Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Me: They aren’t going to be able to prove intent Hur: We’re not able to prove intent It’s right there in the report. It’s not that confusing. Wait, you're telling me that he knew he had classified documents at least as far back as 2017, didn't return them...and that's not proof of intent to keep them? Or that he didn't intend to show them to an unauthorized person? But again, we're not talking about criminal charges for him. Because there's no need. Everyone sees what he did was no different than what Trump did but that there's a 2-tiered system of justice. And again, the worst part of it was Hur calling him senile as far back as 2017. If you don't think Joke's handlers aren't scrambling for his replacement... Edited February 10 by Doc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 8 hours ago, JDHillFan said: Your claim all along has been that it’s all good because Biden complied with the request to return documents. Hur’s report makes it clear they aren’t charging him because he’s too feeble to stand trial, not because he was a good citizen for turning them in. You are actually trying to take a victory lap? I don’t think there’s a victory lap to be taken here I this whole classified document thing very seriously probably because I’m personally invested Both were wrong But it is important to go to distinction of why there is a criminal case going on here and the two situations are different 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Wait, you're telling me that he knew he had classified documents at least as far back as 2017, didn't return them...and that's not proof of intent to keep them? Or that he didn't intend to show them to an unauthorized person? Literally, in the special counsel findings, they said that Biden had staff that didn’t do what they were supposed to do literally in Biden’s press conference. He took blame for not taking more of an oversight role on his staff. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 13 minutes ago, Doc said: Wait, you're telling me that he knew he had classified documents at least as far back as 2017, didn't return them...and that's not proof of intent to keep them? Or that he didn't intend to show them to an unauthorized person? But again, we're not talking about criminal charges for him. Because there's no need. Everyone sees what he did was no different than what Trump did but that there's a 2-tiered system of justice. And again, the worst part of it was Hur calling him senile as far back as 2017. If you don't think Joke's handlers aren't scrambling for his replacement... You should try reading the report. Even just the summary. As Hur explains, what they could present to the jury is that Biden said he had classified documents in his house in 2017. That’s about it. Hur tried to find any additional corroborating evidence that put the documents there at that time but could not find any. Biden has a laundry list of defenses to raise doubts about his intent. No prosecutor would press this case. Hur also explains why Trump’s case is different from Biden’s and why Trump’s actions support an indictment. The documents are public, read them for yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 2 hours ago, ChiGoose said: You should try reading the report. Even just the summary. As Hur explains, what they could present to the jury is that Biden said he had classified documents in his house in 2017. That’s about it. Hur tried to find any additional corroborating evidence that put the documents there at that time but could not find any. Biden has a laundry list of defenses to raise doubts about his intent. No prosecutor would press this case. Hur also explains why Trump’s case is different from Biden’s and why Trump’s actions support an indictment. The documents are public, read them for yourself. It makes zero difference. If we were to find out Trump was selling secrets, and he was on tape doing so, they would still defend him. These people are gone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SydneyBillsFan Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 2 hours ago, Doc said: Wait, you're telling me that he knew he had classified documents at least as far back as 2017, didn't return them...and that's not proof of intent to keep them? Or that he didn't intend to show them to an unauthorized person? But again, we're not talking about criminal charges for him. Because there's no need. Everyone sees what he did was no different than what Trump did but that there's a 2-tiered system of justice. And again, the worst part of it was Hur calling him senile as far back as 2017. If you don't think Joke's handlers aren't scrambling for his replacement... No Doc - it's even worse than that: Trump - took documents as president and stored them in his home surrounded by 24/7 security guards. Biden - took documents when he wasn't president and kept them in a decrepit box in his insecure garage - which he may have forgotten to close or lock on more than one occasion. But of course, ABC, CNN and MSNBC will say "nothing to see here". As the old saying goes: "if it wasn't for double standards, the left would have no standards at all". 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 8 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said: No Doc - it's even worse than that: Trump - took documents as president and stored them in his home surrounded by 24/7 security guards. Biden - took documents when he wasn't president and kept them in a decrepit box in his insecure garage - which he may have forgotten to close or lock on more than one occasion. But of course, ABC, CNN and MSNBC will say "nothing to see here". As the old saying goes: "if it wasn't for double standards, the left would have no standards at all". I don’t understand how people still get it this wrong when the reports are public info. Just read them! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 13 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said: No Doc - it's even worse than that: Trump - took documents as president and stored them in his home surrounded by 24/7 security guards. Biden - took documents when he wasn't president and kept them in a decrepit box in his insecure garage - which he may have forgotten to close or lock on more than one occasion. But of course, ABC, CNN and MSNBC will say "nothing to see here". As the old saying goes: "if it wasn't for double standards, the left would have no standards at all". Yeah you left the part out where he lied about having them, weird....? And the part about showing random people without clearance. That's no big deal for you eh? Wow you people are lost. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 10 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Yeah you left the part out where he lied about having them, weird....? And the part about showing random people without clearance. That's no big deal for you eh? Wow you people are lost. Yeah - our resident Australian also failed to mention that Trump’s motor inn in Florida was a revolving door with random people, pedophiles, and Chinese ”trespassers” who crept past that 24/7 security. But yes - tell us more about canceling those pedos. It’s so funny how hard these idiots try to downplay how Trump obstructed justice w these sensitive documents. He literally could have returned them and all would be forgotten but as usual - the POS thought he was above the law and could sell these documents for top dollar. They were literally an insurance policy for him to get out of all his mounting debt. F him because it’s all about him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Egg Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 In case anyone missed this: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 7 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: It makes zero difference. If we were to find out bribem was selling secrets, and he was on tape doing so, they would still defend him. These people are gone. FIFY Never let the facts get in the way of a good persecution. You are a hypocrite of the highest order Ron, congratulations on your achievement! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Westside said: FIFY Never let the facts get in the way of a good persecution. You are a hypocrite of the highest order Ron, congratulations on your achievement! The BIG Lie lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 too old and mentally unable to undergo a trial but fit to be president and run for another four years. lol. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Lol. Receipts all over this thread. The king is like " they won't read the report" So much cope going on by the fan club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 15 minutes ago, aristocrat said: too old and mentally unable to undergo a trial but fit to be president and run for another four years. lol. I really just don’t understand how people can read the report and come to the conclusion that he’s not being charged because he’s mentally unfit. It’s written in fairly plain language. I wouldn’t think you’d need a law degree to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 12 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: Literally, in the special counsel findings, they said that Biden had staff that didn’t do what they were supposed to do literally in Biden’s press conference. He took blame for not taking more of an oversight role on his staff. 10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: You should try reading the report. Even just the summary. As Hur explains, what they could present to the jury is that Biden said he had classified documents in his house in 2017. That’s about it. Hur tried to find any additional corroborating evidence that put the documents there at that time but could not find any. Biden has a laundry list of defenses to raise doubts about his intent. No prosecutor would press this case. Hur also explains why Trump’s case is different from Biden’s and why Trump’s actions support an indictment. The documents are public, read them for yourself. I don't care who took the material and I don't need to read Hur's lame defenses for Joke. Again I'm not advocating being petty like the Dems are with Trump and charging Joke criminally. All I needed to hear was what most of us already suspected: that Joke knew he had classified materials in his possession. That came from the horse's mouth and he had no reason to lie in that situation. That destroys the plausible deniability angle and shows he intended to keep it. Showing it to his ghostwriter adds another layer of criminality and that is corroborated by the ghostwriter deleting conversations he had with Joke after learning about the investigation. You would think they would want to charge the ghostwriter but they won't, as is typical of this corrupt Admin. So again, I say the Dems can do the right thing and end the investigation into Trump, or continue with the charade and sink their chances even further. As Sherpa said, Joke is done. But not because of the documents, but because of Hur essentially saying Joke is too senile to stand trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 28 minutes ago, Doc said: I don't care who took the material and I don't need to read Hur's lame defenses for Joke. Again I'm not advocating being petty like the Dems are with Trump and charging Joke criminally. All I needed to hear was what most of us already suspected: that Joke knew he had classified materials in his possession. That came from the horse's mouth and he had no reason to lie in that situation. That destroys the plausible deniability angle and shows he intended to keep it. Showing it to his ghostwriter adds another layer of criminality and that is corroborated by the ghostwriter deleting conversations he had with Joke after learning about the investigation. You would think they would want to charge the ghostwriter but they won't, as is typical of this corrupt Admin. So again, I say the Dems can do the right thing and end the investigation into Trump, or continue with the charade and sink their chances even further. As Sherpa said, Joke is done. But not because of the documents, but because of Hur essentially saying Joke is too senile to stand trial. Yes, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you do not care or even understand facts or the law or how prosecutions work and simply want an excuse to feel good about rooting for a criminal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 44 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Yes, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you do not care or even understand facts or the law or how prosecutions work and simply want an excuse to feel good about rooting for a criminal. Your feelz are duly noted. But they're opinions and you know what opinions are like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 Just now, Doc said: Your feelz are duly noted. But they're opinions and you know what opinions are like... 👆🤡👇😂 feelz On 6/15/2023 at 2:26 PM, Doc said: He felt he won. More feelz On 2/15/2022 at 11:22 AM, Doc said: Worse than Watergate, 9/11, WWII and January 6th combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Doc said: Your feelz are duly noted. But they're opinions and you know what opinions are like... You’re so far down your little rabbit hole that you cannot even differentiate facts from opinions. You’d benefit from cancelling your internet service. It seems to have rotted your brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: You’re so far down your little rabbit hole that you cannot even differentiate facts from opinions. You’d benefit from cancelling your internet service. It seems to have rotted your brain. If you're still clinging to the "Joke didn't know he had classified documents" belief (again, stop talking about legalities), I question whether you ever had a brain... Edited February 10 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Reminder: This was the greatest security risk in US history ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: Reminder: This was the greatest security risk in US history ! Their argument is "he didn't give them back fast enough!" Meanwhile Joke knowingly had classified documents for at least 7 years... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 12 hours ago, BillStime said: Yeah - our resident Australian also failed to mention that Trump’s motor inn in Florida was a revolving door with random people, pedophiles, and Chinese ”trespassers” who crept past that 24/7 security. But yes - tell us more about canceling those pedos. It’s so funny how hard these idiots try to downplay how Trump obstructed justice w these sensitive documents. He literally could have returned them and all would be forgotten but as usual - the POS thought he was above the law and could sell these documents for top dollar. They were literally an insurance policy for him to get out of all his mounting debt. F him because it’s all about him He'll just not reply now because his position is indefensible and absurd. The law apparently agrees with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 36 minutes ago, Doc said: If you're still clinging to the "Joke didn't know he had classified documents" belief (again, stop talking about legalities), I question whether you ever had a brain... I’m just stating the facts that under the law, no prosecutor would bring charges because the intent component would likely lose. Hur agrees. All he has is a statement. Everything else could be knocked down be a rookie defense attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 49 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: He'll just not reply now because his position is indefensible and absurd. The law apparently agrees with us. They always run away when you start asking questions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Doc said: Their argument is "he didn't give them back fast enough!" Meanwhile Joke knowingly had classified documents for at least 7 years... This is simply not true, and no amount of saying it is going to make it true Special counsel found that he did not know that he had those documents and he immediately gave them up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I’m just stating the facts that under the law, no prosecutor would bring charges because the intent component would likely lose. Hur agrees. All he has is a statement. Everything else could be knocked down be a rookie defense attorney. Get a gung-ho prosecutor, like there seem to be a lot of when it comes to going after Trump, and a sympathetic jury and you'd be surprised. Although in DC... And it's more than just a "statement:" it's an admission of guilt. We (now) know for a fact that he showed "secret and top secret" information to his ghostwriter back in 2017, yet it was never returned until last year, (conveniently) after Trump was charged. What do you call that if not intent to keep? Are you, as his non-rookie defense lawyer, going to stand in front of the jury and say "he forgot he had it" or "he didn't know it was classified/can't read when he shared it with his ghostwriter"? Remember that this was 2017 when he was 74 and 3 years prior to when you and all the other Dems were assuring everyone he was compos mentis to be President. Speaking of the ghostwriter, I'd subpoena him and threaten him with obstruction of justice if he didn't at least testify, it not produce the conversations he illegally deleted after the investigation started. But again, I'm not looking for a criminal conviction. And while I advocated for an impeachment, there's no need anymore. The damage has been worse than I imagined after Hur said he was too senile to stand trial, meaning he's not close to being fit to be re-elected, if not remain President. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Doc said: Get a gung-ho prosecutor, like there seem to be a lot of when it comes to going after Trump, and a sympathetic jury and you'd be surprised. Although in DC... And it's more than just a "statement:" it's an admission of guilt. We (now) know for a fact that he showed "secret and top secret" information to his ghostwriter back in 2017, yet it was never returned until last year, (conveniently) after Trump was charged. What do you call that if not intent to keep? Are you, as his non-rookie defense lawyer, going to stand in front of the jury and say "he forgot he had it" or "he didn't know it was classified/can't read when he shared it with his ghostwriter"? Remember that this was 2017 when he was 74 and 3 years prior to when you and all the other Dems were assuring everyone he was compos mentis to be President. Speaking of the ghostwriter, I'd subpoena him and threaten him with obstruction of justice if he didn't at least testify, it not produce the conversations he illegally deleted after the investigation started. But again, I'm not looking for a criminal conviction. And while I advocated for an impeachment, there's no need anymore. The damage has been worse than I imagined after Hur said he was too senile to stand trial, meaning he's not close to being fit to be re-elected, if not remain President. L O L You don’t need impeachment anymore because the Republicans are too disorganized to even do that right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 7 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: L O L You don’t need impeachment anymore because the Republicans are too disorganized to even do that right Whatever. They don't need to be organized for Joke/the Dems to sink their re-election chances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 5 hours ago, Doc said: Get a gung-ho prosecutor, like there seem to be a lot of when it comes to going after Trump, and a sympathetic jury and you'd be surprised. Although in DC... And it's more than just a "statement:" it's an admission of guilt. We (now) know for a fact that he showed "secret and top secret" information to his ghostwriter back in 2017, yet it was never returned until last year, (conveniently) after Trump was charged. What do you call that if not intent to keep? Are you, as his non-rookie defense lawyer, going to stand in front of the jury and say "he forgot he had it" or "he didn't know it was classified/can't read when he shared it with his ghostwriter"? Remember that this was 2017 when he was 74 and 3 years prior to when you and all the other Dems were assuring everyone he was compos mentis to be President. Speaking of the ghostwriter, I'd subpoena him and threaten him with obstruction of justice if he didn't at least testify, it not produce the conversations he illegally deleted after the investigation started. But again, I'm not looking for a criminal conviction. And while I advocated for an impeachment, there's no need anymore. The damage has been worse than I imagined after Hur said he was too senile to stand trial, meaning he's not close to being fit to be re-elected, if not remain President. Aaaand in this long rant of ignorance you have demonstrated that you didn’t read the report, don’t understand how the law works, have been spoon-fed misleading information about Hur’s conclusions, suffer from severe Dunning Kruger, and just make up whatever reality you want that makes you feel good. Once again, take a break from the internet because you seem to be suffering from terminal online brain. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 (edited) 3 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Aaaand in this long rant of ignorance you have demonstrated that you didn’t read the report, don’t understand how the law works, have been spoon-fed misleading information about Hur’s conclusions, suffer from severe Dunning Kruger, and just make up whatever reality you want that makes you feel good. Once again, take a break from the internet because you seem to be suffering from terminal online brain. What complete and utter bull####. You really are a braindead partisan hack. The evidence is staring you right in the face and you're still "nah, he good because there needs to be 100% proof (except when it comes to Trump)." Make up whatever reality you want that makes you feel good. I really couldn't care less. The rest of the World sees the report for what it is even if Hur's "conclusion" is that he wouldn't charge Joke because he's senile. And that's the most damning part of the whole thing and what has your party's leaders wetting their beds. So carry on with the Trump witch hunts. It's been working so well for you guys so far... Edited February 11 by Doc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 hour ago, Doc said: What complete and utter bull####. You really are a braindead partisan hack. The evidence is staring you right in the face and you're still "nah, he good because there needs to be 100% proof (except when it comes to Trump)." Make up whatever reality you want that makes you feel good. I really couldn't care less. The rest of the World sees the report for what it is even if Hur's "conclusion" is that he wouldn't charge Joke because he's senile. And that's the most damning part of the whole thing and what has your party's leaders wetting their beds. So carry on with the Trump witch hunts. It's been working so well for you guys so far... have you even read the report? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 6 hours ago, John from Riverside said: have you even read the report? He clearly hasn’t. And he’s repeatedly demonstrated a very low level of reading comprehension so I’m not sure how much good it would do for him to actually read it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 ⬆️ The friggin King! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: He clearly hasn’t. And he’s repeatedly demonstrated a very low level of reading comprehension so I’m not sure how much good it would do for him to actually read it. expected outcome from a loser so insecure in his true position in life that he pretends to be someone else for a decade...what a pathetic pos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 ⬆️ Friggin Quack MD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 (edited) 7 hours ago, John from Riverside said: have you even read the report? I've read this part: "Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen." Oh and this part: [Joke's conduct] "present[ed] serious risks to national security." I also read how the ghostwriter wasn't pursued despite illegally destroying evidence after the investigation began. If you respond to just one thing, can you give me an explanation as to why he did that? Was it just conversations about wedding plans? Look, Occam's razor says Joke knew the classified material was there. It was in his friggin' garage next to his Corvette that he's seen, if not driven, every weekend of his Presidency practically, for crying out loud. You guys have to twist yourselves into pretzels (like you'll do if you answer my question above) inventing ways to avoid admitting this because in your mind Joke is and just has to be better than Trump...and it's comical. But again, I'm not advocating being petty and charging Joke criminally, despite what I quoted from Hur above (I'll leave that to the Dems and see them continue to buoy Trump in the polls). And as I said earlier, I'm not even advocating impeachment anymore. That's because the "he's senile" is the worst thing to come out of that report and has Dems scrambling like mad. Edited February 11 by Doc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 (edited) 51 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: ⬆️ Friggin Quack MD quack (plural quacks) (derogatory) A fraudulent healer, especially a bombastic peddler in worthless treatments, a doctor who makes false diagnoses for monetary benefit, or an untrained or poorly traineddoctor who uses fraudulent credentials to attract patients geez, it's almost as if there was someone on this board for whom this term is actually appropriate. This represents an illustrative example of projection.... Edited February 11 by Joe Ferguson forever 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 37 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: quack (plural quacks) (derogatory) A fraudulent healer, especially a bombastic peddler in worthless treatments, a doctor who makes false diagnoses for monetary benefit, or an untrained or poorly traineddoctor who uses fraudulent credentials to attract patients geez, it's almost as if there was someone on this board for whom this term is actually appropriate. This represents an illustrative example of projection.... You're the only one who is a proven liar, poser. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts