Reply to Lock him up indictment FL

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Lock him up indictment FL"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I really think many of you are [b]missing[/b] the obstruction. He had ample opportunity to work with NARA to return everything. He purposely mislead everyone. It never had to end this way had he returned everything.[/quote]

[img]https://media.tenor.com/y994phul8ZUAAAAM/office-space-missing.gif[/img]

Joking aside, they aren't [i]missing[/i] the obstruction. They are choosing to willfully ignore it. The truth is that the security powers that be are willing to work with you if you honestly screw up and come to them with a mea culpa. Not only was Trump taking the documents not a screw up, but intentional, he then chose to lie, have others lie on his behalf, and hide them.

People like to point at the Reality Winner case. She's not in jail because she accidentally took a document out of the building that got mixed in her personal stuff. She's in jail because she removed it intentionally.

[/quote]

Reality Winner had no ability to declassify documents. Trump did and no, he doesn’t have to ask permission of anyone to do so.[/quote]

But he didn’t declassify them.  And they have him on tape admitting he didn’t.[/quote]

LOL. No, they don’t. They claim they do. CNN has the exclusive dontchaknow[/quote]

Hmm...this dude denied the tape existed.[/quote]

At the time they claimed they did. Now they have a tape which isn’t terribly incriminating. The allegations is that he shared classified information. We can’t see what he showed[/quote]
He described it. That’s legally the same as showing it.[/quote]

So if he showed a presidential route of his from the past with classified markings, is it still classified?[/quote]

Yes, of course, if it hasn’t been declassified. Even if the route is old news there could be agent names, phone numbers, operational details, etc. in the document that should be redacted. [/quote]

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. So if I’m on a jury, ‘could be’ doesn’t count. Ditto if prosecution shows a heavily redacted document they claim is the same on in an audio tape. I have no idea if it’s the same one or not. [/quote]

He isn't even being charged for that document.  The only purpose of the tape is to prove that he knew, at the time, that he could not declassify documents.  We never have to see the document to hear him admit that he can't declassify anything after leaving office.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics