the fbi didnt lose any documents. The documents in question were stolen/seized from trump and destroyed or given to the proper folks . These documents were evidence on the stolen election hills emails hunter and the un's final objective!
Folks be needeen to pay attention. Originally Posted by winn dixie
Is tis it?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...-2-years-later Originally Posted by ICU 812
Stealing is a criminal act. Ignoring a subpeona is a criminal act. Misuse of highly classified information, which Trump should not have had in his possession, is a criminal act. No, this is not final but if The DOJ decides to bring this to trial, which I doubt will happen, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming.
What Trump did is far worse than what Clinton did in the opinion of every legal expert I can find who made a judgement on the case. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Stealing is a criminal act.No such decision has been made in a court of law. This is your opinion and you have a right to express it. You don't have a right to state as fact what hasn't been adjudicated. Isn't that exactly what we are being told about allegations against Biden? No guilty verdict so he didn't do any of this?
Ignoring a subpoena is a criminal act.Well sometimes and I'll point to Eric Holder in the Obama administration. And at the risk of complaints by 1BM1 about "whataboutism", here are the facts.
When someone receives a subpoena, they can either comply or challenge the subpoena on certain legal grounds or claim the documents are privileged. What they cannot do is ignore the subpoena and that is what Holder did. For months, Holder has ignored the subpoena. When Darryl Issa asked if the documents had been assembled within the Justice Department, Holder refused to answer. In short, he was thumbing his nose at the committee.
However, they have denied that they deleted the emails after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi on March 4, 2015. But an August 2016 FBI report on its investigation shows that Trump’s claim has some merit.
Misuse of highly classified information, which Trump should not have had in his possession, is a criminal act.Also not found guilty in a court of law. And I would argue that you are using the word "misuse" incorrectly in this matter. Misuse in this case, as well as Hillary's case, would be giving or selling such information, using for nefarious purpose. James Comey told us at least 6 times that Hillary lied under oath, that she broke the law but that she didn't intend to "misuse" that information. So unless Trump can be found guilty of "misuse" he should get the same outcome as Hillary if we indeed have equal justice under the law.
No, this is not final but if The DOJ decides to bring this to trial, which I doubt will happen, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming.And so is the evidence against Biden "overwhelming". So if you have the right to say that against Trump, I have the right to say that against Biden even though neither has been charged in a court of law and found guilty, YET.
What Trump did is far worse than what Clinton did in the opinion of every legal expert I can find who made a judgement on the caseI guess I'll have to assume you didn't hear the opinion of the ones I heard from. If the Director of the FBI says that Hillary lied on multiple occasions ( would you like me to produce the Youtube clip for the 10th time ) then she obstructed justice no matter what else happened. Figured I'd do a little research and came across this from the Washington Post that wait for it, seems to agree with you. Shocker huh? You can read it but what most interested me was this tidbit about "whataboutism" that I found interesting and thought I would share since it seems to be an ongoing theme from the left.
The debate over what is to be done with Donald Trump and his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents has landed in the zone where it was inevitably headed: whataboutism. Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution for using a private email server as secretary of state in 2016, the right argues, so why should Trump be indicted?
In this case, we use “whataboutism” non-judgmentally. Oh, one can do that, use it non-judgmentally? Indeed, it might be fitting and instructive to compare the two situations, especially given that their central figures occupy similar positions in our national politics — as de facto figureheads of their parties who had access to highly sensitive information. A core principle of our justice system, after all, is that the law be applied equally. Yeah, but 1BM! disagrees
If Joe Biden is guilty of any crime he should be prosecuted. IT's that simple. But I put this in the same category as "election fraud in 2020 election". Until proven otherwise, it is total BS. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Don’t worry. This crowd just makes up shit and swears it’s facts. Then when you finally find a link it’s an opinion piece made up from whole cloth or some person was told that another person said the brother’s cousin’s friend read there might be some person who knows - kinda bullshit. But they’ll swear it’s a fact and indisputable. Then they’ll resort to the age old Russia/right wing best argument - whataboutism.
We can see the pattern every time. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.
Let me put on my Democrat hat before I proceed. OK, ready.You are correct. I am making assumptions on Trump's guilt, an assumption supported by almost all legal experts on the subject.
No such decision has been made in a court of law. This is your opinion and you have a right to express it. You don't have a right to state as fact what hasn't been adjudicated. Isn't that exactly what we are being told about allegations against Biden? No guilty verdict so he didn't do any of this?
Well sometimes and I'll point to Eric Holder in the Obama administration. And at the risk of complaints by 1BM1 about "whataboutism", here are the facts.
https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/w...sting-subpoena
But back to Hillary disregarding a subpoena.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/
And No such decision has been made by a court of law on this matter regarding Trump. Merely your opinion that a criminal act rather than a civil violation occurred.
Also not found guilty in a court of law. And I would argue that you are using the word "misuse" incorrectly in this matter. Misuse in this case, as well as Hillary's case, would be giving or selling such information, using for nefarious purpose. James Comey told us at least 6 times that Hillary lied under oath, that she broke the law but that she didn't intend to "misuse" that information. So unless Trump can be found guilty of "misuse" he should get the same outcome as Hillary if we indeed have equal justice under the law.
And so is the evidence against Biden "overwhelming". So if you have the right to say that against Trump, I have the right to say that against Biden even though neither has been charged in a court of law and found guilty, YET.
I guess I'll have to assume you didn't hear the opinion of the ones I heard from. If the Director of the FBI says that Hillary lied on multiple occasions ( would you like me to produce the Youtube clip for the 10th time ) then she obstructed justice no matter what else happened. Figured I'd do a little research and came across this from the Washington Post that wait for it, seems to agree with you. Shocker huh? You can read it but what most interested me was this tidbit about "whataboutism" that I found interesting and thought I would share since it seems to be an ongoing theme from the left.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ts-comparison/
The article goes on to make comparisons which I'm not going to take apart individually but will say, I disagree with much of the analysis. And have heard from former prosecutors that an absolute comparison can be made and just because Hillary had all that information on a server, that she wasn't allowed to have and Trump had "paper", is also ridiculous.
Again, only looking for equal justice in this matter, not defending Trump. Trying to hold the FBI, DOJ and courts accountable which we should all be doing regardless of party or person.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Then apply that to your accusations against Trump. That's all I'm saying. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a court of law on any matter regarding Mar-a-Lago. Isn't that a fair assessment according to your own words?As I said, Trump hasn't even been formally accused of doing anything wrong at this point in time. It is possible that he will never be charged. Is he guilty of criminal actions? In my opinion and the opinion of almost all legal experts, yes.
I don't recall you saying whether you have heard the entire interview with Bobulinski, so I'll ask. Did you hear the original interview and the subsequent one Tues. night on Tucker which has been reprinted and discussed here? Think it is total BS just because the FBI has been sitting on this for 2 years and and have not charged any Biden.... Yet? Merely asking if you found Bobulinski's testimony credible or not whether or not it has reached a court of law or not.
After all, you seem to find the many allegations against Trump "credible" even though they have not been proven in a court of law. Just asking for the same consideration in the standards you yourself have set.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
As I said, Trump hasn't even been formally accused of doing anything wrong at this point in time. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
[D]ump is facing, by some counts, around 20 civil lawsuits and criminal investigations. Some involve the risk of financial penalties; others could lead to indictment and even a trial. That would throw American politics into tumult: Mr [D]ump is expected to run for president again in 2024. What are the most prominent inquiries—and how much trouble might the ex-president be in?https://www.economist.com/the-econom...onald-trump-in