Laws Regarding Classified Documents

Laws Regarding Classified Documents
…have little to do with why Trump is in legal jeopardy.

Trump is in legal jeopardy because he’s in unlawful possession of national security and military intelligence documents not properly secured, documents that can be lost, destroyed, or acquired by America’s enemies.

But the dishonest right will continue to attempt to deflect with irrelevant nonsense about whether the documents were classified or not.
 
Yes I do. Do you? Got a specific crime in mind or just throwing out memes?
Don't need a crime. Y'all didn't need a crime when you impeached President Trump twice. You know Hunter was on that board of directors for that Ukrainian power company because he was a Biden.
 
Don't need a crime. Y'all didn't need a crime when you impeached President Trump twice. You know Hunter was on that board of directors for that Ukrainian power company because he was a Biden.
I guess not everyone considers extorting personal favors from foreign governments and trying to overthrow the US government to be crimes. They're crimes in my book.
 
I guess not everyone considers extorting personal favors from foreign governments and trying to overthrow the US government to be crimes. They're crimes in my book.
How come you didn't mention Biden extorting Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son?
 

Wrong again, there was no connection to Hunter.

The claim: Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine to assist his son, Hunter Biden​

While former Vice President Joe Biden oversaw foreign policy in Ukraine, his son Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest gas company in the fledgling democracy.

Despite a recently concluded investigation by Senate Republicans that found no wrongdoing by the Bidens, claims to the contrary have continued to circulate on social media.

"VP Biden threatened to withhold 1 billion dollars from Ukraine to save his son's job," reads a meme posted to Facebook by Secure America Now. The meme has been shared more than 9,000 times since Oct. 18.

Secure America Now did not respond to a request from USA TODAY for comment.

Joe Biden leveraged aid to remove top prosecutor as part anti-corruption efforts​

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.

As European and American diplomats pressed Ukraine to clean up its corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office, which he took over in February 2015.

Mike Carpenter, who served as a foreign policy adviser to the then-vice president, told USA TODAY that Shokin "never went after any corrupt individuals at all" and "never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption."

Charlie Kupchan, who was a special assistant to President Barack Obama and a senior director for European Affairs on the National Security Council, said anti-corruption efforts were "a big part of our diplomacy" with Ukraine, since "it was that corruption that allowed Russia to manipulate the country politically and economically."
 
Wrong again, there was no connection to Hunter.

The claim: Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine to assist his son, Hunter Biden​

While former Vice President Joe Biden oversaw foreign policy in Ukraine, his son Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest gas company in the fledgling democracy.

Despite a recently concluded investigation by Senate Republicans that found no wrongdoing by the Bidens, claims to the contrary have continued to circulate on social media.

"VP Biden threatened to withhold 1 billion dollars from Ukraine to save his son's job," reads a meme posted to Facebook by Secure America Now. The meme has been shared more than 9,000 times since Oct. 18.

Secure America Now did not respond to a request from USA TODAY for comment.

Joe Biden leveraged aid to remove top prosecutor as part anti-corruption efforts​

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.

As European and American diplomats pressed Ukraine to clean up its corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office, which he took over in February 2015.

Mike Carpenter, who served as a foreign policy adviser to the then-vice president, told USA TODAY that Shokin "never went after any corrupt individuals at all" and "never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption."

Charlie Kupchan, who was a special assistant to President Barack Obama and a senior director for European Affairs on the National Security Council, said anti-corruption efforts were "a big part of our diplomacy" with Ukraine, since "it was that corruption that allowed Russia to manipulate the country politically and economically."
Lie. The prosecutor was investigating Hunter. Tell me what qualifications Hunter Biden has that would qualify him to be on that board.
 
Lie. The prosecutor was investigating Hunter. Tell me what qualifications Hunter Biden has that would qualify him to be on that board.
No lie. The prosecutor was investigating nobody and allowing corruption. It was official US and European foreign policy to have the prosecutor replaced.

If you think it is a lie please provide a news source that says that.
 
No lie. The prosecutor was investigating nobody and allowing corruption. It was official US and European foreign policy to have the prosecutor replaced.

If you think it is a lie please provide a news source that says that.
You didn't answer the last question of my post. Go ahead...why was Hunter on that board?
 
You didn't answer the last question of my post. Go ahead...why was Hunter on that board?
Obviously to provide access to his dad. Hunter is a low-life opportunist but hardly the first offspring to use their family connections for personal gain. Not unique or illegal and, so far as I know, didn't get the company a good return on their investment.
 
Obviously to provide access to his dad. Hunter is a low-life opportunist but hardly the first offspring to use their family connections for personal gain. Not unique or illegal and, so far as I know, didn't get the company a good return on their investment.
The fact that you see nothing wrong with it speaks volumes.
 
The fact that you see nothing wrong with it speaks volumes.
I wouldn't put much past Hunter and I certainly don't excuse him, but the important question is did the President do anything unethical or illegal?

I'm sure you equally outraged by Trump's son-in-law:

Back in April, The New York Times reported that Jared Kushner’s four years of Saudi ass-kissing and murder-excusing had paid off in the form of a $2 billion investment from the kingdom‘s sovereign wealth fund to his newly formed private equity firm. That struck a lot of people—ethics officials among them—as pretty shady given that far from having impressed would-be clients with his investing prowess, the panel that performs due diligence for the Saudi fund concluded that no one in their right mind would give the former first son-in-law a dime. Among other concerns, the panel noted that management was “inexperience[d],” that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk,” that its fee seemed “excessive,” and that the firm’s operations were “unsatisfactory in all aspects.” Given those reservations, it warned that the country’s Public Investment Fund should stay far, far away from Kushner’s firm—a recommendation that was overturned by the fund’s board, which happens to be led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, i.e., the guy who approved a plan to kidnap, kill, and dismember a journalist via bone saw and benefited from Kushner’s unwavering support within the White House and reported insistence that the prince could “survive the outrage just as he [had] weathered past criticism.” (Again, just so it‘s abundantly clear, the “outrage” and “criticism” were over a Saudi dissident and U.S. resident being chopped up into pieces.)​
So, it wasn’t that difficult for people to put two and two together and infer that Kushner’s firm seemingly got $2 billion to invest—and at least $25 million to pocket regardless of performance!—as a thank-you for being so good to a human rights-abusing autocrat.​
 

Forum List

Back
Top