Why Trump Was Charged On Secret Documents And Clinton, Pence Were Not

[pknopp]

As soon as the Biden folks realized that these docs where, they returned them.

Again, if you had boxes of classified info in your garage and had no idea it shows a sign of massive incompetence.

Arguing that Biden was only incompetent isn't setting the bar very high.

 

[forkup]

Ok, then Trump is protected, because all the bull shite they are trying to get him on, was when he was president or as he was vacating the post, so go pound sand dummy.

You know. In the beginning I said I didn't really wanted to respond because I thought you were gaslighting. The reason for this is that gaslighting is an extremely annoying thing to argue against.

If a person simply puts out whatever argument. No matter that it's illogical, dishonest, fallacious or moronic and defends those argument as self-evident talking in good faith becomes boring.

It's like debating quantum physics with a toddler. An exercise in futility. The reason I indulge it up to a point because I always presume some kind of shame will at a certain point get through the mantle of obstinacy.

Don't bother responding.

 

[JoeB131]

Really? They didn’t know they had them? NARA didn’t know? Really??? It’s all so convenient that …oops, how did those get in there…when it comes to the left. Nara, didn’t know, the fbi didn’t know?

Yup, they were probably copies of copies. And there were so few of them no one noticed.

Trump backed up a big old truck and took out hundreds of boxes of classified documents. That's why NARA Noticed.

Also, if you are suggesting that someone could removed classified documents and keep them in their garage for 30 years and nobody would know, what does that say about our national security of information? Pretty crappy…unless of course, you are a Republican….then it appears to be top notch!

It tells me that we classify too many things, which is why people don't take it as seriously as they should.

For instance, one of the "classified" documents on the Hillary Scandal was a NY Times report about US drone strikes against Taliban targets in Pakistan.

Why was it a "Secret"? Everyone knew it was happening, but because the official stance was that we weren't doing that (when everyone knew we were) it was classified as a secret.

 

[SeaMajor7]

At this point, the demented avenger subverted demoralized Stalinist Marxist Leninist zombies are only gaslighting THEMSELVES!

 

[Captain Caveman]

If Trump had returned ALL the classified documents he took, as Biden, Pence, and Clinton had done, there would be no indictment.

If only the shoplifter returned the goods, then it wouldn't be shop lifting.

So your argument doesn't hold water, we all know the real agenda, so quit the bovine excrement.

 

[Chillicothe]

"At this point, the demented avenger subverted demoralized Stalinist Marxist Leninist zombies are only......"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Good ol' MAGA-Q's = Verbal Incontinence.

Those poor souls are propelled by their grievance-filled temper-tantrums and feelings they were somehow someway prevented from reaching 'the American Dream' that so many of their peers --and most immigrants --- happily achieve.

So they are pissed about that.
And then come on to American social media sites to pout, complain, whine, hissyfit, stomp their feet, and be unhappy.

I love this bar!!

 

[SeaMajor7]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Good ol' MAGA-Q's = Verbal Incontinence.

Those poor souls are propelled by their grievance-filled temper-tantrums and feelings they were somehow someway prevented from reaching 'the American Dream' that so many of their peers --and most immigrants --- happily achieve.

So they are pissed about that.
And then come on to American social media sites to pout, complain, whine, hissyfit, stomp their feet, and be unhappy.

I love this bar!!

And there it is.
Shit poster Chillizombie can't help itself.

 

[Chillicothe]

"So your argument doesn't hold water, we all know the real agenda"

-------------------------------------------------------

Well, I don't know nuthin' about any alleged 'real agenda', but.......but I think there is traction in the view that if Trump would not have lied, ordered others to lie, attempted to hide the material...and then defied a court issued subpoena, well, I honestly, truly, sincerely, believe that things would've turned out different for him.

For one thing, bringing an ex-President to heel for such matter is, by its nature, a big friggin' headache and expense. Rather the DOJ, et al, would prefer: "Let's just get the damn stuff back and then move on to other more important things."

But No!!
.......Don Trump had to thumb his nose at 'em, had to give 'em the finger, had to signal a big "F-U' at 'em.
In my experience, that kind of behavior sorta kinda pisses people off.

And likely ..REALLY.....pisses off legal authorities who feel then that if they let some bloke get away with that sh*t....well, then a whole bunch more will try it. So a marker, a line in the sand.......has gotta be made.

And thus.....here we are.
And thus.....here is where Don Trump now finds himself.

IMHO

 

[SeaMajor7]

-------------------------------------------------------

Well, I don't know nuthin' about any alleged 'real agenda', but.......but I think there is traction in the view that if Trump would not have lied, ordered others to lie, attempted to hide the material...and then defied a court issued subpoena, well, I honestly, truly, sincerely, believe that things would've turned out different for him.

For one thing, bringing an ex-President to heel for such matter is, by its nature, a big friggin' headache and expense. Rather the DOJ, et al would prefer: "Let's just get the damn stuff back and then move on to other more important things."

But No!!
.......Don Trump had to thumb his nose at 'em, had to give 'em the finger, had to signal a big "F-U' at 'em.
In my experience, that kind of behavior sorta kinda pisses people off.

And likely ..REALLY.....pisses off legal authorities who feel then that if they let some bloke get away with that sh*t....well, then a whole bunch more will try it. So a marker, a line in the sand.......has gotta be made.

And thus.....here we are.
And thus.....here is where Don Trump now finds himself.

IMHO

Ooooo, more self-inflicting gaslighting.
Feel better, Chillislothe?

 

[Captain Caveman]

-------------------------------------------------------

Well, I don't know nuthin' about any alleged 'real agenda', but.......but I think there is traction in the view that if Trump would not have lied, ordered others to lie, attempted to hide the material...and then defied a court issued subpoena, well, I honestly, truly, sincerely, believe that things would've turned out different for him.

For one thing, bringing an ex-President to heel for such matter is, by its nature, a big friggin' headache and expense. Rather the DOJ, et al would prefer: "Let's just get the damn stuff back and then move on to other more important things."

But No!!
.......Don Trump had to thumb his nose at 'em, had to give 'em the finger, had to signal a big "F-U' at 'em.
In my experience, that kind of behavior sorta kinda pisses people off.

And likely ..REALLY.....pisses off legal authorities who feel then that if they let some bloke get away with that sh*t....well, then a whole bunch more will try it. So a marker, a line in the sand.......has gotta be made.

And thus.....here we are.
And thus.....here is where Don Trump now finds himself.

IMHO

The agenda is, to stop Trump running for president, to rid the opposition.

If it was to do with the law, anyone taking classified documents would be charged. A shoplifter shoplifting would be charged. To pick a difference, "Erm, because that guy was wearing yellow underpants, erm, he gave the stuff back when asked", doesn't erase the offence, unless you have an agenda.

If you stole a smartphone from a shop, should you be charged with shoplifting, or let off because you gave it back when asked? If you robbed a bank, should you be exonerated because you gave the money back. If you stole/took classified documents, should you be prosecuted, or let off because you gave them back?

Could you please use consistency of thought on the above please.

 

[forkup]

If only the shoplifter returned the goods, then it wouldn't be shop lifting.

So your argument doesn't hold water, we all know the real agenda, so quit the bovine excrement.

So you coming up with a faulty analogy means the actual argument is wrong?

I'll put it in the analogy of shoplifting correctly for you.

It would be akin to a person accidentally taking an item out of the store without paying. Noticing it, and subsequently going back into the store. Explaining what happened and returning the goods.

If the shop owner at that point wanted to press charges he would have a hard time in court because nothing in the events suggests intent.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The agenda is, to stop Trump running for president, to rid the opposition.

If it was to do with the law, anyone taking classified documents would be charged. A shoplifter shoplifting would be charged.

No, they wouldn't, not if the store didn't press charges.

To pick a difference, "Erm, because that guy was wearing yellow underpants, erm, he gave the stuff back when asked", doesn't erase the offence, unless you have an agenda.

If you stole a smartphone from a shop, should you be charged with shoplifting, or let off because you gave it back when asked?

Again, someone would have to press charges.

If you robbed a bank, should you be exonerated because you gave the money back. If you stole/took classified documents, should you be prosecuted, or let off because you gave them back?

That depends.
Because BOTH were/are presidents.

Biden documents: How the discovery of classified materials ...​

The Hill
https://thehill.com › homenews › administration › 380...
Jan 9, 2023 — One key difference between the Trump and Biden cases is the sheer number of documents involved. Multiple news outlets reported that lawyers ...

Could you please use consistency of thought on the above please.

 

[Captain Caveman]

So you coming up with a faulty analogy means the actual argument is wrong?

I'll put it in the analogy of shoplifting correctly for you.

It would be akin to a person accidentally taking an item out of the store without paying. Noticing it, and subsequently going back into the store. Explaining what happened and returning the goods.

If the shop owner at that point wanted to press charges he would have a hard time in court because nothing in the events suggests intent.

It's not faulty whatsoever. It's like for like.

The Lefts agenda is as obvious as a puppy sitting beside a big pile of poo.

 

[forkup]

The agenda is, to stop Trump running for president, to rid the opposition.

If it was to do with the law, anyone taking classified documents would be charged. A shoplifter shoplifting would be charged. To pick a difference, "Erm, because that guy was wearing yellow underpants, erm, he gave the stuff back when asked", doesn't erase the offence, unless you have an agenda.

If you stole a smartphone from a shop, should you be charged with shoplifting, or let off because you gave it back when asked? If you robbed a bank, should you be exonerated because you gave the money back. If you stole/took classified documents, should you be prosecuted, or let off because you gave them back?

Could you please use consistency of thought on the above please.

A bank robbery doesn't can't happen accidentally. Taking classified documents out of a secure setting can happen accidentally. It's happened many times before. It doesn't get charged as a crime unless and until the government can show am element of intent.

 

[Captain Caveman]

No, they wouldn't, not if the store didn't press charges.

Again, someone would have to press charges.

That depends.
Because BOTH were/are presidents.

Biden documents: How the discovery of classified materials ...​

View attachment 865086
The Hill
https://thehill.com › homenews › administration › 380...
Jan 9, 2023 — One key difference between the Trump and Biden cases is the sheer number of documents involved. Multiple news outlets reported that lawyers ...

So in your eyes, shoplifting is only shoplifting only if the shop presses charges? Bank robbery is only bank robbery if the bank only presses charges? Taking classified documents is only taking classified documents if the government presses charges?

No offence, I reckon you think WWII was fought in black and white.

 

[forkup]

It's not faulty whatsoever. It's like for like.

The Lefts agenda is as obvious as a puppy sitting beside a big pile of poo.

It is not. A shoplifter in your example can be shown to have intented to take the goods. That is theft. As I said, it is perfectly conceivable when handling classified documents that they get mishandled.

 

[GMCGeneral]

It's not faulty whatsoever. It's like for like.

The Lefts agenda is as obvious as a puppy sitting beside a big pile of poo.

Yup. And I've been warning about this on various discussion boards for the last 20 years or so. The Left's agenda is to take out any and all Conservative opposition in order to implement a permanent far Left One party state.

 

[Captain Caveman]

A bank robbery doesn't can't happen accidentally. Taking classified documents out of a secure setting can happen accidentally. It's happened many times before. It doesn't get charged as a crime unless and until the government can show am element of intent.

Do you think someone who has the brains to 'accidently' take classified documents be in that job? Do you think that's a competent or desired trait? If you interviewed someone and they said, "Oh, I might accidentally take your company secrets because that's just me", would you hire them? Sounds like my Jack Russell is more competent than your president.

And like wise, someone saying, "I would purposely take the classified documents", is equally unsuitable for the job. The US seems to be having a run of unsuitable presidents, but we all know that.

 

[Lesh]

So in your eyes, shoplifting is only shoplifting only if the shop presses charges? Bank robbery is only bank robbery if the bank only presses charges? Taking classified documents is only taking classified documents if the government presses charges?

No offence, I reckon you think WWII was fought in black and white.

There was more to it than that and you know it.

That you ignored the fact that intent matters greatly just speaks to your dishonesty or stupidity.

You pick

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

"B-b-b-b-b-b-but Clinton!" "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Biden!" We've all heard these refrains from the Tu Quoque Brigade in every defense of Donald Trump's crimes.

So here's the difference with respect to the deliberate obstruction by Trump to keep classified documents.

Why Trump was charged on secret documents and Clinton, Pence were not​

​

But the historic investigation into the former president was precipitated months earlier, in January 2022, when the former president gave 15 boxes of papers to the National Archives and Records Administration. The agency had been seeking all presidential records from Trump since he left office.

Inside the boxes, archivists found 197 classified documents, some extremely sensitive, the government alleged in court filings. That discovery set in motion the chain of events that led to the unsealing Friday of a 38-count indictment against Trump and Walt Nauta, a trusted servant.

Notably, however, the indictment does not charge Trump with the illegal retention of any of the 197 documents he returned to the archives.


If Trump had returned ALL the classified documents he took, as Biden, Pence, and Clinton had done, there would be no indictment.

It's as simple as that, folks.

Trump chose to hide several boxes of documents, some of which were classified, and that's why his ass is on fire now.

As for Clinton and her emails, what Trump said in private is VASTLY different than the bullshit he feeds to the rube herd:

But when discussing his own possible mishandling case last year, Trump seized on another facet of the Clinton probe: that attorneys for Clinton had reviewed more than 60,000 emails and turned over about 30,000 to government officials because they were deemed related to her official duties. Clinton’s lawyers deleted the rest, about 30,000 emails, after deeming them personal and unrelated to her work. It has long been standard practice in the federal government for officials to review their own correspondence in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and decide which of their emails are personal and therefore not turned over. In Clinton’s case, her lawyers did that for her.

As a candidate and president, Trump denounced the decision to delete the emails. In July 2016, he notoriously declared at a news conference: “Russia: if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”


When the grand jury subpoena for any classified documents arrived at his door, however, Trump expressed a very different view to his lawyer, according to the indictment, praising Clinton’s lawyer for deleting the 30,000 emails.

The Clinton lawyer, Trump allegedly said on May 23, 2022, “was the one who deleted all of her emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having beauty appointments. And he was great. And he, so she didn’t get in any trouble because he said that he was the one who deleted them.”

“Trump related the story more than once that day,” the indictment notes dryly.

you'll regret every god damned thing you did you fukin moron..........you let him rise to the top in polls you absolute stoopid fok...lolol