Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He kept it for years. That’s willfully retaining it. In addition, he out and out stole it as he had no legal right as a Senator to have those documents.

Members of Congress have clearance to see classified/hear classified briefings by virtue of their office. Need to know principles apply and they can't just waltz into the FBI or CIA and demand to read everything, but saying he had "no legal right as a Senator" is simply incorrect. Additionally, there are levels of classification and even administrative matters may be classified. Not everything marked SECRET is a national defense secret. It is incredibly unlikely that Biden had any documents anywhere near the level of classification that Trump had in his possession for one simple reason: the intelligence agencies rarely give out paper copies to members of Congress. The White House operates separately with its own level of control (or seemingly lack thereof).

They can’t take them home with them. So now we are admitting, yeah, Biden had them, but Trump is worse?

Inadvertent retention isn't a crime. Which is the ENTIRE point.

By a Senator? Yeah it is.

I’m sure you can cite the statute the .

Still waiting for that cite.

Let’s start with a quote:

Blumenthal told us: “When we view documents, we have to leave them in the room where we see them without taking notes without making copies, without any kind of transcription. And I think that kind of practice prevailed when then Senator Biden looked at them as well."

A senator cannot take classified documents home? That’s fact. It’s law. He should never have had those documents. That’s he’s not being prosecuted is a gift. There is nothing in any statute or law that states anything about ‘inadvertent retention’ or ‘they gave them back right away’. That’s just a courtesy extended, one that was not extended to Trump. They were cooperating but the FBI raided anyway. It was for show.

FWIW, Pence should never have had documents either.

Or a blond, younger Paul McCartney.

Anonymous wrote:Even the artist who was at the hearing was criticized for making Trump look younger...

He was criticized because it’s a genuinely terrible likeness. This looks more like Lindsay Graham than Trump plus he looks 40.

Anonymous wrote:Even the artist who was at the hearing was criticized for making Trump look younger...

Well if these sketches are supposed to represent reality since photos are not allowed, that artist needs to do a better job. If you are going to take many years and many pounds off of the subjects you are drawing, you should not be a court sketch artist.

Even the artist who was at the hearing was criticized for making Trump look younger...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think many of you are missing 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.

Joking aside, they aren't missing 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.

Yes, Reality Winner blew up her whole life to tell Americans the Russians interfered with our elections… and no one cared.

Anonymous wrote:Wow!

Finally, someone who has read the Constitution and knows the actual punishment that the Founders intended for traitors!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

And that is exactly what the New Times reported. Trump made a big point of saying “food for everyone” and then left without paying for any food. The refutation that he left so soon after the promise that no one had ordered food yet is not a refutation.

Why are you arguing with these people? Trump could have taken a dump on a plate and they would have eaten it up. They want to be conned.

Ain’t this the sad truth!

And the MAGAs would tell you how great it tastes

“Aren’t you libs always whining about recycling? You’re just mad that the Republicans are better at recycling than you are!”

Anonymous wrote:Wow!

Hahahahahaha oops 😬 Trump will understand. He said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it. He also said he can sexually harass and assault women, noooo problem. They let him do it. LOCK HIM UP, right?

Wow!

Anonymous wrote:August 3, 2019

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/03/trumps-white-house-issues-an-ominous-request-for-a-list-of-top-u-s-spies_partner/

And magically, some of our top spies started disappearing mysteriously soon thereafter.

Unsurprising. This is what happens when you elect a grifter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He kept it for years. That’s willfully retaining it. In addition, he out and out stole it as he had no legal right as a Senator to have those documents.

Members of Congress have clearance to see classified/hear classified briefings by virtue of their office. Need to know principles apply and they can't just waltz into the FBI or CIA and demand to read everything, but saying he had "no legal right as a Senator" is simply incorrect. Additionally, there are levels of classification and even administrative matters may be classified. Not everything marked SECRET is a national defense secret. It is incredibly unlikely that Biden had any documents anywhere near the level of classification that Trump had in his possession for one simple reason: the intelligence agencies rarely give out paper copies to members of Congress. The White House operates separately with its own level of control (or seemingly lack thereof).

They can’t take them home with them. So now we are admitting, yeah, Biden had them, but Trump is worse?

Inadvertent retention isn't a crime. Which is the ENTIRE point.

By a Senator? Yeah it is.

I’m sure you can cite the statute the .

Still waiting for that cite.

August 3, 2019

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/03/trumps-white-house-issues-an-ominous-request-for-a-list-of-top-u-s-spies_partner/

And magically, some of our top spies started disappearing mysteriously soon thereafter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives must all be brain-damaged. Nothing they say is based on facts or logic yet they sincerely believe that saying stupid shit over and over and over makes it true.

Speqking of brain damage... DCUM was all abuzzed when reports came out that Trump didn't pay for the meals at the Cuban restaurant

So he offered to pay and didn’t stay long enough for anyone to order anything. Potato, potahto.

And that is exactly what the New Times reported. Trump made a big point of saying “food for everyone” and then left without paying for any food. The refutation that he left so soon after the promise that no one had ordered food yet is not a refutation.

Why are you arguing with these people? Trump could have taken a dump on a plate and they would have eaten it up. They want to be conned.

Ain’t this the sad truth!

And the MAGAs would tell you how great it tastes