The liberal media’s cynical gaslighting on House probes into Hunter Biden

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Biden, Trump and classified documents: An explainer

I’m not going to quote the whole article as it is just justification for Biden being stupid.  Either classified and top secret documents are a crucial part of our national security or they are not.  End of discussion.  Is the DOJ going to prosecute both or, because a Dem did the same as a Rep, it’s not important anymore?

[AU9377 4,925]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Whataboutism at its best.  One word *laptop*.  You just can’t get around it.

You actually  believe that something will come of that?  It won't.   When it comes to investigations, the Republicans are kings of the nothingburgers.  John Durham... nothing.  Benghazzi - nothing....and on and on.  Yes, with more than ample cause, the Democrats investigated Trump.  Trump was President and his actions were thereby subject to their inquiries.  That is hardly an apples to apples way of conducting oversight.

[homersapien 11,366]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m not going to quote the whole article as it is just justification for Biden being stupid.  Either classified and top secret documents are a crucial part of our national security or they are not.  End of discussion.  Is the DOJ going to prosecute both or, because a Dem did the same as a Rep, it’s not important anymore?

Biden's stupidity is not a legal factor in this.

I am tired of repeating the relevant law, but it's clear to anyone that - based on what we do know - Trump violated the law, whereas Biden did not.  Accordingly, I hope the DOJ prosecutes Trump.

(This represents a case in which Trump's typical legal M.O. of denying and resisting actually constitutes the legal offense. )

If it does turns out upon investigation that Biden violated the law, then I hope he is held accountable as well.  But since his response was apparently appropriate - and so different than Trump's - he probably won't.

Does that answer your question?

Edited January 13, 2023 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

17 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You actually  believe that something will come of that?  It won't.   When it comes to investigations, the Republicans are kings of the nothingburgers.  John Durham... nothing.  Benghazzi - nothing....and on and on.  Yes, with more than ample cause, the Democrats investigated Trump.  Trump was President and his actions were thereby subject to their inquiries.  That is hardly an apples to apples way of conducting oversight.

Listen to yourself.  Republicans are king of nothingburgers?  4 years of investigations of Trump and you get two partisan impeachments that you hang your hat on and you are still afraid Trump will beat whoever the Dem nominee is in 2024.

Biden just nullified any hope of indicting Trump over Mar a Lago because of Car a Lago.

There is talk of expunging one or both of Trump’s impeachments:

 

Now, I hope they don’t, but it could be on the table.  What a world we live in.  Indict both and let’s start with a clean slate in 2024.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

59 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Wow you seem to have forgotten what the Dems  first actions were against Trump. They couldn't even wait for his inauguration to start impeachment proceedings.

This is not true.  It is a lie. 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If it does turns out upon investigation that Biden violated the law, then I hope he is held accountable as well.  But since his response was apparently appropriate - and so different than Trump's - he probably won't.

Who said it was appropriate?  The View?  KJP?  He held those documents for 6 years in folders marked personal/confidential.  He only turned them over because he was caught and for no other reason.  He broke the law.  I don’t know his intent and neither do you.  He broke the law just as Hillary and Trump did and now the FBI has no other avenue to go down other than not to indict any of them.

[homersapien 11,366]

40 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who said it was appropriate? 

If one possesses classified documents that he is not aware of and had not intention of keeping, then notifying the proper authorities in order to return them is obviously the "appropriate" thing to do.  (Duuuuuh...)

 

42 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He only turned them over because he was caught and for no other reason. 

Pure speculation.  And you are clearly biased.

 

43 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He broke the law.

Perhaps. 

But not if he was unaware they existed in the (boxes?) of stuff he had and had no intent of taking or retaining them, as the law specifies. 

That's what the investigation is for.

 

45 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t know his intent and neither do you. 

Correct.

 

46 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He broke the law just as Hillary and Trump did and now the FBI has no other avenue to go down other than not to indict any of them.

Perhaps. 

I am not familiar with the detailed reasoning of the DOJ regarding Hillary.  But the DOJ is often lenient or reluctant to prosecute presidents or candidates for such offenses regardless of party.

As for Trump, perhaps his typical legal M.O. of denial then attacking finally backfired on him:

Zaid said that if Trump had returned all the missing documents when the Archives first requested them, that would have been the end of the matter. It became a criminal matter “only because Trump and his lawyers delayed at first and then obstructed,” he said.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/11/biden-trump-classified-documents-an-explainer/

Considering Trump 1) ignored requests to return the documents, 2) failed to observe the subpoenas to do so and 3) actually claimed he owned them (after "declassifying" them), I can see where he could still be liable to be charged for obstruction.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

He broke the law just as Hillary and Trump did and now the FBI has no other avenue to go down other than not to indict any of them.

I agree.  Even if the intent is not criminal, there needs to be some sort of significant penalty. 

Is national security important or, not?  Is information secret/classified or, not?

No one will respect the law if,,, those in the capital class, the political class are not subject to the law.  Ethical behavior within a society reflects the ethical behavior of power.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If one possesses classified documents that he is not aware of and had not intention of keeping, then notifying the proper authorities in order to return them is obviously the "appropriate" thing to do.  (Duuuuuh...)

How does one have classified material in their *think tank*, home garage and adjacent office that he is not aware of?  How did it get there?  The fact that it is there indicates he, at some point, authorized removing the material to be taken (stolen).  They were in folders marked confidential/personal.  I don’t think you are the authority to declare it was appropriate.

 

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Pure speculation.  And you are clearly biased.

Yes, I am biased.  Biden is not a good leader and I would like to see him leave.  I do wonder why it took three months to be transparent about these documents though.

 

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But not if he was unaware they existed in the (boxes?) of stuff he had and had no intent of taking or retaining them, as the law specifies. 

Really?  Talk about speculation.  This is the type of statement a person dealing in drugs would say.  “Hey, man that’s not my stuff, I don’t know how it got there”.  As to no intent on taking them, on who’s orders do you think they got to the think tank, his garage and house?  Do you honestly thing 6 years ago some staff member took it upon himself to pack up classified and secret documents and ship them to Joe’s place of residence?  And retaining them?  He retained them for 6 years, what is the time limit on retention?  Just because he self declared doesn’t mean he is not held responsible.

 

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's what the investigation is for.

Yes, it is.

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Considering Trump 1) ignored requests to return the documents, 2) failed to observe the subpoenas to do so and 3) actually claimed he owned them (after "declassifying" them), I can see where he could still be liable to be charged for obstruction.

If you believe this, then Biden must be held accountable for possessing top secret and classified material for 6 years with little or no security.  In his locked garage next to his locked corvette is not in a secure location.

Edited January 13, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[DKW 86 7,419]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

I strongly disagree.  And I am not alone.

It's a great source for the most part and a good place to start.  It's typically well referenced, at least in the scientific field. Just follow the reference notes.  (And it helps to already know a little about the subject or already have experience doing research.)

And yes, I understand that wikipedia itself is not something to quote in an academic paper, but the whole point of wikileaks is to research the original papers cited there. It's serves a similar purpose as a literature review.

https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2017/12/wikipedia-trustworthy-academic-resource-scientists-think-so

[DKW 86 7,419]

11 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Everybody and there mother knew that as soon as Republicans took over the House they'd spend all their time and energy launching investigations into anything and everything Joe and hunter Biden to feed their angry MAGA base.

 

NYpost just trying to hype it up. 

And this would be different from the Dems launching investigations into everything Republican when they were in power?

[PUB78 1,358]

11 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Everybody and there mother knew that as soon as Republicans took over the House they'd spend all their time and energy launching investigations into anything and everything Joe and hunter Biden to feed their angry MAGA base.

 

NYpost just trying to hype it up. 

Their mother, not there mother.

[homersapien 11,366]

8 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree.  Even if the intent is not criminal, there needs to be some sort of significant penalty.

if there was  " intent" then it's criminal by definition.

Edited January 14, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,366]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

How does one have classified material in their *think tank*, home garage and adjacent office that he is not aware of?  How did it get there?  The fact that it is there indicates he, at some point, authorized removing the material to be taken (stolen).  They were in folders marked confidential/personal.  I don’t think you are the authority to declare it was appropriate.

 

Yes, I am biased.  Biden is not a good leader and I would like to see him leave.  I do wonder why it took three months to be transparent about these documents though.

 

Really?  Talk about speculation.  This is the type of statement a person dealing in drugs would say.  “Hey, man that’s not my stuff, I don’t know how it got there”.  As to no intent on taking them, on who’s orders do you think they got to the think tank, his garage and house?  Do you honestly thing 6 years ago some staff member took it upon himself to pack up classified and secret documents and ship them to Joe’s place of residence?  And retaining them?  He retained them for 6 years, what is the time limit on retention?  Just because he self declared doesn’t mean he is not held responsible.

 

Yes, it is.

If you believe this, then Biden must be held accountable for possessing top secret and classified material for 6 years with little or no security.  In his locked garage next to his locked corvette is not in a secure location.

Do you want to restrict the debate to facts -  or at least what we know at this point  (from reputable sources) - or not?

I am not interested in debating theories aimed at the QAnon crowd.

Edited January 14, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,366]

50 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Thanks for the reasoned rebuttal.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Do you want to restrict the debate to facts -  or at least what we know at this point  (from reputable sources) - or not?

I am not interested in debating theories aimed at the QAnon crowd.

Well, we could just listen to KJP’s press conferences.  They are so informative, transparent and full of facts.  What a joke of an administration.

[aubiefifty 16,760]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, we could just listen to KJP’s press conferences.  They are so informative, transparent and full of facts.  What a joke of an administration.

how soon we forget. how dare you call any administration a joke after that garbage YOU voted for. and how many are in jail? you do not want justice you want revenge. even barr started telling a few truths. you want to throw out whataboutism but the fact is you and many others denied the facts coming out until it was all so overwhelming concerning trump so why should anyone believe you when you would not believe the truth about him when it was right in your face the whole time. you are just a partison hack who wants revenge because the bad haired baby let you down so badly.

[DKW 86 7,419]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Do you want to restrict the debate to facts -  or at least what we know at this point  (from reputable sources) - or not?

I am not interested in debating theories aimed at the QAnon crowd.

And yet you quote just as fact challenged Wikipedia?

[autigeremt 6,599]

‘Merica……

[PUB78 1,358]

20 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree.  Even if the intent is not criminal, there needs to be some sort of significant penalty. 

Is national security important or, not?  Is information secret/classified or, not?

No one will respect the law if,,, those in the capital class, the political class are not subject to the law.  Ethical behavior within a society reflects the ethical behavior of power.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

how soon we forget. how dare you call any administration a joke after that garbage YOU voted for. and how many are in jail? you do not want justice you want revenge. even barr started telling a few truths. you want to throw out whataboutism but the fact is you and many others denied the facts coming out until it was all so overwhelming concerning trump so why should anyone believe you when you would not believe the truth about him when it was right in your face the whole time. you are just a partison hack who wants revenge because the bad haired baby let you down so badly.

But, what about, oh never mind.

[PUB78 1,358]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

how soon we forget. how dare you call any administration a joke after that garbage YOU voted for. and how many are in jail? you do not want justice you want revenge. even barr started telling a few truths. you want to throw out whataboutism but the fact is you and many others denied the facts coming out until it was all so overwhelming concerning trump so why should anyone believe you when you would not believe the truth about him when it was right in your face the whole time. you are just a partison hack who wants revenge because the bad haired baby let you down so badly.

 

[homersapien 11,366]

7 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

how soon we forget. how dare you call any administration a joke after that garbage YOU voted for. and how many are in jail? you do not want justice you want revenge. even barr started telling a few truths. you want to throw out whataboutism but the fact is you and many others denied the facts coming out until it was all so overwhelming concerning trump so why should anyone believe you when you would not believe the truth about him when it was right in your face the whole time. you are just a partison hack who wants revenge because the bad haired baby let you down so badly.

It was even worse than you would imagine.  Far worse.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646871/the-divider-by-peter-baker-and-susan-glasser/

[homersapien 11,366]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And yet you quote just as fact challenged Wikipedia?

I think I have already addressed your erroneous assumptions about Wikipedia.  You come across like a QAnon guy.

https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2017/12/wikipedia-trustworthy-academic-resource-scientists-think-so

Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source? Scientists Think So

Research finds that the open-source resource can be used academically with some help from digital literacy standards.

 

 

 

https://www.pcmag.com/news/wikipedia-the-most-reliable-source-on-the-internet

Wikipedia: The Most Reliable Source on the Internet?

Something about this massive online knowledge repository is working better than the rest of the internet, and we can learn from it.

Edited January 14, 2023 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 16,760]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

It was even worse than you would imagine.  Far worse.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646871/the-divider-by-peter-baker-and-susan-glasser/

trump cannot surprise me anymore. i do not kid.