Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

He thinks you're ignorant. That's his opinion, not necessarily mine. Understand that if nothing else.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

He thinks you're ignorant. That's his opinion, not necessarily mine. Understand that if nothing else.

---

Why should Biden and Hillary not have to show a court anything despite committing far more egregious and intentional crimes? Seems to me the people refusing to indict those two are banking on YOUR ignorance, and apparently they are right.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

He thinks you're ignorant. That's his opinion, not necessarily mine. Understand that if nothing else.

---

Why should Biden and Hillary not have to show a court anything despite committing far more egregious and intentional crimes? Seems to me the people refusing to indict those two are banking on YOUR ignorance, and apparently they are right.

---

Prosecuting a president is a very dangerous thing. If only for the good of the country, I have no desire to see Trump in prison. Believe me, I would happily give him the same deference if he hadn't obstructed the investigation in every possible way. That's the difference. They asked Biden for the documents, and he gave them back. I'm just being objective here. :P

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

He thinks you're ignorant. That's his opinion, not necessarily mine. Understand that if nothing else.

---

Why should Biden and Hillary not have to show a court anything despite committing far more egregious and intentional crimes? Seems to me the people refusing to indict those two are banking on YOUR ignorance, and apparently they are right.

---

Prosecuting a president is a very dangerous thing. If only for the good of the country, I have no desire to see Trump in prison. Believe me, I would happily give him the same deference if he hadn't obstructed the investigation in every possible way. That's the difference. They asked Biden for the documents, and he gave them back. I'm just being objective here. :P

---

Hur's report specified how Biden alerted authorities, voluntarily returned records and consented to searches, whereas special counsel Jack Smith's indictment against Trump accused the former president of refusing to return records and enlisting others to destroy evidence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

Don't recall other practitioners of white collar crime getting similar forgiveness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

---

there is no validity for the CO case from the states side.. you are gonna see a 7-2 all the way up to a 9-0 opinion for Trump on this one.

States have no right to remove a federal canidate

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

---

there is no validity for the CO case from the states side.. you are gonna see a 7-2 all the way up to a 9-0 opinion for Trump on this one.

States have no right to remove a federal canidate

---

Agreed

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

He thinks you're ignorant. That's his opinion, not necessarily mine. Understand that if nothing else.

---

Why should Biden and Hillary not have to show a court anything despite committing far more egregious and intentional crimes? Seems to me the people refusing to indict those two are banking on YOUR ignorance, and apparently they are right.

---

Prosecuting a president is a very dangerous thing. If only for the good of the country, I have no desire to see Trump in prison. Believe me, I would happily give him the same deference if he hadn't obstructed the investigation in every possible way. That's the difference. They asked Biden for the documents, and he gave them back. I'm just being objective here. :P

---

Hur's report specified how Biden alerted authorities, voluntarily returned records and consented to searches, whereas special counsel Jack Smith's indictment against Trump accused the former president of refusing to return records and enlisting others to destroy evidence.

---

I've made my view on the Trump documents indictment clear many times - it's legitimate mostly due to the obstruction-related allegations.

But the spin that Biden fully cooperated, etc. is total BS. He knew for years that he had the documents. He told his biographer he had them and later lied about that and other things. Yes, he cooperated once they had him dead to rights. But that's hardly full cooperation and voluntary disclosure. He knowingly possessed these documents in unsecured locations for years and lied about it.

sombear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

He thinks you're ignorant. That's his opinion, not necessarily mine. Understand that if nothing else.

---

Why should Biden and Hillary not have to show a court anything despite committing far more egregious and intentional crimes? Seems to me the people refusing to indict those two are banking on YOUR ignorance, and apparently they are right.

---

Prosecuting a president is a very dangerous thing. If only for the good of the country, I have no desire to see Trump in prison. Believe me, I would happily give him the same deference if he hadn't obstructed the investigation in every possible way. That's the difference. They asked Biden for the documents, and he gave them back. I'm just being objective here. :P

---

Hur's report specified how Biden alerted authorities, voluntarily returned records and consented to searches, whereas special counsel Jack Smith's indictment against Trump accused the former president of refusing to return records and enlisting others to destroy evidence.

---

I've made my view on the Trump documents indictment clear many times - it's legitimate mostly due to the obstruction-related allegations.

But the spin that Biden fully cooperated, etc. is total BS. He knew for years that he had the documents. He told his biographer he had them and later lied about that and other things. Yes, he cooperated once they had him dead to rights. But that's hardly full cooperation and voluntary disclosure. He knowingly possessed these documents in unsecured locations for years and lied about it.

---

Exactly. He cooperated only when he got caught and he knew about the Trump charade.

sombear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

He thinks you're ignorant. That's his opinion, not necessarily mine. Understand that if nothing else.

---

Why should Biden and Hillary not have to show a court anything despite committing far more egregious and intentional crimes? Seems to me the people refusing to indict those two are banking on YOUR ignorance, and apparently they are right.

---

Prosecuting a president is a very dangerous thing. If only for the good of the country, I have no desire to see Trump in prison. Believe me, I would happily give him the same deference if he hadn't obstructed the investigation in every possible way. That's the difference. They asked Biden for the documents, and he gave them back. I'm just being objective here. :P

---

Hur's report specified how Biden alerted authorities, voluntarily returned records and consented to searches, whereas special counsel Jack Smith's indictment against Trump accused the former president of refusing to return records and enlisting others to destroy evidence.

---

I've made my view on the Trump documents indictment clear many times - it's legitimate mostly due to the obstruction-related allegations.

But the spin that Biden fully cooperated, etc. is total BS. He knew for years that he had the documents. He told his biographer he had them and later lied about that and other things. Yes, he cooperated once they had him dead to rights. But that's hardly full cooperation and voluntary disclosure. He knowingly possessed these documents in unsecured locations for years and lied about it.

---

I believe Biden had knowledge of the possession and only came forward after they were discovered. Our gives Biden credit for this.

Trump knew he had possession and when it was discovered, he directed employees to conceal them even in the face of subpoenas.

Osodecentx said:

---

sombear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I understand this. It's not legally relevant. The difference is in how they handled the situation when it was brought to light.

---

No it isn't. The Biden administration was in charge when both Biden and Trump were discovered to have had the documents. One NEVER HAD ANY CLEARANCE TO HAVE THEM, the other did. Quit pretending like a former VP sharing classified information from those documents to his ghost writer and editor are the same as Trump protecting himself from more unfounded prosecution by the Biden administration.

---

Again, he should tell that to the judge. He's got one narrative for the courts and another for the rubes, same as with the election lawsuits. It's his modus operandi. And you keep lapping it up.

---

Ah yes, those impartial judges. That's a cute deflection but you cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Biden both got let off the hook for crimes far more serious than the presidential equivalent of overdue library books.

---

Don't know of a library where I can check out top secret documents, but okay.

---

It's almost as if the words "the presidential equivalent of..." mean something in my statement, huh?

---

No, but you tried.

---

Yes, I already knew showing you the giant gaping holes in your opinion was a fools errand, but you make punching down fun. (And really easy)

---

You don't need to show me. Trump needs to show the court. He won't do it because he knows this argument is frivolous. It's not like the Colorado case where there are valid arguments on both sides.

He thinks you're ignorant. That's his opinion, not necessarily mine. Understand that if nothing else.

---

Why should Biden and Hillary not have to show a court anything despite committing far more egregious and intentional crimes? Seems to me the people refusing to indict those two are banking on YOUR ignorance, and apparently they are right.

---

Prosecuting a president is a very dangerous thing. If only for the good of the country, I have no desire to see Trump in prison. Believe me, I would happily give him the same deference if he hadn't obstructed the investigation in every possible way. That's the difference. They asked Biden for the documents, and he gave them back. I'm just being objective here. :P

---

Hur's report specified how Biden alerted authorities, voluntarily returned records and consented to searches, whereas special counsel Jack Smith's indictment against Trump accused the former president of refusing to return records and enlisting others to destroy evidence.

---

I've made my view on the Trump documents indictment clear many times - it's legitimate mostly due to the obstruction-related allegations.

But the spin that Biden fully cooperated, etc. is total BS. He knew for years that he had the documents. He told his biographer he had them and later lied about that and other things. Yes, he cooperated once they had him dead to rights. But that's hardly full cooperation and voluntary disclosure. He knowingly possessed these documents in unsecured locations for years and lied about it.

---

I believe Biden had knowledge of the possession and only came forward after they were discovered. Our gives Biden credit for this.

Trump knew he had possession and when it was discovered, he directed employees to conceal them even in the face of subpoenas.

---

Should have used hammers and bleach bit. Good point.

Well, we are indicting person A for mishandling classified documents. Person B also mishandled classified documents, even publishing them in a book and allowing his son to use them for personal gain in international business deals, and never had any legal authority to possess them AT ALL, but since he gave them back once he was finally caught and since he is extremely mentally deficient we are giving him a pass.