JOE BIDEN is Executing an Attempted Sabotage of Candidate Trump B4 the 2024 Election.

a reply to: WhatItIs

Ok, so he's "tired". Guess he's showing them now isn't he? Seriously? What is he, 12?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Office policies are not laws. Cite the relevant law from the USC that makes the server illegal.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: WhatItIs

Ok, so he's "tired". Guess he's showing them now isn't he? Seriously? What is he, 12?

No. He is a citizen that has been unduly and repeatedly targeted by government agencies with lies, by breaking the law, and manufactured evidence. He is a citizen that clearly has a history of being target with prejudice. That’s the legal system you champion. Any good lawyer should be able to make the case there is no fair trial for Trump. I don’t exactly like Trump. But the left has probably used one too many lies.

a reply to: Threadbare

www.opm.gov...

Every federal employee receives annual training about this by mandate.

Every federal employee must follow this little old 'office policy' as it is federal law.

Geez. Look it up yourself, lazy bones.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

If it's federal law then you should be able to cite the relevant statute from the USC. Can you do that?

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: nugget1

my guess is a viable third party candidate that would beat them both, hands down. Who that would be is guesswork at this point.

Kennedy / Gabbard?

Kennedy is a gung-ho climate change advocate, and extremely anti-gun. Will still have too many 2A advocates for that to fly - at least for a few more years, anyway.

I'm glad you brought that up. You reminded me of this from yesterday...
RFK Jr.: ‘Climate Change Is Being Used to Control Us Through Fear’

That still leaves the guns though.

Kennedy is an environmental lawyer with a trail easy to look up (and he's done a lot to clean up the environment), no matter what he says on the campaign trail to get elected. A look at his history concerns me.

Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental and anti-vaccine activist, once called for corporations and conservative groups that dispute climate change to be handed the "death penalty."

Kennedy, a controversial environmental lawyer whose résumé includes work for the Natural Resources Defense Council and waterway preservation group Waterkeeper Alliance, argued in a 2014 blog post that big oil companies, including Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, "should be given the death penalty."

The post, titled, "Jailing Climate Deniers," was a response to claims made at the time that Kennedy said "all climate deniers should be jailed." He denied ever saying such a thing, writing, "I support the First Amendment which makes room for any citizen to, even knowingly, spew far more vile lies without legal consequence."

"I do, however, believe that corporations which deliberately, purposefully, maliciously and systematically sponsor climate lies should be given the death penalty," Kennedy wrote for EcoWatch.

[www.foxbusiness.com...]

Who will determine what "deliberately, purposefully, maliciously and systematically sponsor climate lies" is? We're already dealing with enough controversy over the cause of climate change, so which side might he favor from a seat of power?

I'll pass on RFK Jr.

a reply to: Threadbare

Here you go:
www.foia.gov...

Every federal employee goes thru annual training on this little old 'office policy' you act like is nothing.

Except you can lose your job and clearance and that's it.

Look this stuff up yourself. You always have some damn comeback, and you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Where in the FOIA does it mention email servers? Also, when did the FOIA become a criminal statute?

a reply to: Threadbare

Govt records cannot be kept on private email servers. That violates the statutes that says you must make them available to FOIA.

And keeping classified even low level on a private email server is illegal. And she did that as well.

And the fact that Huma forwarded classified docs to her hubbys pervy laptop is illegal too.
Why didnt anything happen to HER?

Classified docs are not even supposed to be off the SIPRNET.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

They were made available. Every single work email on that server was archived as dictated by procedure. The remaining 33,000 emails were personal emails.

originally posted by: WhatItIs

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: WhatItIs

Ok, so he's "tired". Guess he's showing them now isn't he? Seriously? What is he, 12?

No. He is a citizen that has been unduly and repeatedly targeted by government agencies with lies, by breaking the law, and manufactured evidence. He is a citizen that clearly has a history of being target with prejudice. That’s the legal system you champion. Any good lawyer should be able to make the case there is no fair trial for Trump. I don’t exactly like Trump. But the left has probably used one too many lies.

So the way to get back at being so "maligned" is to keep national security docs, ask your attorney to destroy docs with classified markings and lie on the attestation to the government and purposely hiding the government property?

That's a good plan? That may make sense in Trump world. But not in reality. Committing multiple crimes just isn't the "see there, I got you back!" that you believe it is.

Double post!

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: PurpleFox

He voluntarily turned over the documents he had in his possession as soon as they were found. Same goes for Pence. The only one that tried to hide and destroy evidence is Trump.

Based on the evidence, he's also the only one that shared classified information with unauthorized people.

biden "voluntarily" turned over after he had in multiple unsecured locations for many many years and not always in his control and custody and he wasnt president yet, illegal

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

They were made available. Every single work email on that server was archived as dictated by procedure. The remaining 33,000 emails were personal emails.

fbi had those deleted hillary email recovered long time ago

a reply to: Threadbare

You just brush it off, dont even comment on the most important stuff: classified and Huma!

She CLAIMED they were personal emails. Right.

You did NOT answer my question about why she didnt just use govt resourvces for govt business like everyone else.

Why?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JIMC5499

He was in possession of classified material despite not holding a security clearance.

He was the President. He had the ultimate authority to declassify whatever he wanted. He was not limited by any process either - he could simply declare it declassified. He could read an entire Top Secret document live at a press conference, and that act alone declassifies the document and information.

Also, he had a SCIF at Mara-Lago, and all of the documents were properly secured at all times.

He showed those documents to other people not authorized to see those documents.

You know this because you were there? If not, that is hearsay, and inadmissible.

And then when the courts ordered him to turn over the documents to investigators he hid them and then lied about having them.

You know this because you were there? If not, that is hearsay, and inadmissible.

Oh - and Joe Biden was a Senator when he took the classified documents that were found in his possession, so had ZERO ability to declassify, and the documents in his possession were completely and totally unsecured.

But yeah, orange man bad.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Threadbare

we kept hearing from Comey about how the FBI didn't want to influence an election, when it was Hillary.

So, why arent they considered about the election now?

This is the first time we have ever had a defendant running for top national office. I say you aren't going to find legal precedent on this.

On top of that, I do seem to recall a whole lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth with accusations of election interference on the left when it came to even the possibility that there would be investigations - much less prosecutions - with regard to Hunters laptop and other criminal activity, and Bidens actions when he was VP (e.g., video of him threatening to withhold money to Ukraine if they didn't fire someone investigating something they didn't want investigated).

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

So can you provide me with the official list of crimes I can get out of if I tell law enforcement I'm running for office?

Not only that can you provide the list of crimes I can get out of if I start running for office months after I've committed my crime and law enforcement is already in the process of seeking an indictment?

False equivalency much?

What Trump did is in now way connected with the charges against him.

What he did was not a crime.

What his accusers are doing to him is a crime.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JIMC5499

He was in possession of classified material despite not holding a security clearance.

He was the President. He had the ultimate authority to declassify whatever he wanted. He was not limited by any process either - he could simply declare it declassified. He could read an entire Top Secret document live at a press conference, and that act alone declassifies the document and information.

Also, he had a SCIF at Mara-Lago, and all of the documents were properly secured at all times.

He showed those documents to other people not authorized to see those documents.

You know this because you were there? If not, that is hearsay, and inadmissible.

And then when the courts ordered him to turn over the documents to investigators he hid them and then lied about having them.

You know this because you were there? If not, that is hearsay, and inadmissible.

Oh - and Joe Biden was a Senator when he took the classified documents that were found in his possession, so had ZERO ability to declassify, and the documents in his possession were completely and totally unsecured.

But yeah, orange man bad.

Hmm, this seems like an issue you should take up with his attorneys and employees,because according to the indictment, he did not keep these items secure, he did ask his attorney to destroy them rather than return them, they do have texts and photos from his employees, they do have security footage. They have their testimony as well.

Did you need a link to the indictment for reference? It completely debunks your "hearsay" claim.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: tanstaafl
Hmm, this seems like an issue you should take up with his attorneys and employees,because according to the indictment, he did not keep these items secure, he did ask his attorney to destroy them rather than return them, they do have texts and photos from his employees, they do have security footage. They have their testimony as well.

Did you need a link to the indictment for reference? It completely debunks your "hearsay" claim.

No thanks, the indictment is totally biased...

I guess we'll see...

I'm suite sure of one thing though... you still believe Adam Schiff saw ironclad proof of TrumpRussia collusion...

Am-I-Rite?