Trump’s top secret documents?

Yakuda said:
There was a crime

https://www.politico.com/blogs/jame...07/james-comey-clinton-criminal-intent-225235

Comey said she was careless and negligent but didn't "intend" to be. So trump took home classified documents. He was careless and negligent but didn't "intend" to be. Stop being a whiny bitch.
Click to expand...

I agree that we would have to prove intent to take or retain those documents that Trump took. Carelessness and Negligence would be a defence that the Special Counsel will have to consider before charging him. Remember you wanted Hillary LOCKED UP.

Why do you now feel okay about what Trump did, that is objectively worse.
 
Yakuda said:
You know this will amount to nothing just like the last 6 years you have been chasing trump, right?. I just wish you people wouldn't play pretend but you people are morally and intellectually incapable of being honest.
Click to expand...

I do not know that, because I have not seen the evidence.

Remember you wanted HRC locked up for less.
 
Jarod said:
I do not know that, because I have not seen the evidence.

Remember you wanted HRC locked up for less.
Click to expand...

I don't give a shit about the talking pig in a pant suit. I said what I care about but on cue you disregarded it entirely for your idiotic narrative. This his why I think you things are sub human
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
I agree that we would have to prove intent to take or retain those documents that Trump took. Carelessness and Negligence would be a defence that the Special Counsel will have to consider before charging him. Remember you wanted Hillary LOCKED UP.

Why do you now feel okay about what Trump did, that is objectively worse.
Click to expand...

First it's not objectively worse its leftist worse

Next as long as the talking pig in a pant suit is free there is no reason trump shouldn't be
 
Earl said:
Shkreli can place any price he wants on any product he produces.

Personal profit is what we all want, Anchovies.

What he did is acceptable per the law.

Poor Anchovies.
Click to expand...

But is it acceptable? Not per the law, but ethically, morally, and civilly acceptable?

A doctor performing an abortion in a large part of the country isn’t breaking any law, then, according to your logic, it is perfectly acceptable
 
Jarod said:
I agree that we would have to prove intent to take or retain those documents that Trump took. Carelessness and Negligence would be a defence that the Special Counsel will have to consider before charging him. Remember you wanted Hillary LOCKED UP.

Why do you now feel okay about what Trump did, that is objectively worse.
Click to expand...
Precedence
 
Yakuda said:
I don't give a shit about the talking pig in a pant suit. I said what I care about and on cue you disregarded it entirely for your idiotic narrative. This his why I think you things are sub human
Click to expand...

You don't care about it NOW, that your words are being thrown right back into your face.
 
Jarod said:
Remember you wanted her locked up.... Why don't you want Trump locked up for worse?

BTW that is not what the subpoena asked for.
Click to expand...
It certainly wanted the data from those electronic devices that HRC destroyed. Can you say obstruction of justice. Remember you didn’t want Hillary locked up
 
Yakuda said:
You know this will amount to nothing just like the last 6 years you have been chasing trump, right?. I just wish you people wouldn't play pretend but you people are morally and intellectually incapable of being honest.
Click to expand...

“chasing Trump,” classic, for people who are always complaining others play the victim card the MAGA militia sure love it when their Messiah pleads the martyr role, “everybody is picking on him”
 
archives said:
“chasing Trump,” classic, for people who are always complaining others play the victim card the MAGA militia sure love it when their Messiah pleads the martyr role, “everybody is picking on him”
Click to expand...

Not at all. Trump gets what he deserves. The fact is though you leftists donkey brained buffoons have been chasing him for 6 years and have nothing to show for it. That's a demonstrable fact. We know how you idiots hate facts. The imbecile you elected said so.
 
Earl said:
A lie and you know it’s a lie.

https://ballotpedia.org › Hillary_Clinton_email_investig...
"At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not ...

So, your defense is, she didn’t ignore the subpoena...but if she did...

Too funny, ambulance chaser.
Click to expand...

Wow. Hillary Clinton was required to give all her State Department emails to the State Department before she left. She left the State Department in Feb of 2013.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...linton-formally-resigns-as-secretary-of-state
Congress subpoenaed her emails in March of 2015.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-committee-issues-subpoena-for-clinton-emails

Hmm.. So you are arguing she ignored the subpoena 2 years before she got it? I realize that your head is so far up your ass you can't tell time but most people can. No court in the land is going to accept that you can credibly accuse someone of ignoring a subpoena 2 years before it is served.
 
Yakuda said:
There was a crime

https://www.politico.com/blogs/jame...07/james-comey-clinton-criminal-intent-225235

Comey said she was careless and negligent but didn't "intend" to be. So trump took home classified documents. He was careless and negligent but didn't "intend" to be. Stop being a whiny bitch.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that the law states you have to return the documents when notified. Clinton didn't intend to be negligent and didn't keep documents after being notified. Trump may not have originally intended to be negligent but his failure to return the documents when notified makes his actions a crime compared to Clinton's not being a crime.
 
Jarod said:
Look at my signature, I have the law regarding removing government documents, it does not matter if they are classified or not, its still criminal.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Click to expand...

not one federal prosecutor finds you credible......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
rofl......they didn't take them.....but they returned them.....
Click to expand...

His passports were not illegally taken.

That statement means his passports weren't taken? Your dementia just keeps getting worse PMP. The passports were legally taken since the search warrant authorized them to take everything in the location where classified documents were found. Since they were not required to be kept as evidence once they were logged the passports were returned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top