Trump indicted for keeping documents in his closet (Page 8): Well, to start, if you actually read the indictment, you might realize how silly and pathetic your little false...

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Racmanaz wrote:

Ok, what part of the investigation points did I specifically argue against that was in the report? No I don’t listen to the Talking Heads when it comes to explaining the details of the report because I know it’s still gonna be taken out of context and bs.

Well, to start, if you actually read the indictment, you might realize how silly and pathetic your little false equivalencies are and might stop making them. Then you would look less like a blustering fool. A win for you.

Knowledge beats ignorance everywhere but MAGA land.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Bazbo wrote:

Well, to start, if you actually read the indictment, you might realize how silly and pathetic your little false equivalencies are and might stop making them. Then you would look less like a blustering fool. A win for you.

Knowledge beats ignorance everywhere but MAGA land.

Lol so you can’t answer the question can you? Exactly what part of the indictment points am I arguing against?

Triple G

Racmanaz wrote:

Lol so you can’t answer the question can you? Exactly what part of the indictment points am I arguing against?

The answer is you won't know until you read it. If we pointed to one section, in your laziness you'd read only that section (without contextual importance) and argue a moot point per your usual. Educate yourself--don't rely on others to point, lead, direct, or limit your exposure to the truth from the primary source documents.

foodie65

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

If you're not willing to go after trump for breaking the laws, then WHERE do you propose that the Federal Government start with enforcing the laws?

Only when liberals break the law

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Triple G wrote:

The answer is you won't know until you read it. If we pointed to one section, in your laziness you'd read only that section (without contextual importance) and argue a moot point per your usual. Educate yourself--don't rely on others to point, lead, direct, or limit your exposure to the truth from the primary source documents.

Lol so again you failed to answer the question. Lol.

Triple G

Racmanaz wrote:

Lol so again you failed to answer the question. Lol.

Answered--you just don't like the answer because you're too lazy to do your own first hand research. How would you know if pointing out the section is actually a truthful statement unless you verify it by reading it? Not giving you the section cuts out that middle step and if you really want to know, you'll inform yourself.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Triple G wrote:

Answered--you just don't like the answer because you're too lazy to do your own first hand research. How would you know if pointing out the section is actually a truthful statement unless you verify it by reading it? Not giving you the section cuts out that middle step and if you really want to know, you'll inform yourself.

Liar, you did not answer my question has asked. You just deflected because you can’t answer the question.

anotherview Loc: California

Goodbye to the invective in the posts here.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Racmanaz wrote:

Lol so you can’t answer the question can you? Exactly what part of the indictment points am I arguing against?

No one said (at least I didn't) that you were arguing against any par of the indictment, so your question is silly and irrelevant. After all, how could you? You haven't bothered to to read it. But you have made some rather stupid false equivalencies and you could have saved yourself proving yourself a fool again.

But you have managed to turn this thread into a classic Rac crap fest so congrats n that.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

One question the right-wing supporting members here on UHH need to honestly answer is:

Did trump deliberately cause the shuffle of boxes around Mar-A-Lago to hide them from his lawyer so that many of the documents marked with confidential or secret markings couldn't be found by his lawyer?

jcboy3

SteveR wrote:

Makes sense. Everybody knows...you're supposed to keep them in your Corvette.

Trump was not indicted for keeping documents in his closet. He was indicted for not returning them when asked, ordered, and eventually searched. And for keeping them in a bathroom (showing complete lack of respect).

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/15/from-bureaucrat-hack-to-grand-jury-witch-hunt-the-dojs-trump-raid-smells-like-spygate/

Trump is right that this was a witch hunt started by a political hack from NARA, now retired. Obama did something similar to Trump. Below is a quote from the above article.

"The Obama documents — both classified and unclassified — remained in Hoffman Estates well into 2018, as evidenced by a letter of intent executed between Ferriero on behalf of the National Archives Trust Fund and the Obama Foundation. Among other things, the letter of intent memorialized the Obama Foundation’s agreement to “transfer up to three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000) to the National Archives Trust Fund (NATF) to support the move of classified and unclassified Obama Presidential records and artifacts from Hoffman Estates to NARA-controlled facilities that conform to the agency’s archival storage standards for such records and artifacts.”

The only difference between the Hoffman Estates’ storage of the Obama presidential records that began in 2016 and the Mar-a-Lago storage of Trump’s presidential records was that the documents were technically within the possession of NARA. But even though the documents were legally the property of NARA, Obama still had the right to access the records, including the classified documents.

So if upon receiving the 15 boxes of documents back from Trump, NARA had legitimate concerns about the security of Mar-a-Lago — a strange worry to hold given that the Secret Service must safeguard the location to protect Trump and his family — a bureaucracy committed to the country and safeguarding her artifacts would have worked to arrange for the documents to be preserved under the auspices of NARA control in a location chosen by Trump, as it had done with Obama."

Triple G

InfiniteISO wrote:

https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/15/from-bureaucr... (show quote)

This is missing several important differences and consideration. One is that the documents were not secure regardless of how many secret service of Club security officials were present.

He's not being charged with anything relating to the documents in the boxes he returned. If he had returned everything to the NARA, then the case would be comparable to Obama's.

Then the cases totally diverge when trump didn't return them. He lied about them to his attorneys and the DOJ, FBI, NARA, etc. He also had boxes of documents he knew he shouldn't have allegedly to keep them from being found by his attorneys who would return them.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

No matter where the Obama documents were stored - they were under control of NARA not Obama weren't they ?

More bs to justify trumps apparently illegal actions

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-obama-records-idUSL1N3111RO

jcboy3

Rose42 wrote:

Who isn’t a traitor these days…lol

Not me. I dealt with highly classified documents, and followed all rules.