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][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]

Wow.  I’m impressed.  Do you understand that part of this exchange was in his indictment?  That means witnesses have testified to the Grand Jury about the classification of the papers they were shown.  Have you bothered to read the indictment?  It’s about eighth grade reading level so you should at least try. [/quote]

Sadly, the average Trumpster reads at a fifth-grade level.[/quote]
I enjoy juvenile insults as much as the next person, but the point is, no, not a one of these Trumpets has bothered to read the indictment. On the one hand, I get it. Legalese is usually pretty dull and for us non lawyers it can be pretty opaque, but that’s not why they’re not reading it. They’re not reading it so that they can continue to believe the lies they like. It’s the same reason they don’t read the stories about women dying for want of a simple and safe abortion. It’s the same reason they don’t actually ever listen to or watch anything that would confirm that global warming is real, serious and caused by us.

But trumpets if you are reading my post, go read the indictment. You cannot pretend to be a person of intelligence and patriotism and remain in ignorance. [/quote]

That’s the talking point - indeed we have. We just see it as the political weapon its meant to be.[/quote]

How, literally how, can you read that indictment and not at least have a suspicion that he didn’t act in good faith??? I just don’t see how it’s possible. I mean if you disagree that it’s a crime, that’s literally just your opinion. It’s considered a crime. 37 times. And all the dots connected, if proven, show crimes were committed. Let’s see how they prove it all up, but come on with this crap. [/quote]

I read the indictment.  While there is much allegations made at the beginning, there isn't a single count involving classified information, yet that is all that gets talked about.
The main charges are about national defense information, which really shouldn't apply to Trump.  Then there are six charges about documents marked classified.

This goes along with the warrant for the raid on MarALago, where they do not ever say that classified documents were found in the boxes that were returned or anything specific about what was found, but instead someone gave an affidavit that based on their expertise, there was a likelihood of material related to national security.  They already had the documents.  Why didn't they have someone look at them and say what they found?
 [/quote]
Did you read the statute he’s being charged under?[/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