Doc Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: I’m assuming that the people who still think Biden committed a crime with his possession of documents also agree that Trump committed way worse crimes in his documents case. I mean, given the facts of the cases, to believe that Biden committed crimes but Trump didn’t would require being completely divorced from reality… The facts like Joke...willfully possessing classified material since at least 2017 (at least 5 years longer than Trump)? You think that's better? In his garage (which is far less secure than Mar-a-lago)? Better also? What about willfully sharing it with his ghostwriter? You fine with that? Or how about how he even came into possession of classified material as a Senator, not being able to say that as a President he was entitled to it? Not an issue for you I take it? Edited March 17 by Doc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 8 hours ago, Doc said: The facts like Joke...willfully possessing classified material since at least 2017 (at least 5 years longer than Trump)? You think that's better? In his garage (which is far less secure than Mar-a-lago)? Better also? What about willfully sharing it with his ghostwriter? You fine with that? Or how about how he even came into possession of classified material as a Senator, not being able to say that as a President he was entitled to it? Not an issue for you I take it? It’s bad and it shows that our controls around government docs are broken, but it’s not something you get prosecuted for. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 11 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Well, you’ve got it. Elected officials who take things that don’t belong to them but return them when asked don’t get prosecuted. Elected officials who take things that don’t belong to them but refuse to return them when asked to return them get prosecuted. Easy-peasy I see different standards regarding the presidential records act. An elected official that isn't POTUS shouldn't even be taking 'em home. So no, I don't "got it" and you just lost your cred. Edited March 17 by Pokebball 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 2 hours ago, ChiGoose said: It’s bad and it shows that our controls around government docs are broken, but it’s not something you get prosecuted for. No, all of the things I mentioned are prosecutable offenses and worse than what Trump did for the reasons I mentioned. But again, and as I've repeatedly said, I wouldn't charge anyone because as you said above, it shows our controls around government docs are broken. And I'm not even advocating impeaching him, which they could easily do, but if the Dems continue with their case against Trump, I'll change my mind. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) @ The King Again Joe Biden wasn't friggin POTUS when he stole classified documents. Trump kept records he was allowed to keep because he was POTUS. PERIOD. Presidential Records Act v. Espionage Act: The Presidential Records Act of 1978 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201 through 2209, generally controls the handling of the President's records. Generally, records created or received by the President or this White House staff are presidential records. This includes classified records sent to advise the President or his White House staff. Before the Presidential Records Act, Presidents owned their presidential records. Congress changed the law after Nixon won a legal fight on this issue. After the Presidential Records Act, the U.S. government owns Presidents' presidential records. Per the 2012 Obama judge ruling in the Clinton sock-drawer case, where President Clinton stuffed 8 years of highly classified audio recordings of his presidency in his sock drawer (see picture 1 below), the President solely decides what are: - "personal" (belong to him) v. - "presidential records" (belong to government). And if the President doesn't designate them as presidential records and then takes them when he leaves office, they are deemed personal records. (Read news story and linked opinion here: justthenews.com/politics-polic…) But even if people think this 2012 Obama judge ruling protecting Clinton is incorrect or Trump (somehow) shouldn't have the benefit of this ruling (because they hate and fear Trump): "[T]he Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative." 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3) (see picture 2 below). Former Presidents do not have the right to have any classified record they want. But they have the absolute statutory right to have (not own) their presidential records, classified or not. There is no criminal component to the Presidential Records Act. Disputes are settled with negotiations and civil lawsuits. Not unprecedented and unlawful raid and indictments. How can Trump violate the Espionage Act for retaining his presidential records he is allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act? Garland must allege and prove more than mere retention, in order to charge a former president for espionage for having his presidential records he's allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act. One way a court may attempt to harmonize the Presidential Records Act with the Espionage Act is requiring the government to allege and prove the former President intended to cause "injury to the United States or aid to a foreign nation result from the disclosures." United States v. Rosen, 520 F. Supp. 2d 786, 793 (E.D. Va. 2007). There is zero evidence--not even an allegation--Trump intended to harm America by retaining his presidential records. It is not a crime to be a jerk. It is not "espionage" to fight with librarians and other bureaucrats. We do not send former presidents, who happen to be your boss's chief political enemy, to die in prison over presidential-records disputes. This is one key reason Garland's indictment of Trump is fatally flawed as a matter of law. Edited March 17 by BillsFanNC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 1 hour ago, Pokebball said: I see different standards regarding the presidential records act. An elected official that isn't POTUS shouldn't even be taking 'em home. So no, I don't "got it" and you just lost your cred. If Donald Trump had simply handed the documents over when requested, he wouldn’t have been indicted. Joe Biden didn’t lie to his lawyers and hide documents from them to keep him from turning them over. Trump did that. It’s not a double standard. It’s different facts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) 24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: If Donald Trump had simply handed the documents over when requested, he wouldn’t have been indicted. Joe Biden didn’t lie to his lawyers and hide documents from them to keep him from turning them over. Trump did that. It’s not a double standard. It’s different facts. Within the facts that are similar, it is different standards. You denying it loses you credibility. I specifically mentioned the presidential records act specifically and you blew right by it. Edited March 17 by Pokebball 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 1 minute ago, Pokebball said: Within the facts that are similar, it is different standards. You denying it loses you credibility. Apparently it's worse when you willfully possess documents for a year-and-a-half versus at least 5 years... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 6 hours ago, Pokebball said: Within the facts that are similar, it is different standards. You denying it loses you credibility. I specifically mentioned the presidential records act specifically and you blew right by it. Well yeah, Trump wasn’t charged under the Presidential Records Act so I’m not sure what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Well yeah, Trump wasn’t charged under the Presidential Records Act so I’m not sure what your point is. Right over your head, 2x now. You simply have no cred to speak to this, so don't 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 4 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Right over your head, 2x now. You simply have no cred to speak to this, so don't Buddy, I visit this site when I’m bored. If you have something specific you want me to respond to, spell it out. I don’t have patience for games. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Buddy, I visit this site when I’m bored. If you have something specific you want me to respond to, spell it out. I don’t have patience for games. Have a nice night 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Pokebball said: Have a nice night You too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 (edited) 13 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: As having no interest in reading the book, I'm curious if any of that classified doc information found its way into the book? Clear evidence beyond any reasonable doubt Joe shared classified documents with a person without clearance. If some underling at some agency or department did the same they'd be perp-walked pronto. Thank God we've got men of good character like AG Garland equally and faithfully under oath of office enforcing the rule of law. Piss your pants rolling with laughter over believing that. Edited March 23 by All_Pro_Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 There's evidence of a) willfully retaining classified material, b) motive (writing a book for $8M) and c) obstruction by the ghostwriter. But nothing to see here... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 4 minutes ago, Doc said: There's evidence of a) willfully retaining classified material, b) motive (writing a book for $8M) and c) obstruction by the ghostwriter. But nothing to see here... Yep.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted Monday at 10:48 PM Share Posted Monday at 10:48 PM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts