Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

If you walked into a bank with a bag, set it down, and then picked up another similar bag not knowing it was full of money and walked out, and then later discovered the money was in there and immediately returned it, you would not be charged with bank robbery.

But if the bank nicely asks you to return the money and you refused, and his the money in your bathroom, then you would be charged.

Yup. Intent matters. Everyone intuitively knows this, but republicans pretend they can’t understand.

But also this assumes the genesis of this whole thing is a good-faith mistake. Guys, it's TRUMP we are talking about here, so let's just put that idea to bed.

I suspect the DC testimony will show that all along while he was President he took documents and folders that he wanted to keep from the West Wing to the residence and intentionally did not tell anyone he had them or turn them over to security staff to be stored securely. I also suspect these boxes were shipped to Florida from the residence rather than from the Oval Office or West Wing where GSA and NARA would have been more diligent about the contents. He knew what he had and that he wasn’t supposed to have them in his “Beautiful Mind” boxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

If you walked into a bank with a bag, set it down, and then picked up another similar bag not knowing it was full of money and walked out, and then later discovered the money was in there and immediately returned it, you would not be charged with bank robbery.

But if the bank nicely asks you to return the money and you refused, and his the money in your bathroom, then you would be charged.

Yup. Intent matters. Everyone intuitively knows this, but republicans pretend they can’t understand.

But also this assumes the genesis of this whole thing is a good-faith mistake. Guys, it's TRUMP we are talking about here, so let's just put that idea to bed.

And with Biden and Pence, they were just a handful of documents, a few dozen pages tops, and they related to routine things Biden and Pence were working on. Definite honest-mistake stuff.

With Trump on the other hand it was THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of pages, comprising well over 300 files, an entire library of many of America's greatest national security secrets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

False analogy. You can't accidentally rob a bank. The law is written as “willfully retains”. That's where Trump screwed up where Biden and Pence did not.

Exactly. Can't get any clearer than that, no matter how much the Trumpsters keep trying to squirt their squid ink around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

If you walked into a bank with a bag, set it down, and then picked up another similar bag not knowing it was full of money and walked out, and then later discovered the money was in there and immediately returned it, you would not be charged with bank robbery.

But if the bank nicely asks you to return the money and you refused, and his the money in your bathroom, then you would be charged.

Yup. Intent matters. Everyone intuitively knows this, but republicans pretend they can’t understand.

But also this assumes the genesis of this whole thing is a good-faith mistake. Guys, it's TRUMP we are talking about here, so let's just put that idea to bed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

If you walked into a bank with a bag, set it down, and then picked up another similar bag not knowing it was full of money and walked out, and then later discovered the money was in there and immediately returned it, you would not be charged with bank robbery.

I'm sorry, but LOLOL, you believe that Trump walked in and meant to take these other dozens of boxes - but accidentally picked up all the ones marked classified, containing nuclear info and war plans? And then - what, forgot they were in the bathroom? Then told his lawyer to get rid of them because he figured no one really cared even though DOJ and the Archives kept telling him he had to bring them back?

You are seriously willing to believe ANYTHING in the world that could excuse the inexcusable things that you dumb dictator does - right there in the open!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

If you walked into a bank with a bag, set it down, and then picked up another similar bag not knowing it was full of money and walked out, and then later discovered the money was in there and immediately returned it, you would not be charged with bank robbery.

But if the bank nicely asks you to return the money and you refused, and his the money in your bathroom, then you would be charged.

Yup. Intent matters. Everyone intuitively knows this, but republicans pretend they can’t understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

If you walked into a bank with a bag, set it down, and then picked up another similar bag not knowing it was full of money and walked out, and then later discovered the money was in there and immediately returned it, you would not be charged with bank robbery.

But if the bank nicely asks you to return the money and you refused, and his the money in your bathroom, then you would be charged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

If you walked into a bank with a bag, set it down, and then picked up another similar bag not knowing it was full of money and walked out, and then later discovered the money was in there and immediately returned it, you would not be charged with bank robbery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

Except for a chaos monster who is here to test and destroy

I find it especially weird that Christians, of all people, worship Trump

Conservative Christians in America lost their way more than 100 years ago and it's only gotten worse with time.

I have not been back to church since I saw this on Jan 6:



It just hit me that if Christianity, as practiced by ordinary people, can motivate them to attack our country, then it has failed to deliver on the minimum requirement: to produce better people.

I can deal with worshipping despite the uncertainty of God's existence. What dawned on me that day is that in a test of outcomes, Christianity performed no better than placebo.

Literally wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, just like Sinclair Lewis foretold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

False analogy. You can't accidentally rob a bank. The law is written as “willfully retains”. That's where Trump screwed up where Biden and Pence did not.

Where Trump screwed up was in not returning the documents that he had, when both Biden and Pence actually asked for NARA/FBI to review their holdings because they actually didn't know they had them in their possession. The gaslighting is strong with you.

Trump had his chance to return everything for review; he didn't take it and hide documents around his resorts. Nothing says guilty like not returning documents and hiding them in bathrooms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

False analogy. You can't accidentally rob a bank. The law is written as “willfully retains”. That's where Trump screwed up where Biden and Pence did not.

Where Trump screwed up was in not returning the documents that he had, when both Biden and Pence actually asked for NARA/FBI to review their holdings because they actually didn't know they had them in their possession. The gaslighting is strong with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

False analogy. You can't accidentally rob a bank. The law is written as “willfully retains”. That's where Trump screwed up where Biden and Pence did not.

Trump didn't accidentally land in possession of these documents. Where did you get that idea?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

Except for a chaos monster who is here to test and destroy

I find it especially weird that Christians, of all people, worship Trump

Conservative Christians in America lost their way more than 100 years ago and it's only gotten worse with time.

I have not been back to church since I saw this on Jan 6:



It just hit me that if Christianity, as practiced by ordinary people, can motivate them to attack our country, then it has failed to deliver on the minimum requirement: to produce better people.

I can deal with worshipping despite the uncertainty of God's existence. What dawned on me that day is that in a test of outcomes, Christianity performed no better than placebo.

That pix is disturbing and is a slap in the face to the cross and the man who died on that cross for Believers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All he had to do was send the stuff back. It really is that simple.

It truly is. That’s the (undeserved) presidential respect he’s been granted, the multiple multiple chances, the benefit of the doubt, all that. He’s a complete chad as are all the tools defending him. He’s a traitor, you guys.

If a bank robber robs a bank, is he charged if the gives the money back?

False analogy. You can't accidentally rob a bank. The law is written as “willfully retains”. That's where Trump screwed up where Biden and Pence did not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard on Trump's Indictment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVmQarG44QE

If she thinks it's fine for any public servant to walk out with hundreds upon hundreds of our country's most sensitive national security documents which are NOT Presidential records, which are documents that do not belong to him, but which belong to the government, and to conceal them, lie about them, to obstruct any investigation into them, to enlist others to lie about them - she is unfit to serve in government and is unfit to hold a military commission.

Presidential records? That has nothing to do with it.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2, Section 2.

Article 2 Section 2 has nothing to do with it either. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it confer any right for the President to take government assets

By your bizarre reading, Trump could have flown Air Force One to Florida and declared it to be his own personal property. He is not entitled to it, just as he is not entitled to take official agency documents, particularly some of the most sensitive ones in US government. The only things he was entitled to take were his own personal notes, his own personal correspondence and other personal items.

Wrong. As head of the executive branch, he had the authority to do exactly what he did.

Actually he was a fired employee. You aren’t allowed to take company property when you leave. Period.

I’ll just leave this right here as an example of the stupidity of leftists

Actually, you were just hoisted by your own petard.

Is an employee who is no longer employed allowed to keep corporate property?

No.

Former President Trump left office. He was not entitled to keep the property of the US public.

He was entitled to keep his own property.

The items in question were not his property.

This isn't hard.

Substitute Biden for Trump. Biden was never President. Was Biden entitled to keep that property?

No but he freely gave it back when it was discovered. The law says “willfully retains”. Where Trump screwed up was fighting the return of material, which is proof of his intent.