Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Brisketexan 105,134]

This wouldn't be necessary if the stuff was really "declassified."

Fucking duh.

[TwiceHorn 31,465]

45 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Presidents and Vice presidents (and others like diplomats who are provided multi year government housing, staff and ubiquitous access to top secret documents as part of their jobs)  should absolutely be treated differently than contractors or regular government employees with respect to inadvertently possessing top secret documents.   Presidential transitions are chaotic and under a very small time frame.  The  packing is done by staff and government employees.  It is essentially inevitable that some top secret documents will be accidently included in the move out material.   Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden, nor Pence should be prosecuted for this inevitable fact.  But when the government comes back and says, we know you accidently took some documents that you shouldn't have, but now want them back, they need to be given back without hesitation.  That is the difference.    On the other hand, if you are a government employee/contractor and you personally take top secret documents to your home, make no effort to return them, and just try to keep them after your leave your job, yeah you need to be facing jail time.  The situations are not comparable.  This really isn't difficult.

You don't have to treat them differently.

The nature of their acquisition of such documents legally makes all the difference.  The key word there being "inadvertently."

As soon as that possession crosses a line from "inadvertent" to "knowing" and "willful," the treatment changes.

[Serak The Preparer 3,431]

12 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Well there isn't a literal connection

@chainsaw, face it, there isn't any connection.

[tx 3 putt 76,952]

37 minutes ago, The Dog said:

This wouldn't be necessary if the stuff was really "declassified."

not sure why they bothered, per trump he’s getting everything back. Maybe he has inside info ???

 

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

not sure why they bothered, per trump he’s getting everything back. Maybe he has inside info ???

 

Isn't this Marty Taylor the guy that got everything wrong already?

[jimmyjazz 45,939]

This "my boxes" angle is so damned weird.

[TwiceHorn 31,465]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Hey champ - stop doing annie's #bothsides work for him. Read the indictment. Page 28, counts 1-31 lay out all the various documents stolen. In no particular order:

• TS/SI/NOFORN/FISA: Undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the US
• TS/[REDACTED]/[REDACTED]/ORCON/NOFORN: June 2020 doc on nuclear capabilities of a foreign country
• S/FVEY: pages of a document concerning projected regional capabilities of a foreign power and the US
• S/FRD: undated document concerning nuclear weaponry of the US

and many, many more. Plus, biden wasn't storing his in a fucking ballroom next to his party deck. Fuck the fuck outta here. There is no equivalency between the two.

I'm not saying there's equivalency, douchebag.

You have no reason whatsoever to know or believe that Biden's or Pence's documents are any more or less innocuous than Trump's.  They may be.  They may not be.  Except as I noted right there in the post.

In any event, whether Biden's or Pence's are "better" or "worse" is immaterial, just like I said the first time.

Edited June 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,465]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Isn't this Marty Taylor the guy that got everything wrong already?

Kinda yeah.  A fairly hysterical account.

[Js1 85,331]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This "my boxes" angle is so damned weird.

 

Because he doesn't understand the concept that these things don't belong to "him," they belong to the government.  They will continue to exist long after he is fucking dead.

[Captainant 27,664]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not saying there's equivalency, douchebag.

You have no reason whatsoever to know or believe that Biden's or Pence's documents are any more or less innocuous than Trump's.  They may be.  They may not be.  Except as I noted right there in the post.

In any event, whether Biden's or Pence's are "better" or "worse" is immaterial, just like I said the first time.

Just seems weird and unnecessary to imply that it's a normative behavior to store nuclear secrets in the shitter and that the way we're treating trump is somehow divergent from treating other documents cases. I do have reason to believe that Biden or pence didn't do what trump did: for starters they complied with NARA from the jump. 

Why are you presuming that everyone else was stealing nuclear secrets too? Just seems like a weird equivalency to bring to the discussion that serves no reason but to #bothsides. 

[TwiceHorn 31,465]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just seems weird and unnecessary to imply that it's a normative behavior to store nuclear secrets in the shitter and that the way we're treating trump is somehow divergent from treating other documents cases. I do have reason to believe that Biden or pence didn't do what trump did: for starters they complied with NARA from the jump. 

Why are you presuming that everyone else was stealing nuclear secrets too? Just seems like a weird equivalency to bring to the discussion that serves no reason but to #bothsides. 

Goddammit.

The point of the post was that whether the secrets are bad or not has nothing to do with it.  Biden and Pence took their shit inadvertently, I'm sure.  So the stuff could be horribad. Or not.  Doesn't make any difference to the criminality of it either way.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[The Dog 44,045]

19 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

not sure why they bothered, per trump he’s getting everything back. Maybe he has inside info ???

 

if anything she's doing the opposite here.

[atomheartbevo 89,661]

2 hours ago, dcbc said:

Exactly.  The crime isn't "having the documents at home."

"knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"

Refusing to return the documents simply demonstrates intent to retain.  There are many ways you might be able to prove that element.  But that's a pretty solid one.

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The question being presented is “who/what is the controlling power in the US: the rule of law, or Donald Trump/the GQP?”
The answer to that question will decide our destiny, or our destruction.

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure I'd bet that Trump's classified info is "worse" than Biden's or Pence's.  It might very well be, given teh Donald's propensity for self-aggraindizement (he might have wanted the hot shit).

But there are suffficient differences in the circumstances alone to merit prosecution for Trump and no-bills for Biden and Pence.

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Slight difference between "Oops, we found some stuff mixed in with personal items. Here you go. Sorry about that" and the FBI showing up at your door because for a year and a half you've been lying and obstructing about all the super classified stuff you knowingly stole on your way out the door. 

At the end of the day, and I've told a few MAGA relatives this, out of everybody being mentioned (Trump, Biden, Pence, etc.), Trump is the only one going out and giving public speeches about how they are "his" documents and he deserves to do with them as he pleases.

[TwiceHorn 31,465]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

if anything she's doing the opposite here.

There's either a manual for judges for this kind of thing, or she's getting some help from somewhere.

ETA:  There are manuals. https://www.fjc.gov/content/372882/national-security-case-studies-special-case-management-challenges-seventh-edition

Edited June 16, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Red Five 40,857]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

At the end of the day, and I've told a few MAGA relatives this, out of everybody being mentioned (Trump, Biden, Pence, etc.), Trump is the only one going out and giving public speeches about how they are "his" documents and he deserves to do with them as he pleases.

He also wasn't charged for any of the documents he gave back willingly. 

Anyone saying "Biden did the same thing and wasn't charged!!" is either gaslighting or has an IQ under 70.

[tx 3 putt 76,952]

28 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Isn't this Marty Taylor the guy that got everything wrong already?

he just has to get it right once to be a super star 

Edited June 16, 2023 by tx 3 putt

['stache 21,815]

I haven't seen this anywhere, but I've assumed that the "just give them back" solution wasn't available to trump because (1) he took them intentionally as opposed to Biden and Pence, (2) the ones he took contained high level classification material (we did see confirmation that "war plans" were among them) while Biden/Pence stuff was low level of little concern, and probably more importantly (3) trump knew that DOJ had him on tape as stated in the indictment sharing the information. Thus, he was already screwed, and his only defense mechanism was "I declassified them" or "I'm allowed to have them" or "They were planted." 

[Beau Vine 54,225]

30 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Isn't this Marty Taylor the guy that got everything wrong already?

No, I believe that's "Helobious."

[dcbc 14,482]

20 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Anyone saying "Biden did the same thing and wasn't charged!!" is either gaslighting or has an IQ under 70.

That anyone think that amounts to an intelligent defense is dildos.

 

Example: Timmy stole a piece of valuable artwork.  At his trial, Timmy argues that on some separate date, Jimmy stole a different piece of valuable artwork.  The jury believes the testimony that proves that Jimmy did this.  The jury nonetheless finds Timmy guilty and sentences him to death.  Why?  because what Jimmy did had not a thing to do with any of this.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by dcbc

[Gatorubet 30,238]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddammit.

The point of the post was that whether the secrets are bad or not has nothing to do with it.  Biden and Pence took their shit inadvertently, I'm sure.  So the stuff could be horribad. Or not.  Doesn't make any difference to the criminality of it either way.

 

I get where you went now.  That said, I could argue that the nature of the doc might have some relevance to the issue of should you have known not to take it, and how did it get in your possession?  If a doc, as discussed by staff, would NOT have ordinarily been on his desk with the other stuff, you might have circumstantial evidence that it was taken by Biden some other way, and possibly knowingly 

But yeah, even way secret stuff unknowingly taken and immediately returned is a Gov prosecutor willful intent proof problem . 

 , 

[Gatorubet 30,238]

3 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Unless it can be explained to me how what he did was proven different from what they did other than "he's a former VP and current president so he's privileged". 

Also, I don't get the condescending dickhead tone you're taking with me. Why are you insulting me and making this personal?

These two things are related. 

[jimmyjazz 45,939]

25 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Example: Timmy stole a piece of valuable artwork.  At his trial, Timmy argues that on some separate date, Jimmy stole a different piece of valuable artwork.  The jury believes the testimony that proves that Jimmy did this.  The jury nonetheless finds Timmy guilty and sentences him to death.  Why?  because what Jimmy did had not a thing to do with any of this.

Seems reasonable.  Is it legally correct?  Does the failure to prosecute similar crimes in the past render the law moot?

Take it to the extreme.  For instance, in Chesapeake VA, it is a misdemeanor for a person older than 14 to trick or treat.  Children younger than 14 must limit their trick or treating to the hours of 6 PM to 8 PM.  Otherwise, it's a misdemeanor.  These statutes are never enforced . . . does that imply they CANNOT be enforced in the future?

Full disclosure: I hate Halloween and I'm moving to Chesapeake if Johnny Law will start cracking down on these n'er do wells.

Edited June 16, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[tx 3 putt 76,952]

Trump sure is acting like he has this one in the bag 

[C-Man 27,224]

45 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I haven't seen this anywhere, but I've assumed that the "just give them back" solution wasn't available to trump because (1) he took them intentionally as opposed to Biden and Pence, (2) the ones he took contained high level classification material (we did see confirmation that "war plans" were among them) while Biden/Pence stuff was low level of little concern, and probably more importantly (3) trump knew that DOJ had him on tape as stated in the indictment sharing the information. Thus, he was already screwed, and his only defense mechanism was "I declassified them" or "I'm allowed to have them" or "They were planted." 

I think the "just give them back" solution was still on the table up to the actual raid on MAL. Of course, I could be wrong as it appears they were investigating and actually conducted the raid based on surveillance of Nauta moving shit around, etc. I would guess the "just give them back" option was there for quite some time.

[C-Man 27,224]

Trump warns GOP primary opponents that they need to promise to pardon the Donald "or else."

Here's my question -- why do you need a guarantee of a pardon if you've done nothing wrong, shit-head?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/06/donald-trump-pardon-pledges

Quote

In the last three months, Donald Trump has been:

Indicted on 34 felony counts by the Manhattan district attorney’s office over hush money deals he paid in the run-up to the 2016 election;

Indicted on 37 felony counts by the Department of Justice for hanging on to classified documents that were not his to keep, and allegedly obstructing a federal investigation;

The continued subject of a separate DOJ investigation into his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, which could result in criminal charges;

The continued subject of an investigation by the district attorney’s office in Fulton County, Georgia, into his attempt to overturn the election there, which could also result in criminal charges, and possibly very soon at that.

For all of these reasons, the ex-president is obviously in extreme legal peril, as the DOJ’s classified-documents case alone could potentially send him to prison for the rest of his life. Obviously, Trump does not want that, so he’s devised a plan: demand that everyone running for president on the GOP ticket pledge to pardon him upon assuming office, in the event he can’t do it himself.

Yes, Rolling Stone reports the utterly unsurprising news that a man known for speaking like a mob boss has made it clear to all 2024 Republican presidential candidates that they must “promise to pardon the Donald—or else.” As the outlet notes, the demand “advances two goals: The first is to protect himself from legal consequences if he loses both the GOP primary and his federal court case.” The second is to lay “a trap for any Republican who tries to engage with it: either side with Trump and use the occasion to keep him in the campaign spotlight or share some uncomfortable real estate on the side of Joe Biden and the Justice Department.” And one person the ex-president would quite obviously like to set a trap for is his rival from Florida.

“If you’re Ron [DeSantis], you find yourself really in a really tough situation, because if you blast the DOJ and you blast Jack Smith and Biden, you’re essentially defending Trump and admitting Trump was right,” a Republican strategist told Rolling Stone. “If you condemn him, there’s no lane for you running on that. And then silence is an equally bad option because folks notice you not saying anything.” (A Trump spokesperson did not respond to the specific question of pardon demands when Rolling Stone asked for a comment). Last month, when discussing January 6, the Florida governor said it would be a “day one” priority to pardon people who were supposedly the victims of “political targeting,” suggesting that Trump could be one of those people. But he has not said anything about potentially pardoning the ex-president should the former guy be convicted in the documents case. By contrast, GOP candidate Vivek Ramaswamy had said every 2024 hopeful, regardless of party, should pledge to pardon Trump.

For his part, former vice president Mike Pence said in a recent interview, “I just think it’s premature to have any conversations about [pardons] right now,” while former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley has said she would be “inclined in favor” of a pardon.

In related news, the Republican National Committee has reportedly refused to amend its requirement that GOP candidates pledge to support the eventual nominee in order to qualify for this summer’s debates, despite the fact that one of the candidates is now an accused criminal and could potentially be a convicted criminal in the future. According to Politico, during a call with a staffer from former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson’s campaign, RNC leaders said no changes would be made and told the staffer they are “not dealing with hypotheticals” regarding Trump’s legal future. Speaking to Politico, Hutchinson said, “I’m not going to vote for him if he’s a convicted felon,” which most people would agree is an entirely reasonable position. “‘I’m not going to vote for him if he’s convicted of espionage, and I’m not going to vote for him if he’s [convicted of] other serious crimes. And I’m not going to support him.”

 

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Here's my question -- why do you need a guarantee of a pardon if you've done nothing wrong, shit-head?

This doesn’t work because the answer for these morons is: “DEEP STATE!  WITCH HUNT!”

They justify it in their feeble brains by thinking there is some nefarious evil higher power pulling strings to be mean to their savior. 

[Slacks 6,821]

8 hours ago, texastough said:

Hoooly shit you're a dumbass

Expected answer. I'm a dumbass. Great. 

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The question you should be asking yourself is why did Russia target the building. There was no military objective associated with the building. The answer is because it had children in it and Russia wanted to cause human suffering. 

That's not the question because I understand why Russia did it. That doesn't change my question. 

3 hours ago, Handcruser said:

I’ll start with this - I hope you don’t have a newsletter.

What sets Russia apart in this scenario is they don’t give a shit - bomb and destroy everything.

If the US was involved and saw this, they would already have intel proving the building served or did not serve military applications and would react accordingly.

Russia has zero strategy at this point - from the top down it’s a hot mess. Charlie strong and Steve Patterson could add some leadership to that group.

This is getting closer to the point I'm making... Understanding that Russia has no strategy and limited intel, why would writing 'Children' stop them at all? If that were going to work, which is what normal people expect, it could have worked many times. Hell, remove Russia and include any country that doesn't really play fair (and some that do). If they *think* there is value in that building, it's going to be attacked. The sign outside won't mean much, even if it's right. 

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

Something to remember is that this was a stage theater (like Bass Concert Hall), which is marked as a cultural center. They were using it as a bomb shelter because it holds a lot of people, and had a basement. All cultural centers are off-limits in war by the Geneva Convention. So most NORMAL countries who wage war would not use that for military purposes, so I don't think that tactic would work at say a known military compound. 

Agreed. But same as above. Russia doesn't give a shit about the Geneva Convention, or a lot of what has happened wouldn't happen. But ignore that for a minute. If a country thinks the building is of value, they hit it. The sign doesn't mean a thing, even if it's true. 

We - The United States of Intel - have done it... (not with 'Children' but with 'Baby Formula'). 

 

Look, I get it... Russia bad. That was not the question at all.  The question was why would anyone expect a sign to stop an attack. 

[The Dog 44,045]

29 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Trump sure is acting like he has this one in the bag 

Why do you think this? 

If anything his behavior is the opposite. 

[DixonHur 11,303]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

not sure why they bothered, per trump he’s getting everything back. Maybe he has inside info ???

 

To be fair, he's not saying he will get the documents back, just the boxes.  

And who can blame him, boxes are expensive these days.

[Lurch 5,930]

To be fair, he's not saying he will get the documents back, just the boxes.  
And who can blame him, boxes are expensive these days.

0% chance he paid for those boxes

[Js1 85,331]

31 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Why do you think this? 

If anything his behavior is the opposite. 

People will believe what they want to believe. Plus the desire or go all “I told ya so”

[Dahobbs 17,534]

1 hour ago, Slacks said:

Expected answer. I'm a dumbass. Great. 

That's not the question because I understand why Russia did it. That doesn't change my question. 

This is getting closer to the point I'm making... Understanding that Russia has no strategy and limited intel, why would writing 'Children' stop them at all? If that were going to work, which is what normal people expect, it could have worked many times. Hell, remove Russia and include any country that doesn't really play fair (and some that do). If they *think* there is value in that building, it's going to be attacked. The sign outside won't mean much, even if it's right. 

Agreed. But same as above. Russia doesn't give a shit about the Geneva Convention, or a lot of what has happened wouldn't happen. But ignore that for a minute. If a country thinks the building is of value, they hit it. The sign doesn't mean a thing, even if it's true. 

We - The United States of Intel - have done it... (not with 'Children' but with 'Baby Formula'). 

 

Look, I get it... Russia bad. That was not the question at all.  The question was why would anyone expect a sign to stop an attack. 

Did you think posting this in the wrong thread would prove you weren't a dumbass?

[Born to Run 6,569]

46 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

To be fair, he's not saying he will get the documents back, just the boxes.  

And who can blame him, boxes are expensive these days.

Whats he gonna make a clubhouse?

 

Fired on his day off.

[RomaVicta 29,907]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

He also wasn't charged for any of the documents he gave back willingly. 

Anyone saying "Biden did the same thing and wasn't charged!!" is either gaslighting or has an IQ under 70.

That is correct. We also would have accepted lying, obfuscating, inflaming the rabble, undermining the republic's faith in its institutions, rushing to the aid of a would-be dictator, or being willing or incognizant agents of a foreign hostile state with intention to undermine the foundations of the United States.

Okay, Mr. Red Five, you have the board.

[dcbc 14,482]

Seems reasonable.  Is it legally correct?  Does the failure to prosecute similar crimes in the past render the law moot?
Take it to the extreme.  For instance, in Chesapeake VA, it is a misdemeanor for a person older than 14 to trick or treat.  Children younger than 14 must limit their trick or treating to the hours of 6 PM to 8 PM.  Otherwise, it's a misdemeanor.  These statutes are never enforced . . . does that imply they CANNOT be enforced in the future?
Full disclosure: I hate Halloween and I'm moving to Chesapeake if Johnny Law will start cracking down on these n'er do wells.

Sure.  Here's another example. Two cars are going down the freeway going 90 mph.  Cop pulls one car over and the other car keeps going.  You get a ticket and the fact that someone else also was speeding in a different car at the same time isn't a defense.  Same holds true if it's a stretch of road people speed on all the time and no one ever got tickets.
 
Same goes for streaking.
 

 
This excludes selective racial enforcement though.

Edited June 16, 2023 by dcbc

[The Dog 44,045]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

Cool.  

 

What does that mean?

[TwiceHorn 31,465]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

I haven't seen this anywhere, but I've assumed that the "just give them back" solution wasn't available to trump because (1) he took them intentionally as opposed to Biden and Pence, (2) the ones he took contained high level classification material (we did see confirmation that "war plans" were among them) while Biden/Pence stuff was low level of little concern, and probably more importantly (3) trump knew that DOJ had him on tape as stated in the indictment sharing the information. Thus, he was already screwed, and his only defense mechanism was "I declassified them" or "I'm allowed to have them" or "They were planted." 

The just give them back scenario was probably always available up until the search warrant.

He never took it and banished Kise to the hinterlands for telling him to just give them back.

[TwiceHorn 31,465]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Cool.  

 

What does that mean?

Basically, it means that the government is about to dump a shitpile of investigative information on Trumpco.  This means that no one on the team, including Trump, can disclose it to the public.  It might even mean Trump can't see some of it, the protective order is not public.

I wouldn't read too much into it beyond that.

[The Dog 44,045]

 

[Js1 85,331]

Ronna ROMNEY McDaniel reading that letter

[Gatorubet 30,238]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Live look at DeSantis and other GOP presidential wannabes after RNC rule change request denied.

 

[atomheartbevo 89,661]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Live look at DeSantis and other GOP presidential wannabes after RNC rule change request denied.

 

Live look at MAGA after they hear that Rod wanted to get Trump banned from being the nominee

[Pato del Muerto 52,497]

I notice that says desantis people, but sesantis himself isn’t one of those people. Trying to keep him clean and for some reason I’m the good graces of his opponent, who can’t stand him. 

[Gatorubet 30,238]

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Trying to keep him clean and for some reason in the good graces of his opponent, who can’t stand him. 

[atomheartbevo 89,661]

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I notice that says desantis people, but sesantis himself isn’t one of those people. Trying to keep him clean and for some reason I’m the good graces of his opponent, who can’t stand him. 

It won't matter to MAGA.  DeSantis's people = DeSantis.

[Rimbo 25,931]

7 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

"If you want to die in jail, keep talking."  Really quite an interesting interview with ... if you can believe it ... two lawyers.    The thing is that it speaks to the one thing Trump can't do: shut up.  He's just psychologically incapable of shutting his mouth, even when opening it destroys him. He's in love with the sound of his own voice.   So even when his lawyers tell him to shut his fucking mouth, he can't.    It's sort of fascinating in a morbid kind of way.

https://www.juancole.com/2023/06/national-security-treatment.html


 

money quote:

"Durkin: There’s only one reason the government could not bring this case, and that’s fear of violence or an attack on the republic. Once you do that, then you might as well close the Department of Justice and forget about any rule of law."

I mean, that's the goal for Trump and his supporters, no? Eliminate the DOJ and the rule of law with it.

[Rimbo 25,931]

7 hours ago, 'stache said:

You're so transparent it's not even funny. For example, you intentionally cherry pick from your own article insisting that "willfulness" is the same in both cases. It is not, as shown in your own articles. I like you you conveniently left this out:

The DOJ and the National Archives are investigating how and why Biden retained the documents after he completed two terms as vice president for President Barack Obama in January 2017.

NBC News reported later Thursday that multiple aides for Biden in the final days of the Obama administration have been interviewed by law enforcement officials in connection with that probe.

“The people who were boxing [up the vice presidential office] had no idea that there was anything in there that shouldn’t leave the White House,” a source familiar with the matter told NBC News. “There was no decision made to take certain documents that should have been presidential records or classified.”

 

You also ignored this about the other case. If the Biden docs were this level of classified, it would have been found by now, and much more serious.

 The Justice Department saidKingsbury took home approximately 386 classified documents from work over more than 12 years, including secret information related to counterterrorism intelligence sources and methods, open investigations, the FBI’s technical capabilities, intelligence gaps, and al Qaeda in Africa.

 

You clearly want desperately for the cases to all the be same. They are not. Your own citations prove it, and yet you're still "asking questions" which are answered in your articles. It's pathetic, truly. 

can I give you a suggestion?

👇

[Sawbonz 27,558]

7 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

"If you want to die in jail, keep talking."  Really quite an interesting interview with ... if you can believe it ... two lawyers.    The thing is that it speaks to the one thing Trump can't do: shut up.  He's just psychologically incapable of shutting his mouth, even when opening it destroys him. He's in love with the sound of his own voice.   So even when his lawyers tell him to shut his fucking mouth, he can't.    It's sort of fascinating in a morbid kind of way.

https://www.juancole.com/2023/06/national-security-treatment.html


 

Just call him Tater Salad

 

i guess that makes junior Tater Tot 

[Rimbo 25,931]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Kinda yeah.  A fairly hysterical account.

@Brisketexan's Twitter alt, then?

 

 

.😉