FF lying about Trump tangent from political meme thread

Because Pence has zero chance of getting the Republican nomination. The timing of all of this is to get Trump in jail before the election. Hence why I think this is political.

 

At this point, can we just have a script that funnels all FF posts into a thread called "Dumbass Fuckwittery"?

 

So, your only reason for .. just … going to the carpet about this, for just adamant, straight up defending trump, is all because politics is happening and trump is being (according to you) discredited with lies.

Yet, you fell hook, line, and sinker for all the propaganda put out about Hillary.

So, for once in your goddammed life, stop and fucking think.

 

How many documents that Trump ‘voluntarily’ turned over even after the subpoena was he charged for possessing?

Was Donald Trump charged with taking classified documents (which occurred in DC) or for refusing to return them, to lie about having them, for defying a subpoena to return them, for having his lawyer lie about returning them, for conspiring to hide them and then attempting to cover up the above crimes all of which occurred in southern Florida?

 

He's being charged for all of it.

 

For the millionth time, Trump was not charged in connection with any of the documents that retained but turned over before the search warrant. That puts him in the same boat as Biden and Pence. Each of them retained classified documents that they no longer had the right to retain once out of office.

All three got the benefit of the doubt (at least so far) about documents that they kept that their retention of those documents was an inadvertent failure, and they took what seem to be good faith efforts to rectify that failure.

Where Trump differs from the other two is that there are yet OTHER classified documents that he kept and acted like he had a right to keep them, where he took obvious and deliberate steps to hide that he had them from the government officials who asked to get them back, and where it is known that he actively showed them to people who had no authority to see them on at least a couple known and recorded occasions.

I will go on record saying if there is evidence that Biden, or Obama, or anyone else behaved in such a cavalier matter with classified documents, they should be investigated and prosecuted.

 

Of the (currently) 78 criminal offenses Trump has been indicted for can you please point to me the one that is for taking classified material?

HINT! Taking and Retaining are different words that have different meanings.

 

Also; Did Joe Biden refuse to return classified documents to the National Archives when asked, lie about having them, defy a subpoena to return them, have his lawyer lie about returning them, conspire to hide them and then attempt to cover up the above crimes?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Thanks.

 

No.

 

Isn't that mighty convenient.

 

So you agree the circumstances are VASTLY different?

 

Isn’t what mighty convenient and why do you think it would be so?

 

Stop being obtuse. I'm talking about retaining documents vs taking. Taking documents is a crime as well.

 

And who in this scenario has willfully retained government documents after being informed by the National Archives they might have them?

Who lied about having them, defied a subpoena to return them, have his lawyer lie about returning them, conspire to hide them and then attempt to cover up the above crimes?

A simple last name will suffice.

Thank you.

 

Trump.

 

It's different, but I still believe the timing is political.

 

Timing wise what should they have done differently?

 

Is there a scenario where you wouldn't think that though?
There's an election every fucking two years, and in between those two years, is a ramp-up to an election, and court cases take their sweet fucking time in 1.5-2 year cycles, so any case is always going to line up to a fucking election.

 

It's almost like presidents, senators, and other high officials are given a chance to correct a mistake they might've made.

Kind of like how when someone's mom is friends with a judge and they get special treatment.

 

So I guess I have to pay for a misdemeanor pot charge for the rest of my life even after I've satisfied the state's requirements 30 fucking years ago?

 

I'm not sure "getting dragged on a message board" counts as paying for something for the rest of your life.

 

This thing started last August, but all of these indictments come on the heels of negative news for Bide, coincidence?

 

Yes.

 

come on. They obviously did the congressional investigation to coincide with the 2022 elections, and now the court cases are going to be all over the 2024 cycle because they delayed so long. Yes, the republicans do this also, and the timing is entirely political which is why they waited so long to appoint Jack Smith who isn't doing this on a political time frame. This is orchestrated. The problem for the republicans is that it is all true and needs to be done. They could have dropped the hot potato when it started to burn, but they figured the third degree burns were worth having Trump as their standard bearer.

 

Here's something that you may not in fairness appreciate.

Taking documents is only a crime when the person INTENTIONALLY takes them without authorization. If you went to Mar-a-Lago and Trump as a prank stuck some classified document in the briefcase that you brought there without you knowing, you would not be guilty of a crime. Similarly, to be a crime, a prosecutor has to be able to show that someone INTENTIONALLY kept the classified documents without authorization.

Here's something you probably already do know, or should, because it is part of pop culture:

To prosecute someone successfully, a prosecutor has to prove that someone is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That means they have to show that there is no reason to doubt any part of what they are trying to prove.

As a result, prosecutors -- or at least good ones in this day and age -- tend to not bring cases that they think they don't have that level of proof to support. Whether you think it is because they have an ethical duty to not bring cases that they don't think in good faith they can win (which they do) or because they don't want to deal with taking a L unnecessary, it's up to you..

In the cases of Biden, Pence and others, there is no evidence publicly known that they either took or retained those documents intentionally. Their actions of turning the documents shortly after they say they discovered them undercuts the notion that they kept those documents intentionally. There is not really a way (at least based on the publicly known evidence) to show that Biden or Pence intentionally held on to the documents they had.

In the case of Trump and the documents he is charged with illegally retaining, there's a ton of evidence that he held onto those documents deliberately. knowing he was not authorized to retain them:
1. He was asked for them several times and did not turn them over simply on request
2. He made several statements on his social media and elsewhere claiming that he had the right to keep them.
3. He had his underlings play games with moving the boxes around and had his lawyers falsely claim that they had turned over all the documents in his possession.
4. The FBI search uncovered classified documents in his possession even after he supposedly had turned them over.
5. There are at least two recordings of him apparently showing people documents that he acknowledges are classified and he shouldn't be showing them.

All the above is not open to reasonable dispute.

In addition, at least according to the indictment, Trump directed underlings to try to get rid of security footage that showed the boxes being moved.

 

Friends with benefits?

 

When is there not negative news for a president, not just Biden?

If we are going with what I think you're calling negative news for Biden (random Republicans beating the Hunter drum) I am not sure that there has been a point in my lifetime where someone couldn't come up with a similarly impactful piece of negative news about a presidency.

 

Timing options:

1. Immediately, charge Trump for withholding documents before he has withheld them.
2. After he has actively and repeatedly withheld them.
3. After he has actively and repeatedly withheld them, but within the same year as the election.

Is there a reason you think 1 or 3 is better? Because if not, it's just conceding that you would be drooling to kiss Trump's arsehole and call it bad timing no matter when it happened.

 

You forgot option 4: Pretend it never happened.

 

FF probably has me on ignore, but on the off chance he doesn't, I'd like to ask him:

Even if there is sufficient (or even, a mountain of) evidence to indict a politician for a crime, should they not be indicted for fear of it being perceived as a political indictment?

While I would agree that if there is no credible evidence, an indictment would be wrong, the exact opposite is true here.