August 10, 20224 yr Just now, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Well I’m all for laying down the law. Someone needs to "call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union” but if Trump is the only one subject to this then no, I don’t want him to pay any penalties. And if we are going to start actually for the first time enforcing laws, then I think it would be high time for a wave of pardons just to keep the general peace This is a lie. You are against it, because the criminal in question is Trump. This is such a simple subject. Trump took boxes of classified material with him when he left office. Illegally. The National Archive discovered this, and they picked up 15 boxes of such info. This, apparently led to them suspecting (with enough evidence to convince a lot of people, including Trump appointed people) there were more. We know he took classified material home, and it was picked up and returned. This is a fact. We don't know yet, if there was more, but it sure seems likely. However, no amount of Trump's lost documents, destroyed documents, erased documents, and stolen documents, means anything to you, because the law is NOT what you care about.
August 10, 20224 yr 7 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Theoretically, he could try and say he ordered it declassified, but no one followed through and took the right steps. Try and argue that the intent was to declassify. But that likely falls flat on its face for a bunch of reasons: 1. There would be no supporting evidence. Not a memo, email (Trump doesn't use it) or anything contemporaneous. All he could really do is try and have people testify that they heard him verbally say he wanted to declassify, but then they'd be pounded with questions as to why they didn't formalize that. And the kicker is, if he did just yell "DECLASSIFIED" while walking out...um, why did nobody tell the new administration. 2. Precedent matters here. Assuming Trump had declassified other info during his term, and did so the proper way, his claims of just verbally saying it would be undercut. You'd be asking people to believe that he just decided not to follow the process this time when he had in the past. 3. Trump's prior actions undercut this argument. We know that the DOJ and National Archives found classified info and demanded its return. To our knowledge, Trump made no claim that the info had been declassified. In fact, he returned 15 boxes to the Archives. His actions here are basically an admission that the info was still classified. This is the nail in the coffin -- failing to raise the argument at that time can be legally interpreted as waving it. 4. Even if he gets though 1-3, it's fair to say he has a credibility problem. Not sure any jury is going to buy that Trump magically gave an order that nobody documented anywhere and that he didn't tell the new administration about, but that magically gets him out of trouble. Yep exactly, going with the "I ordered them to be declassified and didn't know they never were" basically falls apart the minute this was brought to his attention back in February. The National Archives and DOJ has been in contact with them for months prior to the raid so if he wants to go under oath and say he had no idea what was going on, I wish him the best of luck.
August 10, 20224 yr Just now, Toastrel said: This is a lie. You are against it, because the criminal in question is Trump. This is such a simple subject. Trump took boxes of classified material with him when he left office. Illegally. The National Archive discovered this, and they picked up 15 boxes of such info. This, apparently led to them suspecting (with enough evidence to convince a lot of people, including Trump appointed people) there were more. We know he took classified material home, and it was picked up and returned. This is a fact. We don't know yet, if there was more, but it sure seems likely. However, no amount of Trump's lost documents, destroyed documents, erased documents, and stolen documents, means anything to you, because the law is NOT what you care about. I would uphold the law if I believed it applied equally to everyone, but I would not uphold the law if I believed it would only be applied against enemies of the democratic party
August 10, 20224 yr 2 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: I would uphold the law if I believed it applied equally to everyone, but I would not uphold the law if I believed it would only be applied against enemies of the democratic party So, you are fickle and don't care about the law, but are looking to play T-Ball where everyone can get a hit. Cool.
August 10, 20224 yr 9 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Well I’m all for laying down the law. Someone needs to "call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union” but if Trump is the only one subject to this then no, I don’t want him to pay any penalties. And if we are going to start actually for the first time enforcing laws, then I think it would be high time for a wave of pardons just to keep the general peace The laws have always been enforced. Everybody else got away with warnings in private because they complied. Trump has not complied and has basically turned a speeding ticket into a law enforcement standoff.
August 10, 20224 yr Just now, dawkins4prez said: The laws have always been enforced. Everybody else got away with warnings in private because they complied. Trump has not complied and has basically turned a speeding ticket into a law enforcement standoff. No but see I’m not referring specifically to the laws on classified documents. I’m referring to having all laws enforced
August 10, 20224 yr 3 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: I would uphold the law if I believed it applied equally to everyone, but I would not uphold the law if I believed it would only be applied against enemies of the democratic party Dude, the law, as it's currently written, is new. Trump pushed to make it more stringent. It's not the Dems fault that Trump's so stupid that he's the first person who broke a law that he signed off on.
August 10, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: Dude, the law, as it's currently written, is new. Trump pushed to make it more stringent. It's not the Dems fault that Trump's so stupid that he's the first person who broke a law that he signed off on. That is just the gravy. Trump himself, making it a felony, is priceless.
August 10, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: Dude, the law, as it's currently written, is new. Trump pushed to make it more stringent. It's not the Dems fault that Trump's so stupid that he's the first person who broke a law that he signed off on. Whatever the case may be, or whoever signed whatever law, all laws ought to be enforced against everyone. Today Trump may have violated law #1. Tomorrow Hillary may violate law #2. I am for either putting them both in prison or putting neither of them in prison would be my secondary preference But I am vehemently against putting only Trump in prison
August 10, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Whatever the case may be, or whoever signed whatever law, all laws ought to be enforced against everyone. Today Trump may have violated law #1. Tomorrow Hillary may violate law #2. I am for either putting them both in prison or putting neither of them in prison would be my secondary preference But I am vehemently against putting only Trump in prison trump should get away with committing a crime because of some hillary fanfiction you cooked up? sound reasoning, brah.
August 10, 20224 yr 3 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Whatever the case may be, or whoever signed whatever law, all laws ought to be enforced against everyone. Today Trump may have violated law #1. Tomorrow Hillary may violate law #2. I am for either putting them both in prison or putting neither of them in prison would be my secondary preference But I am vehemently against putting only Trump in prison Tomorrow? Wat? Hilary doesn't have a job in the US government. She's a retired old lady. She used to have a job in the government, but that was before the law was written to be this stringent.
August 10, 20224 yr Just now, mr_hunt said: trump should get away with committing a crime because of some hillary fanfiction you cooked up? sound reasoning, brah. Well we can both sit here and accuse the other side of making up crimes, I just don’t see how that is productive. Just now, VanHammersly said: Tomorrow? Wat? Hilary doesn't have a job in the US government. She's a retired old lady. She used to have a job in the government, but that was before the law was written to be this stringent. You’re taking a detour around my point
August 10, 20224 yr Just now, Seventy_Yard_FG said: You’re taking a detour around my point No, you're taking a detour into fantasy land.
August 10, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Well we can both sit here and accuse the other side of making up crimes, I just don’t see how that is productive. none of us even know the details of the search warrant let alone what was/wasn't found...so you're defending trump against an unknown right now. if he's charged with a crime & it's proven, do you still think he shouldn't be punished for it? because hillary?
August 10, 20224 yr 12 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: No but see I’m not referring specifically to the laws on classified documents. I’m referring to having all laws enforced We are talking about the FBI raid on Mar a Lago. Why not save the butwhatabouts for the appropriate thread and talk about those issues there?
August 10, 20224 yr 7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Tomorrow? Wat? Hilary doesn't have a job in the US government. She's a retired old lady. She used to have a job in the government, but that was before the law was written to be this stringent. The calendars strike again!
August 10, 20224 yr Just now, mr_hunt said: none of us even know the details of the search warrant let alone what was/wasn't found...so you're defending trump against an unknown right now. if he's charged with a crime & it's proven, do you still think he shouldn't be punished for it? because hillary? Because for a very long time, about at least 100 years now, laws haven’t been applied evenly and consistently, which is why we have $30T in debt and military bases in over 100 countries, Guantanamo prisons, torture, executive executions of American citizens by drone strike…I could go on and on and on Trump is my lesser of evils here. I will settle for Trump unless we can come to a clear understanding of the federal abuses committed by the regime in Washington DC for decades
August 10, 20224 yr 2 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Because for a very long time, about at least 100 years now, laws haven’t been applied evenly and consistently, which is why we have $30T in debt and military bases in over 100 countries, Guantanamo prisons, torture, executive executions of American citizens by drone strike…I could go on and on and on Trump is my lesser of evils here. I will settle for Trump unless we can come to a clear understanding of the federal abuses committed by the regime in Washington DC for decades Trumps entire life is and has been about abusing laws. You are trying to be profound and always come across looking like an idiot.
August 10, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Because for a very long time, about at least 100 years now, laws haven’t been applied evenly and consistently, which is why we have $30T in debt and military bases in over 100 countries, Guantanamo prisons, torture, executive executions of American citizens by drone strike…I could go on and on and on Trump is my lesser of evils here. I will settle for Trump unless we can come to a clear understanding of the federal abuses committed by the regime in Washington DC for decades settle for trump? what are you even talking about? if it's proven that he committed crimes, you don't think he should be held accountable? your answer to these laws you're claiming haven't been applied evenly and consistently is to not apply the law to trump either? are you going with "deep state" conspiracy theories as the reason?
August 10, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, Boogyman said: Trumps entire life is and has been about abusing laws. You are trying to be profound and always come across looking like an idiot. I was just told to avoid talking about what Hillary did 5 years ago but now you are talking about things Trump may have done early in his life 1 minute ago, mr_hunt said: settle for trump? what are you even talking about? if it's proven that he committed crimes, you don't think he should be held accountable? your answer to these laws you're claiming haven't been applied evenly and consistently is to not apply the law to trump either? are you going with "deep state" conspiracy theories as the reason? Yes because I know if I agree to apply the law against Trump today, you filthy democrat scum will never hold up your end of the bargain tomorrow
August 10, 20224 yr 6 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Because for a very long time, about at least 100 years now, laws haven’t been applied evenly and consistently, which is why we have $30T in debt and military bases in over 100 countries, Guantanamo prisons, torture, executive executions of American citizens by drone strike…I could go on and on and on The funny thing is that if you take this statement by itself, you sound like the far left. Pretty much word for word. They believe laws are applied unevenly and there's no accountability for the rich and powerful. 8 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said: Trump is my lesser of evils here. I will settle for Trump unless we can come to a clear understanding of the federal abuses committed by the regime in Washington DC for decades The difference is that, of course, your solution to these problems concerning corruption is for Donald F'ing Trump to face no consequences for his crimes. It's all so transparently disengenuous, it's hilarious.
Create an account or sign in to comment