ChiGoose

So much of the ethos of the Right today isn’t policy, isn’t making life better, it’s simply: let’s harm the people we don’t like.

I don’t believe that. I think what the FBI found to be pretty reasonable given the details of the investigation.

Seems to be for you. Sorry about that but sometimes life can be tough.

It’s a wonderful Saturday and instead of having a life, you’re spending it thinking about me. How sweet! 🥰🥰🥰

You could, of course, read the FBI report on it if you want to understand what happened. But reading is hard, I get it.

I have no idea who this Julie Kelly person is, but she does not seem to have a grasp on how things work.

DoJ already said Pence will not face charges. Their investigation seems to show that the spillage was accidental. Biden is still under investigation, so we’ll see what happens there. Most of Trump’s charges stem from his obstruction of the investigation and how his actions demonstrated that he took the documents intentionally. It’s clear that our government records system is broken, with documents constantly ending up where they shouldn’t be. But to sustain a charge against a specific person, you need to prove to a jury that this specific individual knowingly took the documents, or when they discovered them, refused to return them.

Biden is being investigated for the documents in his possession and unlike Pence, they haven’t closed out the investigation with no charges yet. Maybe they will find evidence of crimes, maybe they won’t. But the difference that so many people seem to want to stick their heads in the sand instead of seeing the truth is: Biden didn’t refuse to return the documents when asked, he didn’t lie about returning them, and he didn’t obstruct the investigation into his possession of documents. If Trump had just done what Pence and Biden did, he probably wouldn’t have been indicted.

It’s almost as if refusing to return the documents when asked, lying about returning them, and then obstructing the investigation into the documents makes it seem as if the taking was intentional.

He still wakes up thinking about me 🥰🥰🥰

You truly live in a fantasy world, detached from reality.

Uh huh. Please tell me more about myself, since you seem to be an expert.

Fun fact: I’m not sure I’ve ever watched MSNBC.

It’s appreciated that you insist on reminding us on your inability to understand the basic facts around the Trump investigation. No one doubted you. If Trump was a democrat, you’d be contorting to blame him for everything you assert he’s been scapegoated for. You’re a pathetically ignorant fool. Here’s what Trump *really* needed to do to avoid a charge: Turn over all of the documents when he was asked, say it was a big mistake, and cooperate fully. That’s it. No 3D chess or triple Xanatos gambit. Just do the very bare minimum.

False.

Trump clearly suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Not the traditional egoism or narcissism of your typical politician, but the truly mentally ill NPD. Once you understand that, it all ends up making sense.

That would be easy to prove if they refused to return them when asked, returned some and lied that they had returned them all, and then obstructed the investigation into their possession of the documents.

“He only stole 324 documents” isn’t really the most convincing argument of Trump’s innocence.

Not only all of that (which is all true), but also the fact that the charges were filed in FL probably tells us something. If the crimes were solely the taking of the documents, DC is probably the more proper venue as it is where the documents were taken from and where NARA, the proper owner of the documents, resides. But if there were crimes committed *after* taking the documents, then they were likely done in FL, and thus FL is the proper venue. So filing in FL and risking getting the world’s dumbest judge (which they ended up getting) only makes sense if Trump was committing crimes with the documents after they were taken. (There is an infinitesimally small chance that prosecutors were worried about how SCOTUS will rule on Smith v. United States this term, but that seems far less likely than the above).

Well this is completely false. Not sure why everyone is so ready to buy into falsehoods.

Well, this is completely false.

Or, it could be that Clinton’s case was very different from Trump’s in both the facts and the law. But that would require actually examining the cases with logic and facts, which seems impossible here no matter how many times you explain it.

We are reaching dangerous levels of copium here. “Legal expert who previously worked on an investigation into Trump is able to identify what current legal investigation into Trump is doing.” Must be a conspiracy!

He had documents that he had no right to possess and refused to turn them over when told to. There’s still a question as to how exactly they ended up in his possession, so I get your reluctance here. I guess “stole” is a bit of colloquialism as the statutes I’m aware of for this case don’t use that kind of terminology; but it’s a decent enough shorthand to get the point across as opposed to “knowingly and intentionally possessed sensitive government documents he had no right to.”