersized reckless disregards and intentional acts, including sharing classified documents and material with people not authorized to receive said information, over a number of years and as a public and private citizen.  Additionally, at a bare minimum, the appearance of obstructive behavior by a number of parties occurred in the wake of the investigation, and Old Scranton Joe declared himself the victim of a witch hunt to boot.  

 

The outcome?  Today's version of "no reasonable prosecutor" for what are obvious criminal acts as described by the former director of the FBI.

 

Which bring me back to my point.  If one were to consider reasonable and fair treatment as the goal, and laws that were broken were really only pretend/maybe laws that no one really follows (though Comey did suggest that others in the same situation might face adverse actions), why would it be unreasonable to think a few boxes in the steam room were anything to worry about as it relates to an armed raid, or life in prison? 

 

No, sir, it's ok to be a true believer in the decency of all parties involved,  but the reality is that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and potentially Mike Pence were actually, literally above the law.  

 

 

[daz28]

7 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Well, there goes his claim that he can declassify documents just by thinking about it.  Does the right even have any feet left after shooting them off time after time after time?

 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

SUBJECT:    Declassification of Certain Materials Related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

Edited April 4 by daz28

[Pokebball]

5 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m not ignoring it. Like I said, electeds get away with a lot around this stuff, likely because the laws were written with the millions of public and private sector employees in mind, not former elected officials. 
 

Had Trump taken the documents and forgotten about them and they were discovered years later, he still wouldn’t get charged *unless* he refused to return them when asked. 
 

That’s the difference. It remains the difference. All of this other nonsense is just to deflect from the fact that it was Trump’s actions *after* he was asked to return them that got him charged. 

Can I assume that your opinion is that Biden truly forgot he had his records?

[BillsFanNC]

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Which bring me back to my point.  If one were to consider reasonable and fair treatment as the goal, and laws that were broken were really only pretend/maybe laws that no one really follows (though Comey did suggest that others in the same situation might face adverse actions), why would it be unreasonable to think a few boxes in the steam room were anything to worry about as it relates to an armed raid, or life in prison? 

Remember that for almost a year, there wasn’t a big concern from the government. They found out Trump had the docs and they asked for them back. 
 

Trump wrongfully claimed that they were all his, but the government simply continued to negotiate with him to return the documents. 
 

Eventually, Trump told the government he’d return the documents. He gave them several boxes of documents and his lawyer signed a letter stating that these were all of the documents. 
 

Had that been it, Trump would have been fine. For all of the problems of walking away with the documents and refusing to return them, the government just wanted to get them back. As far as I can remember, the whole thing was still being handled by NARA at this point, not federal law enforcement. 
 

However, the government then learned that Trump had lied. He had removed documents prior to his lawyer examining all of the boxes, causing his lawyer to falsely claim they had returned everything. He had also told his staff to tamper with the security cameras for the room that housed the documents. 
 

It was only at this point that the government decided to take real action, referring the case to the DoJ which then executed a search warrant and later indicted Trump.

 

If you want to argue that the controls and laws around the handling of sensitive documents by electeds are broken and need fixing, I’m 100% with you. 
 

But it is simply false to paint Trump’s situation as him being treated differently. They gave him every opportunity to avoid trouble (opportunities that everyone else in his shoes gladly took) and he decided to obstruct instead. 
 

Also, I’m no “true believer.” I don’t like Hillary, I didn’t vote for her in 2016 (voted for Gary Johnson). I didn’t want Biden to be the Dem nominee in 2020 and I certainly didn’t want him to be the nominee in 2024. I’m just trying to explain what’s going on with these cases. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Remember that for almost a year, there wasn’t a big concern from the government. They found out Trump had the docs and they asked for them back. 
 

Trump wrongfully claimed that they were all his, but the government simply continued to negotiate with him to return the documents. 
 

Eventually, Trump told the government he’d return the documents. He gave them several boxes of documents and his lawyer signed a letter stating that these were all of the documents. 
 

Had that been it, Trump would have been fine. For all of the problems of walking away with the documents and refusing to return them, the government just wanted to get them back. As far as I can remember, the whole thing was still being handled by NARA at this point, not federal law enforcement. 
 

However, the government then learned that Trump had lied. He had removed documents prior to his lawyer examining all of the boxes, causing his lawyer to falsely claim they had returned everything. He had also told his staff to tamper with the security cameras for the room that housed the documents. 
 

It was only at this point that the government decided to take real action, referring the case to the DoJ which then executed a search warrant and later indicted Trump.

 

If you want to argue that the controls and laws around the handling of sensitive documents by electeds are broken and need fixing, I’m 100% with you. 
 

But it is simply false to paint Trump’s situation as him being treated differently. They gave him every opportunity to avoid trouble (opportunities that everyone else in his shoes gladly took) and he decided to obstruct instead. 
 

Also, I’m no “true believer.” I don’t like Hillary, I didn’t vote for her in 2016 (voted for Gary Johnson). I didn’t want Biden to be the Dem nominee in 2020 and I certainly didn’t want him to be the nominee in 2024. I’m just trying to explain what’s going on with these cases. 

Listen, you’re every bit as much a true believer as I am a grand conspiracy theorist talking about golden toilets.   
 

I’ll repeat what I’ve said previously.  75% of the people running for Prez/VP in 2020 violated the law as described by James Comey in my post above.  I’d hazard a guess that if someone did a little snooping around on Kamala Harris, that number would be 100%.  In 2016, Hillary Clinton violated the law as described by James Comey as outlined above.   Pence, given his recent admission probably did as well, and it’s likely that Tim Kaine likely did as well.  Why?  Because the standard seems well-established.  It’s a thing people like that do.  
 

So, if there are rules that people—high profile, top of government types——live by, it’s perfectly logical to assume that the system isn’t broken, their actions define the system. 
 

None of that, of course, addresses Biden’s actions, which were quite extreme indeed.  He had &$#@ stashed everywhere, decades in the making, with no safeguards in place, running his mouth, and the allegation is that potentially critical information was destroyed in spite of the SC investigation, all perfectly acceptable in the context of protecting national security as if that really is a thing.  
 

Trump did what he did—-he exposed his throat to political enemies intent on his destruction and that’s on him.  I’ll pass, however on the ginned up outrage on obstruction in light of all that we already know, and with the understanding that’s likely just the tip of the iceberg.  One need not be a lawyer to see this entire process is a giant steaming pile of 🤬. 
 

Getting back to the original point, yeah, Jack Smith is probably pretty good. 

 

[Doc]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m saying that if a former elected has government docs in their possession, they do not get charged if they cooperate and turn them over when asked. Like it or not, that’s just how it works. 
 

If you actually read Hur’s report, the evidence they could use to charge Biden for willful possession was a single comment he made. In all of the tapes with his ghostwriter, he never again mentioned them, none of the information ended up in the book. The documents were not even found in the house he was in when he made the comment (and they were in a “badly damaged box surrounded by household detritus”), and he had been out of office for barely a month (while in office, he was permitted to keep such files at his home).
 

No jury would convict on that fact pattern. 

 

If the Trump case had the same facts, Trump wouldn’t have been charged because there would be no likelihood of a conviction. 

 

He got charged because, unlike Biden or Pence, Trump obstructed the investigation and lied to the Feds. That’s certainly enough to be able to prove intent to a jury. 
 

The thing that has the right so made is that they mistakenly believe the cases are the same and Trump is being treated differently. They are not because Trump ensured his indictment by his own actions after the documents were discovered by the Feds. 

 

The same goes for most of the things you guys believe about Trump:  Russian collusion, rape of EJC, insurrection, etc.  Do you think those things can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in court?  Nope.  But you still believe them, don't you?

 

It strained credulity trying to claim that Biden didn't know he had classified material all over his house, especially in his garage where he obviously visits every weekend.  Along comes the Hur report and it basically lays waste to that, regardless of what can or can't be proven in court.  I know it, you know it, we all know it.  It reminds me of the Araiza case and how it was obvious the girl was lying when she claimed she told people at the college party that she was 17.

 

And (again), I haven't been calling for Biden to be charged.  Just for this charade with Trump to end.  Because again, the most important thing is "what was done with the material" not merely that they have it.

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[BillStime]