January 10, 20232 yr If I have learned anything since 2016 its that its impossible for the president to break the law. You can't indict a sitting president. Nice try FBI!
January 10, 20232 yr 53 minutes ago, BBE said: Intent does not matter. That is a construct by Comey. And for the record, I have had this stance with Clinton, Trump, and now Biden. They should all face the same repercussions as the little people with security clearances. Of course it does. Are you seriously telling me that if someone had classified materials with the intention of selling them to a foreign nation, that wouldn't be more serious and a completely different situation than someone simply leaving classified materials at their old office?
January 10, 20232 yr Uh, intent absolutely is a consideration. Also the fact that Trump knew he had them, was told to return them by the records office, refused and fought it for a year, and ultimately had to be raided to collect it would be a consideration.
January 10, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, DiPros said: Of course, intent should also include whoever is in charge at the National Archives for not even knowing what is missing. This does expose a bigger issue of the classification system that documents can go missing unnoticed.
January 10, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, GreenReaper said: Do we, without a doubt, know the intent of either? we certainly have a strong idea of Trump's intent. it was to not give back the classified material. we also have a strong idea of Biden's intent. it was to return it as soon as it was uncovered.
January 10, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, GreenReaper said: Do we, without a doubt, know the intent of either? We know that one of them obstructed, lied to investigators and refused to turnover the documents over an extended period of time. To the point that they had to be raided just so the documents could be returned to their rightful place. We know the other was found and willingly offered to the proper authorities unprompted. The massive difference in the situation certainly implies quite a bit about their intentions.
January 10, 20232 yr 7 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: we certainly have a strong idea of Trump's intent. it was to not give back the classified material. we also have a strong idea of Biden's intent. it was to return it as soon as it was uncovered. Yeah, he's only had it since 2017 or whatever. Why did he have it in the first place? Probably no need to look into it though, even though he shouldn't have had it in the first place.
January 10, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: We know that one of them obstructed, lied to investigators and refused to turnover the documents over an extended period of time. To the point that they had to be raided just so the documents could be returned to their rightful place. We know the other was found and willingly offered to the proper authorities unprompted. The massive difference in the situation certainly implies quite a bit about their intentions. He's had them for an extended period of time (years), for what reason? I guess there is no need to even see why he would have these, we can just make an assumption that it's fine. I'm not even disputing the fact that he probably doesn't remember having them because of his dementia but why did he have them in the first place?
January 10, 20232 yr Just now, GreenReaper said: He's had them for an extended period of time (years), for what reason? I guess there is no need to even see why he would have these, we can just make an assumption that it's fine. I'm not even disputing the fact that he probably doesn't remember having them because of his dementia but why did he have them in the first place? Sounds like this calls for an investigation! I wouldn't get too worried about it dude. Republicans are going to investigate Biden's sheet every morning, you can be sure they'll investigate this. Then we get to the bottom of these burning questions that you never cared about when Trump took classified documents.
January 10, 20232 yr 44 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Of course it does. Are you seriously telling me that if someone had classified materials with the intention of selling them to a foreign nation, that wouldn't be more serious and a completely different situation than someone simply leaving classified materials at their old office? What I am saying is that the language "or otherwise allows unauthorized individuals" renders intent moot for violation of 18 U.S.C. 798's initial clause. "Intent" is mentioned in regard to the keeping of the material and is mentioned in the contracts associated with clearances which are extra-statutory (see the issues with Bolton's book). 59 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: No, if the material was classified at the lowest level and wasn't improperly disclosed, he will not be investigated for violations of the espionage act. Trump had more than 20 boxes of materials classified at the highest levels and reportedly included extremely sensitive information like details of human intelligence and nuclear capabilities of foreign nations. Biden reportedly had 10 documents, found and surrendered voluntarily, none of which were reported to be of the same nature. I get it though, much like how you repeatedly downplayed Trump's attempt to subvert democracy, you really want to paint this as being the same thing Trump did so you can both sides it, but it's just not. Trump is F'ed, Biden is fine. Come back in 2028 with someone who doesn't bootlick a reprehensible traitorous moron if you want to win the presidency again. Once again you are wrong. The statute states any information damaging to the interests of the United States which classified information is by definition damaging if not controlled. The rest of your point is moot and bears no relevance to this topic.
January 10, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, GreenReaper said: He's had them for an extended period of time (years), for what reason? I guess there is no need to even see why he would have these, we can just make an assumption that it's fine. I'm not even disputing the fact that he probably doesn't remember having them because of his dementia but why did he have them in the first place? The DOJ is looking for that answer. There is a need to know. No one is arguing that.
January 10, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, GreenReaper said: He's had them for an extended period of time (years), for what reason? I guess there is no need to even see why he would have these, we can just make an assumption that it's fine. I'm not even disputing the fact that he probably doesn't remember having them because of his dementia but why did he have them in the first place? Classified information found at a "think-tank". What possible use could a "think-tank" have for classified information? Might intent be inferred there?
January 10, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, BBE said: What I am saying is that the language "or otherwise allows unauthorized individuals" renders intent moot for violation of 18 U.S.C. 798's initial clause. "Intent" is mentioned in regard to the keeping of the material and is mentioned in the contracts associated with clearances which are extra-statutory (see the issues with Bolton's book). Once again you are wrong. The statute states any information damaging to the interests of the United States which classified information is by definition damaging if not controlled. The rest of your point is moot and bears no relevance to this topic. The documents were secured under lock and key. Not that it matters, just want to point that out. We don't even know yet if anyone had access to them. Unlike what we've heard about that other palace in Florida.
January 10, 20232 yr Repug president does something, Dems are outraged Dem president does something, Repugs are outraged Second verse, same as the first
January 10, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, BBE said: What I am saying is that the language "or otherwise allows unauthorized individuals" renders intent moot for violation of 18 U.S.C. 798's initial clause. "Intent" is mentioned in regard to the keeping of the material and is mentioned in the contracts associated with clearances which are extra-statutory (see the issues with Bolton's book). Once again you are wrong. The statute states any information damaging to the interests of the United States which classified information is by definition damaging if not controlled. The rest of your point is moot and bears no relevance to this topic. You're sadly mistaken if you think 10 documents classified at the lowest level found in a locked closet endanger him for being charged with the espionage act. The rest of my post provides the necessary context for the purpose and framing of your argument. You're reaching on this for obvious reasons. You desperately want this to make Biden look bad so that it can make Trump's transgressions appear slightly less horrible by comparison. You've gone to this well so many times before, lest I remind you about your contentions over whether Trump submitted false slates of electors to try to overturn the results of a free and fair election.
January 10, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, DiPros said: The documents were secured under lock and key. Not that it matters, just want to point that out. We don't even know yet if anyone had access to them. Unlike what we've heard about that other palace in Florida. There are a litany of other requirements for the proper storage of classified information. That argument won't hold up.
January 10, 20232 yr Just now, we_gotta_believe said: You're sadly mistaken if you think 10 documents classified at the lowest level found in a locked closet endanger him for being charged with the espionage act. The rest of my post provides the necessary context for the purpose and framing of your argument. You're desperately reaching here for obvious reasons. You want this to make Biden look bad so that it can make Trump's transgressions appear slightly less horrible by comparison. You've gone to this well so many times before, lest I remind you about your contentions over whether Trump submitted false slates of electors to try to overturn the results of a free and fair election. I am quoting statute which you willfully ignore because God forbid you not jump to the defense of Biden. You are introducing something irrelevant to somehow win an argument you can't win.
January 10, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, BBE said: I am quoting statute which you willfully ignore because God forbid you not jump to the defense of Biden. You are introducing something irrelevant to somehow win an argument you can't win. Your argument is that Trump and Biden made the same mistake. My argument is that Trump's mistake was far, far, far worse. It's not about "winning", it's about reiterating that Biden is at very little risk legally, while Trump is still at very high risk despite your attempts to paint the situations as being the same. Intent and degree of violation matters, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
January 10, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: You're sadly mistaken if you think 10 documents classified at the lowest level found in a locked closet endanger him for being charged with the espionage act. The rest of my post provides the necessary context for the purpose and framing of your argument. You're desperately reaching here for obvious reasons. You want this to make Biden look bad so that it can make Trump's transgressions appear slightly less horrible by comparison. You've gone to this well so many times before, lest I remind you about your contentions over whether Trump submitted false slates of electors to try to overturn the results of a free and fair election. And since you are making crap up... The classified materials included some top-secret files with the "sensitive compartmented information” designation, also known as SCI, which is used for highly sensitive information obtained from intelligence sources. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/joe-biden-classified-documents-upenn/index.html Just now, we_gotta_believe said: Your argument is that Trump and Biden made the same mistake. My argument is that Trump's mistake was far, far, far worse. It's not about "winning", it's about reiterating that Biden is at very little risk legally, while Trump is still at very high risk despite your attempts to paint the situations as being the same. Intent matters, no matter how much you wish otherwise. No I am not. I am stating they both violated the same statute. But, you will twist and outright lie to "score points".
January 10, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, BBE said: And since you are making crap up... The classified materials included some top-secret files with the "sensitive compartmented information” designation, also known as SCI, which is used for highly sensitive information obtained from intelligence sources. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/joe-biden-classified-documents-upenn/index.html I hadn't seen that in the Reuters article I read. In that case, yes his risk for legal ramifications goes up. Quote No I am not. I am stating they both violated the same statute. But, you will twist and outright lie to "score points". You literally tried to claim intent is irrelevant. Talk about twisting and lying to score points.
January 10, 20232 yr Just now, we_gotta_believe said: I hadn't seen that in the Reuters article I read. In that case, yes his risk for legal ramifications goes up. As for the second part, you literally tried to claim intent is irrelevant. Talk about twisting and lying to score points. I explained why intent was moot for violation of the statute using the statutory language more than you have where you intentionally misrepresented material facts. I did not once resort to a lie, unlike yourself.
Create an account or sign in to comment