Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Current events
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 06-14-2023, 06:35 AM
whell whell is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
In Trump's case, criminal intent to retain the documents is pretty damn clear, as are his sharing of classified info and obstruction efforts. Please get a clue.

Do you truly believe that what Trump and Pence did are the equivalent in the eyes of the law? If you have skepticism about Trump's case, how can you believe in a viable prosecution of Pence?
1) Do you truly believe that what Trump and Pence did are the equivalent (sic) in the eyes of the law?

A) Not at all. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. That said, I don't see where Pence nor Biden had any legal protection for being in possession of classified gov't documents. Mere possession is a cause for the pursuit of an indictment, as you pointed out earlier (which likely isn't true, but you said it so we'll roll with it for now). Yet, none is pending against Pence, and I suspect the same will be the result for Biden.

Why? As I stated here after the Mar a Lago raid, document control in gov't sucks, as it does in many businesses, The gov't would be issuing indictments until it ran out of cash, because the reality is that classified documents could be anywhere and everywhere.

2) In Trump's case, criminal intent to retain the documents is pretty damn clear, as are his sharing of classified info and obstruction efforts. Please get a clue.

A) He's being charged under the Espionage Act. The two most relevant recent cases are Sandy Berger, and David Petraeus. Each pleaded guilty to misdemeanors under the threat of Espionage Act prosecution. Neither of these cases triggered the level of Justice Dept response that we're seeing now. Both of these cases featured similar "criminal intent" that you're concerned about in your post above.

3) Your equivalencies and whataboutisms are truly a sight to behold. You're either brainwashed or simply insist on bad faith debating.

Sorry, but we're in the legal realm now. The legal term for "whataboutism" is precedent. Berger and Patraeus cases are both examples of precedent.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.