Donald Trump Indicted Again.

[AuCivilEng1 11,026]

 

37 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

There is no way anyone other than Trump is prosecuted over these circumstances.  

Lol, have you gone crazy? In what world would someone who stole the the below documents, stored them in showers and unsecure storage rooms, refused to return them, and  attempted to hide them from the FBI, not face prosecution. And more importantly, why does the security of these documents matter less to you than Donald F**king Trump's ability to get away with it?

• United States nuclear programes
• Defence and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries
• Potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack
• Plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack

 

They'd have us waterboarded in the basements of Gitmo for even doing that with one of these. Get real. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[creed 1,649]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I'm not sure I would go that far.  Why do you believe that?

Biden has been at this a long time and has been through annual training many times. He knows the importance of document control. I was very surprised that our documentation was found under his control based on his knowledge and training. To me that made me feel he just didn't care.    

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, they were honest questions designed to reveal the point of your argument,  instead of wallowing about in the weeds by delving into various state requirements and the effectiveness of various procedures to validate ballots.

You are the one who is evading the bottom line: either these mail ballot processes affected the election or they did not.  If they didn't, what's your point?

If you want to talk about how our various election ballot process can be fine-tuned from state to state, fine.  Start a new thread.

But you and I both know that's not your point.  You're trying to insinuate - if not outright claim  - Trump won the 2020 election.  Right?

What's "sad and pathetic" is you aren't willing to "man up" and own your own argument.   But you can always clear that up by answering my questions.

So why won't you do so?

If you could follow a thread the point would reveal itself. 77 brought up signature verification not me. I simply questioned it and he doubled down. But we know during the pandemic laws on signature verification were relaxed. I gave an example. Here is another: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/

My questioning had nothing to do with outcomes, but whether he was as sure about the verification process as he claimed. If you could read it would become apparent, but those scary voices in your head won't allow it. It's sad really.

[homersapien 11,440]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

If you could follow a thread the point would reveal itself. 77 brought up signature verification not me. I simply questioned it and he doubled down. But we know during the pandemic laws on signature verification were relaxed. I gave an example. Here is another: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/

My questioning had nothing to do with outcomes, but whether he was as sure about the verification process as he claimed. If you could read it would become apparent, but those scary voices in your head won't allow it. It's sad really.

Was there enough election fraud in 2020 to steal the election from Trump?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, then you should be particularly upset with Trump now that we know he kept highly classified military secrets and was sharing them inappropriately, thus endangering our nation's security as well as putting our military in direct jeopardy. 

Right?

I've stated previously he should have turned over the boxes of files. Keep up.

[homersapien 11,440]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I've stated previously he should have turned over the boxes of files. Keep up.

I'll take that as a "yes".    (Getting a straight up response from you is rare.)

Presumably, this means you support Trump being held accountable for his actions.  Good.

(Sorry about not remembering everything you post.)

Edited June 12, 2023 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Was there enough election fraud in 2020 to steal the election from Trump?

I have never made such a claim. Can you follow a thread and respond without obfuscation? Apparently not. If you could you'd know my contention had nothing to do with your ridiculous assertions. But them damn voices.....

[homersapien 11,440]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I have never made such a claim. Can you follow a thread and respond without obfuscation? Apparently not. If you could you'd know my contention had nothing to do with your ridiculous assertions. But them damn voices.....

Well, speaking of obfuscation, I didn't say you made that claim, I asked if you believed it.

And you are still evading.  Was there enough election fraud in 2020 to steal the election from Trump?

Like I said about straight forward responses, you just don't have it in you.

Edited June 12, 2023 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well, speaking of obfuscation, I didn't say you made that claim, I asked if you believed it.

We have pages of obfuscation on this thread alone, yours included. Read man read.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

We have pages of obfuscation on this thread alone, yours included. Read man read.

Still won't answer. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Still won't answer. 

I told you I never made that claim. Somehow in your brain that's a yes? 

And you're still attempting to tie my questioning of a statement of fact from 77 to outcomes. Pathetic.

[aubiefifty 16,903]

1 hour ago, creed said:

Biden has been at this a long time and has been through annual training many times. He knows the importance of document control. I was very surprised that our documentation was found under his control based on his knowledge and training. To me that made me feel he just didn't care.    

dude you have  not been in the military. while at the pentagon i had to sort thousands of classified docs to the correct party every single day. i am sure biden has been swamped a time or two. but hey you would not give anyone on the left a break. but NO ONE did the crap trump dd with the documents. NO ONE.

[Leftfield 2,654]

29 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I told you I never made that claim. Somehow in your brain that's a yes?

It means you still won't answer the question. It's an evasion. Having never made the claim doesn't mean you don't believe it. A simple yes or no would put it to rest, but you won't.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

19 hours ago, Leftfield said:

NO ONE is creating legal theories here. Trump's actions are unprecedented, intentional, and have crossed the line. He's like a three-year-old who keeps testing his boundaries to see how far he can go, and now can't seem to understand why he's getting spanked.

NARA can only engage in a civil procedure, not criminal. That's literally what the Presidential Records Act is for. It's a law specifically for Presidents and former Presidents.

21 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

She noted that any challenge to a former president’s handling of records is the responsibility of the National Archives (NARA), and any enforcement mechanism initiated by them and the attorney general would be a civil procedure, and have no criminal penalty.

How can a civil procedure escalate to espionage charges for a former President? Just because they had to play hard ball to recover documents, which are copies btw, they're bringing unprecedented criminal charges against a former President.

[AU9377 5,035]

3 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

"There is absolutely no selective prosecution."

You can gaslight us all you want, but literally nobody who is fairminded believes that. There is no way anyone other than Trump is prosecuted over these circumstances.  We have just watched the DOJ prosecute Trump for years over Russian collusion when it was instigated by his political opponent and the DOJ knew the case was bs. Yet we are expected to believe this time it's different and this prosecution isn't political. That's nonsense and everyone knows it.

I tell you what no reasonable person can  do... No reasonable person can list the facts surrounding each case and say "Oh gosh... these cases are mirror images of each other." 

How long, in your opinion, should the DOJ have begged the man to abide by the law?  Was two years just not enough time for battle plans to sit in a bathroom at Mar a lago?

[AU9377 5,035]

3 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

NARA can only engage in a civil procedure, not criminal. That's literally what the Presidential Records Act is for. It's a law specifically for Presidents and former Presidents.

How can a civil procedure escalate to espionage charges for a former President? Just because they had to play hard ball to recover documents, which are copies btw, they're bringing unprecedented criminal charges against a former President.

The charges are not limited by NARA.  That is not an accurate interpretation.  Simply put, the records you are talking about are items produced by the President during his term.  These documents go well beyond that.

[AU9377 5,035]

4 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

"There is absolutely no selective prosecution."

You can gaslight us all you want, but literally nobody who is fairminded believes that. There is no way anyone other than Trump is prosecuted over these circumstances.  We have just watched the DOJ prosecute Trump for years over Russian collusion when it was instigated by his political opponent and the DOJ knew the case was bs. Yet we are expected to believe this time it's different and this prosecution isn't political. That's nonsense and everyone knows it.

When did the DOJ prosecute Trump for Russian collusion?

Those were congressional oversight hearings and a special counsel investigation.  You will believe what you want to believe and I am certain that your "news" and information sources will have talking heads that spew mythical narratives and  theories all day from now until trial.  However, if you would actually list the facts of each of the cases you think have been so grossly mishandled, you will see the overwhelming differences that exist between them.

[AU9377 5,035]

22 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/18/report-2012-clinton-sock-drawer-tapes-case-could-have-significant-legal-bearing-on-mar-a-lago-raid/

Ten years ago, a U.S. District Court judge ruled there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act that would compel the National Archives to seize records from a former president. The 2012 case has “direct relevance” to the FBI’s decision to raid Mar-a-Lago earlier this month, and could impact upcoming legal battles, according to Just the News.

In her Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration opinion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. rejected the conservative watchdog’s suit to force the Archives to seize hours of audio recordings that former president Bill Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.

She noted that any challenge to a former president’s handling of records is the responsibility of the National Archives (NARA), and any enforcement mechanism initiated by them and the attorney general would be a civil procedure, and have no criminal penalty.

 

Jackson also said “the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office.”

The audio tapes in question were kept in Bill Clinton’s sock drawer at the White House, according to Branch, who wrote about the interviews in his chummy 2009 book, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President.

“Finding room for the tapes wasn’t hard because Clinton “had a lot of socks,” Branch said in an appearance at the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas in 2007.

Some legal experts believe the case could have “significant impact over the FBI search of Melania Trump’s closet and Donald Trump’s personal office,” Just the News reported.

 

 

In her ruling, Jackson made declarations that they believe have direct relevance on the FBI’s decision to seize Trump’s handwritten White House notes and files from his Mar-a-Lago residence—namely, a president’s discretion on determining what are personal vs. official records, and his his right to declassify or destroy records at will.

“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision against Judicial Watch.

The judge made clear that presidents have the right to destroy any records they want during their tenure and their only responsibility is to inform the Archives.

“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,” she added.

Jackson’s full ruling can be read here.

 

She said it was unreasonable to force NARA to seize tapes a president has concluded were personal.

“Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them,” Jackson wrote. “Defendant considers this to be an ‘extraordinary request’ that is unfounded, contrary to the PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law. The Court agrees.”

___________________________________________

In 2012 a U.S. District Court judge ruled the President has sole discretion to choose which documents are personal records and which are Presidential records.

Trump claiming documents as personal records has now caused new legal theories to be crafted in order to charge him criminally.

Clinton took whatever audiotapes he wanted and the NARA didn't lift a finger to object or legally challenge him to recover the tapes after he left office.

Presidential records and GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS are not one in the same.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The charges are not limited by NARA.  That is not an accurate interpretation.  Simply put, the records you are talking about are items produced by the President during his term.  These documents go well beyond that.

There's a reason the DOJ resisted a special master to review the classified records.

Just like with the FISA warrants in the Russiagate hoax, they want to control what classified records the court can access in order to bolster their case. A special master would have severely damaged the DOJ's case.

[AU9377 5,035]

5 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

There's a reason the DOJ resisted a special master to review the classified records.

Just like with the FISA warrants in the Russiagate hoax, they want to control what classified records the court can access in order to bolster their case. A special master would have severely damaged the DOJ's case.

All they have to show is that the documents removed related to National Security and that he refused to return the documents.  He did more than refuse.  He instructed others to assist in preventing them from being returned.  He certainly made no attempt to cooperate.

What is most bizarre is how some of you won't even listen to Bill Barr or John Bolton when it comes to the man and his careless disregard for anything that isn't beneficial to himself.

Edited June 12, 2023 by AU9377

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

All they have to show is that the documents removed related to National Security and that he refused to return the documents.  He did more than refuse.  He instructed others to assist in preventing them from being returned.  He certainly made no attempt to cooperate.

What is most bizarre is how some of you won't even listen to Bill Barr or John Bolton when it comes to the man and his careless disregard for anything that isn't beneficial to himself.

National Security records were not part of the DOJ's subpoena from May 2022.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

It means you still won't answer the question. It's an evasion. Having never made the claim doesn't mean you don't believe it. A simple yes or no would put it to rest, but you won't.

I've answered the question multiple times previously.

Don't fall for homey's ploy. It was a disingenuous question. He is still trying to obfuscate and imply my questioning a statement of fact made by 77 somehow indicates I think there was voter fraud. Had he logically followed the thread he'd know this wasn't the case, but rather my questioning this statement.

I've stated previously there was no massive voter fraud, but rather the dems outworked the opposition. That is more than a simple yes or no.

 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

@NolaAuTiger if Trump asked you to join his defense team?

[AU9377 5,035]

55 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

@NolaAuTiger if Trump asked you to join his defense team?

The man doesn't pay his bills..... better get a few hundred grand up front.

[AU9377 5,035]

On 6/11/2023 at 10:22 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

I'm proposing both sides being held to the same set of rules.

You're acting as though this is a one time instance of someone doing something wrong and not being punished. This is a pattern of one side getting to bend the rules repeatedly while the other side is being put through the legal ringer for the same type of thing.

You can't have a system like that and have everyone be okay with it.

You are acting as though the facts are mirror images one of the other.  They aren't.

Did u drop this?