Meanwhile on the subject of politicization of the DOJ, there is this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/03/menendez-new-jersey-investigation/. And the current investigation of him.
Huh? From the formally titled leader, who quite literally “speaks” for the GOP: McCarthy even goes next level scum by claiming Joe Biden directs DOJ indictments. MAGAniacs all over the country just got even twitchier.
Sadly, for our country, I believe this will turn violent before all is said and done. Still, it is the constitutionally correct and moral thing to do.
There is a big difference between asking for a classified document return, and asking for a return of documents that contain “classified markings. Do you know that Trump and his legal team did not return all classified documents? You don't. If Biden classified those documents himself he is off the hook. If he did not then the waters are muddy. The USA Today rag is wrong.
The indictment lists 30+ documents that were not returned upon subpoena. Hence the illegal retention of national security information changes. Or am I missing something?
Yes, we actually do. Read the indictment. Heck, listen to Trump's own words, where he admits that he didn't declassify something that he is showing to a person without clearance.
Clay Higgins...know your bridges Now tanker fire under bridge in Philly has collapsed a bridge on I95 and shut down the interstate Breaking: Truck fire causes I-95 collapse in Northeast Philadelphia – NBC10 Philadelphia A truck fire burning under an I-95 on-ramp has caused a part of the roadway to collapse and the highway to be closed to traffic by officials early Sunday. NBC's Randy Gyllenhaal reported that officials on scene said they’re investigating after the northbound side on I-95 collapsed before 8 a.m. and the southbound side is "compromised." Gyllenhaal said that officials told him, "the roadway is gone."
Well, I've said my piece. As long as ya'll know that pretty much everything you've said supporting this indictment can be thrown right back in your face when any Democrat is indicted (provided that there's evidence of criminal activity), and you can live with the consequences, so be it. But somehow I have the feeling that the next Democratic favorite to be indicted will spark tons of outrage from you guys, regardless of the evidence against him. You will be shouting "banana republic" just like we are now. And based on Trump's stupidity, I really don't want this to happen. I don't want Trump to be the guy that causes this, but it's hard for me to look at this forum and see people who not only support this indictment but the New York indictment and a potential kidnapping indictment against DeSantis, and think you guys didn't bring this on yourselves. You've been looking to get these guys for as long as you've perceived them as a political threat. Don't get mad when the same sort of relentless pursuit is directed back at one of your boys. And when any of these guys are under a microscope for everything for 7 years, you'll find something. What I hope happens: Trump drops out of the race/doesn't get elected, has all security clearance revoked, has all of his sensitive documents revoked, gets pardoned, and the next President strongly discourages any retaliatory prosecutions from anywhere in the country. We need to move on. But frankly, it's going to be very difficult to put this genie back in the bottle. Feels like we're on the Highway to Hell.
Cute, the only problem is that the situations of Clinton and Trump are in no way analogous. None of the allegations against Trump concern the Presidential Records Act. They concern the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/09/trump-charges-classified-documents/
Here’s the bottom line. A conviction is highly unlikely and if the DOJ loses, that’s going to be a political disaster for the Biden administration. Opinion | How Screwed Is Trump? — POLITICO
It seems like you’re just ignoring 90% of the indictment. Forget, just for the moment, that Trump admitted in a taped interview THAT HE THOUGHT THE DOCUMENTS WERE CLASSIFIED AND NOT DE-CLASSIFIED. How do you excuse: 1. His conduct when the Government requested he return the documents; 2. His subterfuge during the period where he said he was cooperating; 3. His instructions to his staff to move and hide the documents; 4. His instructions to his counsel to lie about whether he had the documents; 5. His actual lies under oath to the government in the certification that he returned the documents; 6. The recklessness in storing the maintenance in insecure places, spread out all over the rooms (because boxes fell or, heaven forbid, were otherwise broken into and photographed by sinister agents); 7. His obstruction of a grand jury subpoena; 8. He still refused to return the confidential documents even after being subpoenaed and after being told more documents remain, requiring a first-in-class FBI enforcement of the grand jury subpoena for documents which he said didn’t exist; and 9. All of this after hotly campaigning to punish those who recklessly handle confidential and sensitive government information? At what point, in your objective mind, is enough, well, enough? What is your view, given all of the above, of how the government, IN CHARGE OF OUR SAFETY AND PROTECTION, was supposed to ensure the protection of the documents? What should be done when someone flat out refuses to comply with the law, after multiple chances? I am really interested in hearing your view of what should be done, forgetting all of the “whataboutism” deflections about Hilary and everyone else. What should be done ABOUT TRUMP, given the foregoing?
Who is embarrassing us on the World Stage? A former President that literally snubbed his nose at the law, or the government that said nobody is above the law?
We don’t need to haggle over whether he did or could de-classify them. We have him in tape admitting THEY WERE NOT DECLASSIFIED, while also admitting HE COULD HAVE DECLASSIFIED THEM BUT DIDN’T. There’s no question whether the documents remained classified AS A MATTER OF FACT.
Wait … are you making your arguments without having read the indictment? If so, take a quick trip to the internet where you will find the indictment fully published for anyone to read cover to cover. Please do so, it will really help you explain some of the responses to the arguments.
And, assume this is correct. What does the ruling say about a person lying during the investigation, obstructing an investigation, and openly and mishandling confidential and sensitive information?
