WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:34 am

So how do you explain the fact that Hillary, who was never president as well, physically destroyed classified material and was never indicted? Since when does 'frame of mind' come into play when a law has been violated? It's OK to have classified material in your possession that you aren't supposed to have if you didn't mean to, or you are mentally incompetant? It seems to be a major factor, except it's not frame of mind, it's political leaning.

No amount of verbal gymnastics can disguise the fact that this is all political. There is a two-tiered justice system and it's completely obvious. If you are on the 'right' side of the political aisle, you can break laws with impunity, but never suffer any consequences. If you are a threat to that side of the aisle, you will be subjected to any and every legal consequence that can be thought up.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:48 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:34 am

So how do you explain the fact that Hillary, who was never president as well, physically destroyed classified material and was never indicted? Since when does 'frame of mind' come into play when a law has been violated? It's OK to have classified material in your possession that you aren't supposed to have if you didn't mean to, or you are mentally incompetant? It seems to be a major factor, except it's not frame of mind, it's political leaning.

No amount of verbal gymnastics can disguise the fact that this is all political. There is a two-tiered justice system and it's completely obvious. If you are on the 'right' side of the political aisle, you can break laws with impunity, but never suffer any consequences. If you are a threat to that side of the aisle, you will be subjected to any and every legal consequence that can be thought up.

James Comey said that there wasn't enough evidence that Hillary intended to violate laws and that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." Robert Hur, a Republican US attorney who gave Trump plenty of ammunition with his statements about Joe Biden's mental state, also found that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

Odd that you're willing to accept Hur's statements about Biden's mental condition, which aren't relevant to his decision not to prosecute, and discount the rest of the report.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:54 am

If I am pulled over for speeding, and I was speeding, my intention is moot. If I don't pay my taxes, whether I intended to or not is moot. I still will pay a penalty.

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:45 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:54 am

If I am pulled over for speeding, and I was speeding, my intention is moot. If I don't pay my taxes, whether I intended to or not is moot. I still will pay a penalty.

Unlike speeding, there are many, many crimes for which intent is an essential element of the crime. The classified documents law states:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location

The statute requires both knowledge and intent. In both Hillary's case and Biden's case, the investigator found that there was insufficient evidence of intent.

Don't argue legal definitions with lawyers. You will come across as even more of an ignoramus than you are.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:42 am

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:21 am

They were "discovered" in 2017, and he wasn't entitled to have them, at all. Christ, the mental gymnastic you guys have to do must be exhausting.

As I noted in my last response, the only evidence that Biden had these documents in 2017 was a statement to his ghostwriter that he had "just found classified material downstairs." The special counsel infers what documents Biden was talking about, but there is no corroborating evidence that these documents were in Biden's possession before the search his own attorneys made in 2023.

wbtravis007 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:26 pm

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:45 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:54 am

If I am pulled over for speeding, and I was speeding, my intention is moot. If I don't pay my taxes, whether I intended to or not is moot. I still will pay a penalty.

Unlike speeding, there are many, many crimes for which intent is an essential element of the crime. The classified documents law states:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location

The statute requires both knowledge and intent. In both Hillary's case and Biden's case, the investigator found that there was insufficient evidence of intent.

Don't argue legal definitions with lawyers. You will come across as even more of an ignoramus than you are.

Some people tend to spout off a lot about things that they know nothing about, without having any idea at all about what they don’t know.

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:27 pm

The only evidence that hasso far come to light. I'm sure y'all would be fine if Trump's lawyers had gone through the classified documents before deciding what and when to reveal them, right?

Another viable defense is that Mr. Biden might not have retained the classified Afghanistan documents in his Virginia home at all. We searched for such additional evidence and found it wanting. In particular, no witness, photo, e­mail, text message, or any other evidence conclusively places the Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017.

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:28 pm

wbtravis007 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:26 pm

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:45 pm

Unlike speeding, there are many, many crimes for which intent is an essential element of the crime. The classified documents law states:



The statute requires both knowledge and intent. In both Hillary's case and Biden's case, the investigator found that there was insufficient evidence of intent.

Don't argue legal definitions with lawyers. You will come across as even more of an ignoramus than you are.

Some people tend to spout off a lot about things that they know nothing about, without having any idea at all about what they don’t know.

That's for damn sure. Especially lawyers.

Former President Donald Trump bizarrely claimed that if he loses Pennsylvania, “they” will change the state's name. Trump made the claim in a speech to thousands of members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Friday night.

“We have to win in November, or we’re not going to have Pennsylvania. They’ll change the name. They’re going to change the name of Pennsylvania,” Trump said. "No, we are going to have to win. You’re not going to have a country anymore, you’re not going to have a state anymore, you’re not going to have anything,” Trump concluded.

Donald Trump 2/11/24 wrote:I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will. There’s no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden… and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money…

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:32 am

Donald Trump 2/11/24 wrote:I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will. There’s no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden… and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money…

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 13, 2024 12:59 pm

I think I saw bobby wants Taylor Swift to run for President. Why not? She's got all the qualifications to be a democrat president.