Printable View
He invited the FBI in to come and check and gave them full access to everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Trump repeatedly blocked the FBI until they had to raid his home. Trump then doctored the cctv videos to make it look like nobody had seen the docs.
There is a massive difference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Biden had been sitting on the documents for 7 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
They obviously weren't that important then.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Yeah but Biden ...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyMtY7Ga...pg&name=medium
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
if it wasn’t so terrifying that such documents are lying around, it would be comical given how much the Americans like to bang on about national security, and have been chasing the guy from wiki leaks for years, yet a ‘patriot’ has extremely sensitive information casually around the house
If there was evidence that he had committed a crime, then of course he should. In the wake of the Trump incident, his people looked through his stored documents to see if there was anything that should have been returned. They found some documents, reported them to the authorities and volunteered to cooperate with any further search or enquiry, which is what happened. Same thing with Mike Pence.In both cases, the investigation concluded that there had been no deliberate attempt to conceal or misuse the docs.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Trump ignored polite and discrete requests for the return of specific documents for over a year. He ignored a subpeona for their return, and we now know he moved boxes of documents out of the way of the ensuing FBI raid, and lied about it.
There's no comparison - if Trump had cooperated, we'd never have known he took them, and none of this would have happened.
Also worth noting that the rules on information handling were looser when Biden was VP. Trump criminalised mishandling of government documents as part of his ongoing campaign against Hillary Clinton.
Removed them from the Whitehouse and never replaced them after he was booted out, that's the offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Take him away!
Some of them were classified and that should be what matters. Blind justice and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I think the attempt to obstruct and conceal is the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except it doesn't. The national records authority published its guidelines on wrongly retained records, should you come across them after leaving office. Pence and Biden looked for and found materials and followed the official procedures for their return, and following investigation were not found to have committed an offence. If Trump had returned the records as requested, he wouldn't have been charged either.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
As an aside, it was pointed out at the time that there is a recognised over-classification issue, with vast quantities of items being unnecessarily categorised as classified by default, and it was suggested that probably all previous presidents and VPs will have items amongst their papers that technically shouldn't be there.
However, none of that is relevant to Trump's indictments, which are based on, as others have pointed out, refusing to return, hiding, and lying about his wilful retention of documents that we now know have national security significance. And because he's a childish braggart, he showed one to at least one other person to demonstrate his importance.
What the world needs more than anything right now is for folk to stop making excuses for the likes of Trump, Johnson and Putin and the way they play so fast and loose with stuff like the law and the truth.
Just because the end might be what you perceive to be in your interests, doesn't justify their means.
Isn't anyone curious to know what was in those documents that he was so desperate to hold on to?
This article is from Reuters :Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-...es-2023-06-09/
There is more detail available about the document he's heard sharing with someone at Bedminster, when he was trying to show up General Milley.
The question is why. Some people have suggested he planned to sell them or use them as leverage. Others have suggested - maybe more likely - that he planned to use them to embarrass people or countries or just as 'trophies' to show off to himself and others how important he was.
Let's see what former US Attorney General William Barr:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...546732544?s=20
What would he be indicted on?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000616872738
A great listen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope he is found guilty and punished accordingly. If found not guilty, I think he will walk the next election.
He can stand even if he's jailed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I don't think that's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
In some states he won’t even be able to vote, never mind stand for election. He needs to delay this as long as possible till after the election and hope he wins so he can pardon himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
According to some yapper on the BBC News channel last night it is. He could stand but he wouldn't be allowed to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...rison-00090931Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Fair play, I hadn’t realised it was possible. Doubt he has a chance either way but from prison, I think even Americans are not that daft.[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, even if he can stand, he probably wouldn’t win. If he is not convicted, there will be a groundswell of support for him, and he will undoubtedly win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
"As an aside, it was pointed out at the time that there is a recognised over-classification issue, with vast quantities of items being unnecessarily categorised as classified by default, and it was suggested that probably all previous presidents and VPs will have items amongst their papers that technically shouldn't be there."
When I was in the civil service I heard about an unnamed UK Government department that classified a manufacturer's advertising document as secret. A document that anyone could ask the manufacturer for!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltheHibby
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trum...media-believes
I know it’s Fox News but the Presidents Records Act does seem to give Trump the right to retain any record from his time in the presidency.
This suggestion has been widely debunked, and the National Archives issued a statement rejecting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/polit...alk/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/polit...ent/index.html
Seriously, did you really, honestly believe something you read on Fox News? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
No , not without some deep thought. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Are you saying the Presidential Records Act does not exist ?