ChiGoose

They brought law enforcement against him because he told them he turned over everything when in fact he had secretly had his people hide many of the documents. At that moment, it’s clear to anyone that he would never willingly turn everything over and simply asking was not going to work.

Whatever procedure or controls there are for moving electeds out of office are clearly deficient in terms of handling sensitive material and government property. That doesn’t mean this is a political prosecution. Anyone other than a politician would have been charged earlier but here the government bent over backwards for Trump. It wasn’t until he intentionally deceived him (and his own lawyer) that they brought law enforcement against him.

It’s punishment for unlawful behavior. Not seeking an indictment just means that elected officials can do whatever they want with government property and refuse to return it (and even show classified materials to those without clearance) with no punishment whatsoever. Joe Biden could order that he gets a copy of every classified document sent to Hunter’s house and there would be absolutely nothing the next president could do to stop it if Biden didn’t want to cooperate. Is that the kind of precedent you want to set?

The system was designed so that once an elected official finishes their term of service, they return to being a regular citizen. While future presidents may grant them access to information to get their informed perspective, they retain zero personal right to government materials or secrets. That being said, I don’t think the PRA really has criminal enforcement mechanisms. That’s why they were negotiating with Trump to get the documents back for most of a year. Law enforcement wasn’t involved until it was clear that Trump still had classified documents and was refusing to return them. All Trump had to do was just cooperate. That’s it. But if you have someone with government property that they aren’t supposed to have and then they obstruct and deceive law enforcement, what kind of precedent are you setting if your *don’t* charge them with a crime.

Nah, we can address climate change without degrowth. We have the technology. We just need the willpower.

Ok, let’s try a counterfactual. Let’s say that the documents in Biden’s garage and office were discovered after he left the office of VP, but before he was president. Like 2018 or whatever. And when it was discovered that he had these documents, the government asked for them back. But Biden said no. And when the government was negotiating to get them back, Biden sued them to get them to stop. And then Biden told one of his employees (maybe Hunter!) to secretly remove documents from the box of documents before his lawyer could look at them. And then Biden had his lawyer search the boxes and send anything belonging to the government back to the government. And then Biden had his lawyers send a letter to the government stating that they had completed a search and turned over all of the documents, despite the fact that Biden had secretly had someone remove a bunch of documents without his lawyers knowing. And then the government discovered that Biden had been lying to them the whole time and that he still possessed government documents. Would you oppose a search warrant? Would you oppose charges? Because I know that I wouldn’t.

I want to answer you earnestly, but it's not a single thing, so this might be a bit long. Apologies in advance. The laws were not written for elected officials There are something like 3-4 million people in the US with security clearance. These laws were mainly written for them (PRA aside). Because they are contractors and employees, they face non-legal consequences for rule breaking. They can be disciplined or even fired for actions with secretive material that don't rise to an actual crime. Electeds are different because they generally don't face the same non-legal consequences. So they can mishandle documents in a way that is improper and would get an employee fired but wouldn't lead to prosecution or discipline. You would hope that they would become un-elected officials at the next election but they generally don't have a boss that can suspend or fire them so if they acted improperly in a way that doesn't rise to a crime, there aren't real consequences for them. We classify too many things We classify way too much. There are things that are widely publicly known that are still classified for some reason. So people can think that what they are looking at is not classified when it is. There are ways to help with this like coversheets and markings, but those can be removed in electronic documents or someone could carelessly reference classified material in a non-classified document. If you're an official, you may have a large mix of documents where many are classified even though the information is publicly known. It's also clear that the process for moving electeds out of office at the end of their terms is broken. It seems like they just throw everything into boxes and move them out instead of doing a thorough search for things that don't belong to the official. Prosecutorial Discretion Given the costs, in terms of hours and dollars, of prosecution (especially should it make it to trial) prosecutors are only going to charge someone if they believe there is a very strong chance that they will win. So even if they believe someone committed a crime, they likely won't charge unless they think they'll win. I'm not a prosecutor but from what I've heard, it's generally somewhere around 75% or greater certainty. Maybe more. By the way, this is why I remain skeptical that Trump will be charged with incitement for Jan 6. You can make a prima facie case where you have evidence for all of the elements, but you're not looking at a 75-90% chance of winning. You may not be even looking at a 50% chance of winning. In those cases, even if you believe the person is guilty, you'd rather spend your resources on prosecutable cases where you think you'll win. For the documents cases, without evidence of intent beyond mere possession, it's very hard to sustain a charge. That's why Hillary and Pence were not charged. It's why Biden probably won't be charged unless new facts come to light (the investigation into him is still ongoing). --- We should probably update a lot of things given the Hillary-Biden-Pence-Trump cases. But given the laws that we have today, a former elected official who has government documents will avoid prosecution if they turn over the materials when it comes to light that they have them. Even if they took them intentionally, it's a high bar to be able to prove that, and mere possession won't be enough. It's a bad loophole, but that's how it is.

I still struggle to understand this viewpoint, honestly. The timeline makes it clear that there wasn't much of a choice left at that point: The government notified Trump that he had their stuff Trump refused to return it Over the better part of a year, the government tried to get Trump to return it Eventually, Trump turns over boxes of stuff and tells the government that he returned everything Then the government learns that Trump was lying and actually still had stuff, having intentionally kept it from the government (and, as it turns out, his own freaking lawyer) At that point, it's completely clear to anyone that this guy is not trustworthy on this. Why would you expect that he'd actually do a good faith review after he intentionally deceived you? Why would you think he'd honestly return the materials when you know he's been lying to you the whole time? If securing the documents is important (and obviously it was), I don't think you have any options other than to execute a search warrant.

The laws around this are very clear. They aren’t perfect, but they are clear.

Russia’s mass abduction of Ukrainian children may qualify as genocide “The available evidence indicates that Russian efforts to indoctrinate abducted Ukrainian children are both systematic and extensive. A February 2023 reportpublished by the Yale School of Public Health identified a large-scale Russian initiative to re-educate thousands of abducted Ukrainian children via a network of more than 40 camps and facilities stretching from Russian-occupied Crimea to Siberia. “This is not one rogue camp, this is not one rogue mayor or governor,” said Yale Humanitarian Research Lab executive director Nathaniel Raymond. “This is a massive logistical undertaking that does not happen by accident.” In mid-July 2023, the UK imposed sanctions on a number of Russians tied to the abduction of Ukrainian children. British officials said the deportations were designed to “erase Ukrainian cultural and national identity” via the relocation of Ukrainian children to a network of re-education camps. “In his chilling program of forced child deportation, and the hate-filled propaganda spewed by his lackeys, we see Putin’s true intention: to wipe Ukraine from the map,” commented British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly. It is not known how many children are involved in Russia’s abduction program. Ukrainian officials say they have identified almost 20,000 victims, but some fear the true total number may be far higher. Efforts to rescue Ukrainian children taken to Russia are now gaining momentum, but so far only a few hundred have been returned to Ukraine. Many have provided first-hand accounts of indoctrination efforts including daily recitals of the Russian national anthem and punishments for expressions of Ukrainian patriotism.”

Something I find very telling is that even for things that are settled and well known, some people want to make up conspiracies that fit their narratives. The actually, true, and factual explanation as to why those emails were deleted is not a mystery. We know how it happened. And when you look at the fact pattern, you’d understand why it wasn’t charged and even why Hillary herself would be unhappy with it. But that doesn’t fit the narrative, so who cares about facts? It is frankly ridiculous that the constant barrage of lies and insinuations from bad faith actors on the right means that we have to defend people as unappealing as Hillary. I never voted for her but if you’re going to criticize her, maybe do it for something she actually did.

Remember that the charges do not require the documents to be classified. Even if he declassified them, he’s guilty. His fate was sealed when he had someone secretly take documents from the storage closet and told his lawyer everything was in there. If he had just given everything back, he wouldn’t be facing charges.

The thing that I love about this is that these really aren’t in dispute. Even Durham found that the Steele Dossier wasn’t the predicate for the Russia investigation. Bunch of people in here running around screaming the equivalent of the earth is flat.

That when you have unverified claims, you shouldn’t rush to believe them just because you want them to be true.

The reason that so many people are skeptical of the Biden corruption claims is because they are built on the testimony of people who believe this already debunked crap. Very little in here bears a semblance to reality, but I guess if you try hard enough, you can convince yourself anything is true. 1. The Mueller investigation was not predicated on the Steele Dossier 2. POTUS is not involved with FISA warrants 3. The Mueller investigation resulted in charges against over 30 people and multiple companies with several people being found guilty of crimes 4. The Mueller investigation found that Trump himself had met the elements of obstruction of justice 5. Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin at the behest of the President of the United States with the full support of our allies specifically because Shokin was *not* fighting corruption. But yeah, the Steele Dossier was crap. So I guess you went 1 for 6. Nice job.

Is the goal here to ensure a Dem trifecta in 2024? Do you all actually believe the average voter is going to side with the GOP on this? When was the last time you touched grass? This is just pure brain worms from the Very Online crowd and would be a huge win for the Dems. So go on ahead with this nonsense, we applaud you!

In terms of the walls closing in, it’s not just the prosecutors who are after Trump, there’s a good chance that Ronald McDonald ends up being the one who does him in.

That you think any of this is legit. It’s all brain worms from being Very Online. Do they have any hard evidence of a payment to Joe Biden himself? Or still just random people talking with no consequences for lying? Did they subpoena his bank records? Or is old dementia dead Joe so dastardly wily and smart that he made it impossible to trace any payment? We’re just dealing with straight unadulterated copium here. I would absolutely love it if the GOP impeached Biden for this nonsense. It’d be the easiest way to ensure Speaker Jeffries is gaveling in the next House.

Man, I gotta try whatever it is that you’re smoking.

Poor guy. You went almost an entire day without thinking about me. But I suppose that in those quiet moments when nobody in your family would talk to you because they all find you insufferable, you thought of me and, while reaching down your pants with one hand, you typed out whatever this nonsense this is with the other. Happy belated pride to my biggest fan!!!!🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🥰🥰🥰🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

Little early in the day to be so high, isn’t it? Or are just truly this stupid and pathetic? Go touch some grass, moron.

There’s certainly an argument for incitement. And if it wasn’t the President of the United States, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was charged. So while I remain skeptical that Trump will actually be charged with incitement, here is what the argument would look like: 1. Trump’s team claimed that they won the election despite reality. 2. Trump’s team hired consultants to find election fraud but they could not find evidence that he had won 3. Trump was told that he lost by his advisors 4. Trump pushed the idiotic theory that the VP can decide an election 5. Pence proved that he has like two brain cells to rub together and the idea that the VP decides elections is stupid as hell. 6. Upon learning this, Trump tells his followers to come out because it “will be wild” 7. When Pence does his actual job, Trump tweets that he failed and the terrorists decide that they want to hang Pence and sack the Capitol. 8. During the terrorist attack on the Capitol, the only person who potentially has the power to stop it is Trump and he refuses to do so for hours. So the proposed case is that Trump fomented a situation to create violence in the hopes that the violence would end to his benefit. It’s probably factually true but fairly difficult to prove in a court of law. It is definitely not a slam dunk. The documents case is the definition of a slam dunk. Incitement is a very different story.

My god man, do you have a life? I know it’s a rhetorical question at this point, but why are you spending so much time bragging about how much of a loser you are?

Right, when the Steele Dossier came out, it was a collection of accusations that needed to be investigated before taken as true. But it was juicy and anti-Trump so a lot of people believed it anyway. We’re at that stage now with these Biden claims. People inclined to dislike Biden are taking the claims as true. The Steele Dossier fell apart when it was investigated. Will the Biden bribery claims? I don’t know. It certainly seems like something worth investigating but I feel like the congressional investigation is going to be more about hurting Biden than actually finding the truth. Politicians do shady stuff all the time to enrich themselves so it’s not out of the realm of possibility here. I’m just not going to trust the word of a single guy who’s being promoted by people with a history of lying and misinformation. I’d prefer actual hard evidence before believing Joe Biden was personally involved.