Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse

[The Duke]

I don't deny any of that. But, it is wrong to weaponize government agencies for purely partisan political purposes against your enemies. Trump would not be in the position he is in but for that weaponization and abuse of power by the Democrats and their lapdogs. He shouldn't need an attorney. People should not have to prove they are innocent to a kangaroo court.

Not in America they shouldn't but here we are.

Thanks, Obama!

 

[OKTexas]

If all that’s true, why didn’t Trump charge her when he had the chance? God knows he said “Lock her up” enough times.

Every bit is true, and it would have had to be Sessions, who recused himself when he should have appointed a Special Counsel.



.

 

[The Duke]

If all that’s true, why didn’t Trump charge her when he had the chance? God knows he said “Lock her up” enough times.

I doubt he ever had any real intention to.


Looks like Melania is making sure Billy Boy doesn't do any grab-assy in public.

 

[konradv]

I doubt he ever had any real intention to.


Looks like Melania is making sure Billy Boy doesn't do any grab-assy in public.

What’s the relevance? Trump is still ignorant of the law and guilty by his own admission.

 

[Care4all]

How about we uses the comey standard and only prosecute people with the intent to do the country harm. That's not even alleged with Trump.

.

The law states KNOWINGLY take classified or rather Defense documents and KNOWINGLY retain them.....that's intent.

In her case, nothing was with Marked Classified stampings on them....because the top secret classified emails, (4-6 email chains), were not marked classified documents stored or taken from a SCIF, they were her staff discussing classified information, they had Loose Lips.... some of her staff's email chains went on a couple of years before Hillary was even brought in to their discussions. On one or two of the email chains, her staff believed the drone program they were discussing was no longer top secret, because it was discussed in a lengthy New York Times article, and was known to the public is what was reported on it...

Joe and Mike documents were mistakenly packed up with their personal papers and shipped to their homes and offices when they left office or left their position within the government. They did not knowingly take them, nor knowingly retained them, and once they were found, were returned immediately to the proper authorities.

 

[Independent thinker]

Just what I guessed.
A guy that claims to be an Independent Thinker......fails again.

I read the thread title, and wondered, is Independentthinker actually gonna say something that criticizes a (R)....... Answer...Hell No.

I have criticized Republicans before. In fact, I don't like either of the two parties and have said so numerous times. But I am independent thinking enough to know that Democrats are abusing their power and weaponizing the government in order to go after their enemies, with Trump being at the top of the list.

 

[Independent thinker]

Face it when Trump is involved it is pre-meditated criminal activity........

LOL. In other words, he is guilty until he proves himself innocent.

 

[Lesh]

So, we've got numerous people, with Hillary Clinton being the very worst offender, who have not been charged with any crimes related to the mishandling of classified documents. Joe Biden was found to have classified documents against law and they kept it hush, hush because the election was right around the corner and, he continued having classified documents against the law months after that. He knowingly had classified documents in violation of the law and he and his lawyers and others purposely obstructed justice by keeping it quiet instead of returning them to the National Archives. They kept it all quiet until they knew it was coming out in the media and then decided to come clean.

Hillary had set up an illegal server in her basement where numerous classified documents were funneled through and could be hacked (some by Wikileaks), with some of them winding up on Anthony Wiener's laptop and Huma Abedin (a person with ties to radical Islam) had access to many classified documents. Did she or Anthony Weiner have clearance to see those classified documents? After receiving a subpoena to keep records for an investigation, Hillary obstructed justice and had 30,000 emails deleted.

And yet the DOJ is trying to claim that these people didn't intend on breaking the law so were not charged while claiming that Trump intended to break the law by not returning "classified" documents when ordered to do so. Apparently just the fact of having classified documents illegally was OK with the DOJ just as long as you returned them when asked or ordered to do so. If not, then, all of a sudden, having classified documents is not OK, even though it was OK beforehand.

Hillary certainly wasn't ignorant of the law (hell, she's a lawyer) at least when she had 30,000 emails deleted against a subpoena (and probably other aspects of her case as well). Why should Trump be held accountable for merely having documents in his possession that were OK to have before as well as numerous other people, including Biden, and why should Trump be held accountable for obstruction of justice when others weren't? Why can Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner and Wikileaks have access to classified documents and everyone who came in and out of Biden's garage and other places but Trump must be held accountable for others seeing classified documents? So, what happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse? The others should be charged even if the DOJ claims they were ignorant of the laws. Otherwise, it looks like weaponized law enforcement doing a political hit job.

Actually you’re wrong.

Intent… is a huge part of any criminal prosecution

 

[Lesh]

LOL. In other words, he is guilty until he proves himself innocent.

You mean like Hillary… or Biden for that matter?

 

[konradv]

I have criticized Republicans before. In fact, I don't like either of the two parties and have said so numerous times. But I am independent thinking enough to know that Democrats are abusing their power and weaponizing the government in order to go after their enemies, with Trump being at the top of the list.

Isn’t that just a reaction to Trump’s threats? He promises to go after people as a matter of course, including stochastic terrorism, so what the DOJ is doing could just be considered self-defense and not a conspiracy of some sort.

 

[Independent thinker]

Actually you’re wrong.

Intent… is a huge part of any criminal prosecution

Well, we certainly know the intent of the left to get Trump, by abusing power and weaponizing law enforcement.

 

[Independent thinker]

You mean like Hillary… or Biden for that matter?

Thanks for admitting that they should also be indicted. That wasn't so hard, was it? Where are those indictments, or does the DOJ work for just Democrats?

 

[Independent thinker]

Isn’t that just a reaction to Trump’s threats? He promises to go after people as a matter of course, including stochastic terrorism, so what the DOJ is doing could just be considered self-defense and not a conspiracy of some sort.

Self defense? Are you admitting that they are going after Trump only because they think it will save their hides? If they are really worried about that then they must be feeling guilty.

 

[Marener]

How about we uses the comey standard and only prosecute people with the intent to do the country harm. That's not even alleged with Trump.

.

How about we be honest first. Comey said nothing about “intent to do the country harm”. He said intent to violate the law.

Trump absolutely intended to violate the law.

 

[konradv]

Self defense? Are you admitting that they are going after Trump only because they think it will save their hides? If they are really worried about that then they must be feeling guilty.

Self-defense of the American people against a fascist overthrow of the government. Trump and his minions are the ones that should be feeling guilty. Of course they won’t, because they’ve swigged way too much of the kool-aid.

 

[Billo_Really]

Biting knowingly held on to the classified material for years. He only gave them back when he got caught. That is not a valid excuse

Prove it!

 

[Billo_Really]

Bullshit. He most certainly knowingly hold to them. Biden is guiltier than Trump.

Still mad he beat the witch Hillary.

Prove it! Prove Biden deliberately held on to them.

 

[OKTexas]

The law states KNOWINGLY take classified or rather Defense documents and KNOWINGLY retain them.....that's intent.

In her case, nothing was with Marked Classified stampings on them....because the top secret classified emails, (4-6 email chains), were not marked classified documents stored or taken from a SCIF, they were her staff discussing classified information, they had Loose Lips.... some of her staff's email chains went on a couple of years before Hillary was even brought in to their discussions. On one or two of the email chains, her staff believed the drone program they were discussing was no longer top secret, because it was discussed in a lengthy New York Times article, and was known to the public is what was reported on it...

Joe and Mike documents were mistakenly packed up with their personal papers and shipped to their homes and offices when they left office or left their position within the government. They did not knowingly take them, nor knowingly retained them, and once they were found, were returned immediately to the proper authorities.

So the bitch telling a staffer to remove classified markings and send unsecure does not show intent? How about saying she returned all work related emails when she knew she didn't or destroying devices with hammers? How about lying to congress about only using one device? Run along hypocrite, the bitch showed plenty of intent.

.

 

[OKTexas]

How about we be honest first. Comey said nothing about “intent to do the country harm”. He said intent to violate the law.

Trump absolutely intended to violate the law.

See post 138.

.

 

[Marener]

So the bitch telling a staffer to remove classified markings and send unsecure does not show intent?

Because she didn’t actually say that, asshole. She said make it a “non paper” which she claims means take out the classified information.

How about saying she returned all work related emails when she knew she didn't or destroying devices with hammers?

Devices were destroyed when they were end of life. The emails were all on the server. Destorying devices when you’re done with them is best for data security. Clinton had her lawyer go through her emails to sort out work emails. There’s no evidence she didn’t know everything was returned.