House Republicans Demand All Communications Between Jack Smith and DOJ About Decision to Indict Trump

[SweetTea]

That's because Biden didn't even know the documents were there.

Therefore there's no "mens rea"

What make you think he didn’t know they were there? Because he said so? Who put them in his garage in the first place? Since when is ignorance or negligence resulting in damage and excuse for a crime?

 

[SweetTea]

No. You should watch the testimony. His unknowingly tom the documents.



Correct. That is why he returned once it was discovered he had them.


He didn't knowingly take them in the first place.

He wasn't "caught". He relinquished them after they were found.

Ignorance of the law, particularly when you have been explicitly informed about such laws, as all those with access to classified documents have, isn’t an excuse. Negligence resulting in damage also isn’t an excuse.

 

[Marener]

The point of both of these is the obvious double standard and that double standard is heavily skewed in the favor or Democrats. Liberals ignore it because they are flippant, ignorant and they don’t care as long as their politicians are given a free pass.

If Democrats are going set new precedent, then everybody should benefit. Biden had documents that he never should have ever had and never had the right to declassify. He stored them in a garage. Clearly, a precedent has been set that having or securing classified documents is not a crime or not punishable in any way. Case closed.

As for Hillary, it is a fact that she desttoyed subpoenaed evidence. Only ignorant partisans believe that she only destroyed personal emails from the server for which she was being investigated.

You really shouldn't be calling people ignorant because you have demonstrated considerable ignorance in this post.

A standard applies to similar situation. In this context, the standard is that charges are warranted when the evidence supports them.

What you don't want to admit (or don't know because the right wing media keeps you ignorant) is that there is evidence to support Trump's charges and not Clinton or Biden.

To charge someone for retention of classified material, you have to prove that it was done intentionally. I don't know much about the investigation into Biden, but it sure as hell seems that is going to be an extremely difficult barrier. That has always been the standard. Classified documents get misplaced. We don't prosecute mistakes. We do prosecute people who we can prove took classified documents knowingly and we definitely prosecute people who take them and then try to hide it from the government.

To charge someone with obstruction of justice, you have to prove they intended to obstruct justice. The FBI could never find evidence that Clinton ordered her tech worker to delete the server after the subpoena was issued. That's just a fact. They interviewed the person who deleted the server, and even gave him immunity in exchange for testimony. He said no one told him to delete the server after the subpoena. There is no email or any other communication that could be used as evidence, so no charges could be brought. Again, these are just facts you are either ignorant of or ignoring intentionally and replacing it with "it's a fact" and calling me ignorant for not participating in your partisan hackery.

 

[Marener]

Ignorance of the law, particularly when you have been explicitly informed about such laws, as all those with access to classified documents have, isn’t an excuse. Negligence resulting in damage also isn’t an excuse.

He's not claiming ignorance of the law. Negligence is actually an excuse. As for "resulting in damage", that's not necessary for anything and has never been demonstrated.

 

[SeaMajor7]

You really shouldn't be calling people ignorant because you have demonstrated considerable ignorance in this post.

A standard applies to similar situation. In this context, the standard is that charges are warranted when the evidence supports them.

What you don't want to admit (or don't know because the right wing media keeps you ignorant) is that there is evidence to support Trump's charges and not Clinton or Biden.

To charge someone for retention of classified material, you have to prove that it was done intentionally. I don't know much about the investigation into Biden, but it sure as hell seems that is going to be an extremely difficult barrier. That has always been the standard. Classified documents get misplaced. We don't prosecute mistakes. We do prosecute people who we can prove took classified documents knowingly and we definitely prosecute people who take them and then try to hide it from the government.

To charge someone with obstruction of justice, you have to prove they intended to obstruct justice. The FBI could never find evidence that Clinton ordered her tech worker to delete the server after the subpoena was issued. That's just a fact. They interviewed the person who deleted the server, and even gave him immunity in exchange for testimony. He said no one told him to delete the server after the subpoena. There is no email or any other communication that could be used as evidence, so no charges could be brought. Again, these are just facts you are either ignorant of or ignoring intentionally and replacing it with "it's a fact" and calling me ignorant for not participating in your partisan hackery.

INTENTION IS IRRELEVANT
That talking point is complete BULLSHIT

 

[SweetTea]

To charge someone for retention of classified material, you have to prove that it was done intentionally. I don't know much about the investigation into Biden, but it sure as hell seems that is going to be an extremely difficult barrier. That has always been the standard. Classified documents get misplaced. We don't prosecute mistakes. We do prosecute people who we can prove took classified documents knowingly and we definitely prosecute people who take them and then try to hide it from the government.

What other presidents have been convicted of willfully removing or concealiing classified documents? Before you say it, yes, several have done so, including Reagan.

To charge someone with obstruction of justice, you have to prove they intended to obstruct justice. The FBI could never find evidence that Clinton ordered her tech worker to delete the server after the subpoena was issued. That's just a fact. They interviewed the person who deleted the server, and even gave him immunity in exchange for testimony. He said no one told him to delete the server after the subpoena. There is no email or any other communication that could be used as evidence, so no charges could be brought. Again, these are just facts you are either ignorant of or ignoring intentionally and replacing it with "it's a fact" and calling me ignorant for not participating in your partisan hackery.

You have to be another kind of naive to not know that it wasn’t just coincendtal and convenient that these emails were destroyed. Again, you excuse a Democrat simply because they can get an IT worker to out Hillary. Just ridiculous.

 

[Marener]

What other presidents have been convicted of willfully removing or concealiing classified documents? Before you say it, yes, several have done so, including Reagan.

You tell me what to believe without telling me why I should believe it. You claim "several have done so" but have produced no reason for me to believe that this actually occurred. I don't know what you're talking about. The answer to your question is that no other former presidents have been charged because whatever they did, they weren't this stupid. Trump made a monumental mistake by taking these documents but would have been forgiven if he had just returned them. He made a much bigger mistake by choosing to defy the subpoena and hide the documents.

You have to be another kind of naive to not know that it wasn’t just coincendtal and convenient that these emails were destroyed. Again, you excuse a Democrat simply because they can get an IT worker to out Hillary. Just ridiculous.

This is about whether charges can or can't be filed. You need actual evidence, not just your beliefs. You can call me naive or whatever other names you want, but at the end of the day, the fact remains that there was not evidence sufficient to charge Clinton. You choose to ignore this fact because it gets in the way of your partisan victimhood.

 

[SeaMajor7]

SENATOR BIDEN STOLE classified documents and had them for DECADES. He could have SHARED them with his Chi-com masters BEFORE returning them after being caught possessing them.
That NULLIFIES any notion that "INTENT" is relatively applicable!!!!!

 

[Catsnmeters]

Ignorance of the law, particularly when you have been explicitly informed about such laws, as all those with access to classified documents have, isn’t an excuse. Negligence resulting in damage also isn’t an excuse.

Yes it is an excuse. A legal excuse. Look it up.

 

[August West]

SENATOR BIDEN STOLE classified documents and had them for DECADES. He could have SHARED them with his Chi-com masters BEFORE returning them after being caught possessing them.
That NULLIFIES any notion that "INTENT" is relatively applicable!!!!!

"Chi-com masters"? You`ve just raised your nutjob flag for those who are still unaware. China paid Trump at least $5.4 million while he was in office.

Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease

Donald Trump maintained a stake in Trump Tower when he became president, and with it, a financial connection to the Chinese government.

www.forbes.com

 

[SeaMajor7]

August West
What the FUCK is funny about that, wharf RAT???

 

[SeaMajor7]

"Chi-com masters"? You`ve just raised your nutjob flag for those who are still unaware. China paid Trump at least $5.4 million while he was in office.

Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease

Donald Trump maintained a stake in Trump Tower when he became president, and with it, a financial connection to the Chinese government.

www.forbes.com

10% for the Big Guy.........

 

[August West]

August West
What the FUCK is funny about that, wharf RAT???

Crazy people say crazy things like Chi-com. You do have a point though that I shouldn`t make fun of people who are crazy or just stupid. My bad.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Biden was not supposed to have classified documents in the first place. Period. End of story.

There is a legal gray area for Trump regarding whether he declassified the documents in his possession before leaving office.

“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump said.

So no there isn't a gray era, the idiot admitted he didn't declassify anything.

 

[rightwinger]

Jack Smith to Republicans

This is pending litigation.
Go fuk yourself

 

[SeaMajor7]

Crazy people say crazy things like Chi-com. You do have a point though that I shouldn`t make fun of people who are crazy or just stupid. My bad.

Chinese Communists.
Are you suggesting that they don't exist?
You're calling me crazy??????

 

[August West]

Chinese Communists.
Are you suggesting that they don't exist?
You're calling me crazy??????

Communism is legal in China AND the United States.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Communism is legal in China AND the United States.

So, you took the brown acid, eh?

 

[Care4all]

Biden as a senator was not allowed to possess classified documents. But he took them and kept them in an unsecured location. That's enough to put him away. But the criminal doj and fbi does nothing.

Hey Pinocchio, Senator Biden was Chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee and had high level classified clearance involving Foreign Affairs.

His cases of personal stuff packed by stewards in to cases to ship to Biden had some, very few, less than 20 classified documents, in those cases from 40 years of government work, that he was unaware of, just like Pence when his personal records were packed by govt stewards, classified documents were intermixed in his cases packed. (Compared to Trump who INTENTIONALLY TOOK over 300 Marked Secret and Top Secret documents to his home and country club, from his 4 years of working for the government.)

Neither Pence nor Biden had opened these papers and cases since they had left their positions.....until the point they recently did.

 

[Rawley]

House republicans amended their request to include a pony along with the other things they want. If they get all that other stuff, a pony won't be a problem.

Not a fan of Congressional oversight, huh?