Tommy Callahan Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Kemp said: By changing the subject, you proved that you believe Trump broke the law when he handed classified documents to someone without clearance. Thank you for that. That alone is good enough for a conviction. yeah. that's how debate and criminality work. amazing. Edited September 20 by Chris farley 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 7 minutes ago, Kemp said: By changing the subject, you proved that you believe Trump broke the law when he handed classified documents to someone without clearance. Thank you for that. That alone is good enough for a conviction. He wasn't changing the subject: he was providing an example of criminality by the leader of the Dem party. That you simps are justifing it because "he gave them back as soon as he knew" tells me how serious to take you all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 20 Author Share Posted September 20 13 minutes ago, Chris farley said: yeah. that's how debate and criminality work. amazing. We weren't involved in a debate or even a conversation. If you care to answer my question, you be sure to let me know. Until then, have fun not answering it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 30 minutes ago, Kemp said: Do you believe Trump broke the law when he handed a do list on classified documents to someone without security clearance?. Doesn't Trump, as President, have the ability to declassify documents as he sees fit? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted September 20 Author Share Posted September 20 10 minutes ago, Doc said: He wasn't changing the subject: he was providing an example of criminality by the leader of the Dem party. That you simps are justifing it because "he gave them back as soon as he knew" tells me how serious to take you all. I don't remember asking him about anything Biden did. Can you point it out? If I had, we could debate that. Like Farley, you seem not to know what debate even means. Did Trump break the law when he used classified documentation as a notepad and then give it to someone without security clearance? Do you know the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cle23 Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 14 minutes ago, Doc said: He wasn't changing the subject: he was providing an example of criminality by the leader of the Dem party. That you simps are justifing it because "he gave them back as soon as he knew" tells me how serious to take you all. But that works both ways. If you think it's criminal that Biden did it, but don't care that Trump did it, that's the same thing. It sure appears that most Presidents take documents they shouldn't, and then try to make it appear as though it was accidental. I am sure some are. But I am also sure that most aren't accidental. That's a separate debate. But it is an escalation when the documents Trump had were requested to be returned, and he didn't. That is an issue. 1 minute ago, wnyguy said: Doesn't Trump, as President, have the ability to declassify documents as he sees fit? Yes, if he takes the proper steps to do it. It can't be after the fact, and it can't be "I thought it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 18 minutes ago, Doc said: He wasn't changing the subject: he was providing an example of criminality by the leader of the Dem party. That you simps are justifing it because "he gave them back as soon as he knew" tells me how serious to take you all. Bragging about your ignorance of the law sure is a mood, but you do you buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 3 minutes ago, cle23 said: Yes, if he takes the proper steps to do it. It can't be after the fact, and it can't be "I thought it." Okay, thanks for the info. What are the steps that have to be made? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 1 minute ago, wnyguy said: Okay, thanks for the info. What are the steps that have to be made? Here you go Side note: Trump's retaining possession of the documents after being notified that he needed to return them was contrary to the law even if they weren't classified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 42 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Okay, thanks for the info. What are the steps that have to be made? LOL, you can just go to MSNBC to get those same narratives. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Here you go Side note: Trump's retaining possession of the documents after being notified that he needed to return them was contrary to the law even if they weren't classified. Thanks for the link. I guess we have to see what this document that Kemp is carrying on about actually was because it may be that the document was no longer Classified, or if it was a document that threatened national security then Trump should be held accountable. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 1 hour ago, Kemp said: By changing the subject, you proved that you believe Trump broke the law when he handed classified documents to someone without clearance. Thank you for that. That alone is good enough for a conviction. or, that alone can prevent the conviction 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 1 hour ago, Kemp said: We weren't involved in a debate or even a conversation. If you care to answer my question, you be sure to let me know. Until then, have fun not answering it. Don't expect more than an eyeroll from Fartly. Now this is big news. Lin Wood has turned on treump https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/20/trump-georgia-election-case-lin-wood-is-witness-da-says.html 21 minutes ago, Pokebball said: or, that alone can prevent the conviction changing the subject can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 1 hour ago, Kemp said: I don't remember asking him about anything Biden did. Can you point it out? If I had, we could debate that. Like Farley, you seem not to know what debate even means. Did Trump break the law when he used classified documentation as a notepad and then give it to someone without security clearance? Do you know the answer? All I need to do is point out your hypocrisy. As for the classified document, can she prove that claim? 1 hour ago, cle23 said: But that works both ways. If you think it's criminal that Biden did it, but don't care that Trump did it, that's the same thing. It sure appears that most Presidents take documents they shouldn't, and then try to make it appear as though it was accidental. I am sure some are. But I am also sure that most aren't accidental. That's a separate debate. But it is an escalation when the documents Trump had were requested to be returned, and he didn't. That is an issue. Yes, if he takes the proper steps to do it. It can't be after the fact, and it can't be "I thought it." I've been saying it's criminal for both. Or criminal for neither. 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Bragging about your ignorance of the law sure is a mood, but you do you buddy. They are not allowed to take classified material, period. That you don't care because it's allegedly "spillage" and all you care about it he gave it back immediately despite having it for years and doing who knows what with it, well, you do you buddy. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 6 minutes ago, Doc said: I've been saying it's criminal for both. Or criminal for neither. 100% and without that, it gives the impression of a politicized justice department. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 37 minutes ago, Doc said: I've been saying it's criminal for both. Or criminal for neither. I'm not sure this is even the case. The presidential record act only applied to one of 'em! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 1 hour ago, wnyguy said: Thanks for the link. I guess we have to see what this document that Kemp is carrying on about actually was because it may be that the document was no longer Classified, or if it was a document that threatened national security then Trump should be held accountable. Even if it was not classified, it was illegal for Trump to possess it after he was notified to return it. 1 minute ago, Pokebball said: I'm not sure this is even the case. The presidential record act only applied to one of 'em! Nah, it applies to all of them. The ones who cooperated didn’t get charged. The one who obstructed, lied, and tried to destroy evidence got charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Even if it was not classified, it was illegal for Trump to possess it after he was notified to return it. Nah, it applies to all of them. The ones who cooperated didn’t get charged. The one who obstructed, lied, and tried to destroy evidence got charged. Biden was VP at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 1 minute ago, Pokebball said: Biden was VP at the time And if there is provable evidence that he *intentionally* took the documents he... won't get charged because the DoJ won't charge sitting presidents (remember when Mueller said Trump did a bunch of crimes and suggested he be impeached but he couldn't be charged?). However, he will be liable once he leaves office. And no, mere possession is not evidence of intent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted September 20 Share Posted September 20 Just now, ChiGoose said: remember when Mueller said Trump did a bunch of crimes and suggested he be impeached but he couldn't be charged? revisionist history. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts