FBI searches former president Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate

[1andrew1]

Regarding Crooked Hillary, no charges were filed because she did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution. See https://time.com/4394178/hillary-cli...investigation/

It's far too early to say whether criminal intent can be proved of Trump so if I were a Trump supporter, I can't see a reason to be getting anxious at this stage.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mick

You as well, you need to wind your neck in too, I do not give a stuff about Trump, if he’s broke the law, fine, the book gets thrown at him, but we have a historical precedent of the law not being applied in such cases, & that matters, the law is the law, you cannot selectively let someone off for the same kind of violations on safe storage and use of classified material, Clinton was.

For someone who doesn’t give a stuff about Trump you seem quite vocal to argue his cause, or the Republican cause, in most threads that he gets a reference. Plus narrowly give the thread a remit where Trump’s past questionable activity is out of scope but years of dirt on the Democrats, or Clinton, are fair game.

If there was a thread to slate the Democrats I’d be near the front of the queue. As in the UK I don’t think parties of the left/centre left/centre should set their barometer at being slightly less shit and/or corrupt than the right wing party.

The law should never be selectively applied, but we all know in the real world the rich/famous/powerful get away with things the rest of us wouldn’t because of who, or what, they know. The USA likes to sell itself as the world’s moral policeman but it’s no less corrupt than many dictatorships in the developing world. Half of which they probably installed.

Originally Posted by jfman

For someone who doesn’t give a stuff about Trump you seem quite vocal to argue his cause, or the Republican cause, in most threads that he gets a reference. Plus narrowly give the thread a remit where Trump’s past questionable activity is out of scope but years of dirt on the Democrats, or Clinton, are fair game.

If I was an American, I’d vote Republican, they’re conservatives, and I’m a conservative. I just refuse to jump on the Trump hating bandwagon so many of you are on, it’s a deranged set of principles, let’s all hate Trump.

He’s an idiot, I routinely mock him with my family and friends when he says stupid stuff. I only defend him, when I feel people are hypocrites or don’t apply the same rule sets to other people.

Democrats are the worse thing to happen to America, just look at their run states, opioid crisis is a disease over there. Other day, I watched a YouTube vid of someone walking an avenue in Philadelphia, a Democrat run city, it was full of homeless people, people pumped up full of shitty drugs, walking like zombies, and it was not just one or two people, they’re everywhere. People asleep on the sidewalk. It just looked a right shithole.

Democrats just don’t give a shit about the homeless people and never have.

Don’t believe me that Democrats are shit at curing homelessness….. https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-homelessness/

Originally Posted by jfman

If there was a thread to slate the Democrats I’d be near the front of the queue. As in the UK I don’t think parties of the left/centre left/centre should set their barometer at being slightly less shit and/or corrupt than the right wing party.

The law should never be selectively applied, but we all know in the real world the rich/famous/powerful get away with things the rest of us wouldn’t because of who, or what, they know. The USA likes to sell itself as the world’s moral policeman but it’s no less corrupt than many dictatorships in the developing world. Half of which they probably installed.

I can’t counter this belief at all.

---------- Post added at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:03 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You know Donny changed that law in 2018, it's a much more serious offence now because of him

Presidents don’t or can’t change existing laws, that’s the job of the legislative branch, he created an executive order or proclamation, that isn’t necessarily binding on everyone.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

Presidents don’t or can’t change existing laws, that’s the job of the legislative branch, he created an executive order or proclamation, that isn’t necessarily binding on everyone.

It was part of a bill donny signed into law in January 2018, I'll try and find it when I get home

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It was part of a bill donny signed into law in January 2018, I'll try and find it when I get home

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...115publ118.pdf

https://wapo.st/3AtzTu1

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It was part of a bill donny signed into law in January 2018, I'll try and find it when I get home

That’s completely different to what you said, you said he changed the law, no he didn’t because he can’t, you’re giving a president more powers that he wields.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...115publ118.pdf

https://wapo.st/3AtzTu1

Thanks Hugh

Originally Posted by Mick

That’s completely different to what you said, you said he changed the law, no he didn’t because he can’t, you’re giving a president more powers that he wields.

I could've phrased it better, fact remains though it's now a much more serious offence as of January 2018 when he signed it through than it was before.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Thanks Hugh



I could've phrased it better, fact remains though it's now a much more serious offence as of January 2018 when he signed it through than it was before.

I just don’t think it applies to a former president, though. The test will be, if it can be proven, he did declassify anything while he was on office. Some argue, a president can declassify anything, without congressional approval, including those items, regulated though congressional statutes, without their approval, the power he had was substantial, all former presidents take records with them, then further negotiate with NARA, when out of office, to determine what is a presidential record or not.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Mick

all former presidents take records with them, then further negotiate with NARA, when out of office, to determine what is a presidential record or not.

I'm not sure that's the case. I believe it's the other way around. Any disposal of documents happens before a President leaves office, and anything that remains is automatically and legally not theirs.

https://www.archives.gov/presidentia.../1978-act.html

Allows the incumbent president to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he or she has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal in writing.

Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

https://www.archives.gov/presidentia...types.html#pra

The Archivist is required to take custody of these records when the President leaves office, and to maintain them in a Federal depository

That’s what happened after the Obama Presidency.

[Blackshep]

That photo proof of Trump flushing documents was beyond amateur nice square pieces of paper neatly stacked with nothing to identify them as official records and look as though they were written with a sharpie not even looking damp for saying they had supposedly been in the toilet for quite a while. Anyone vaguely familiar with white house security knows all official documents are recorded and a chain of contact record kept. If any amount of documents had just disappeared it would have triggered an immediate investigation. One other interesting fact for those who don't know everything flushed down a toilet in the white house ( yes including the public bathrooms )goes to an examination chamber before finally being disposed of again if official documents were found in that chamber an investigation would have been launched no such investigations took place during the Trump presidency.

I loathe and despise Donald Trump but a lot of what is going is extremely suspect and smacks of a distraction from a certain laptop and the level of corruption it if not proves strongly suggests.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Blackshep

as official records and look as though they were written with a sharpie.

Keep that to yourself, donny once changed the course of a hurricane with a sharpie before threatening to nuke it, ah I miss those days, you just don’t get them with sleepy joe providing you keep him of a bicycle of course

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Keep that to yourself, donny once changed the course of a hurricane with a sharpie before threatening to nuke it, ah I miss those days, you just don’t get them with sleepy joe providing you keep him of a bicycle of course

It's not like he's ever been seen holding notes written with a Sharpie either.

Oh wait....

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/20/20974...ment-testimony

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It's not like he's ever been seen holding notes written with a Sharpie either.

Oh wait....

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/20/20974...ment-testimony

It still doesn’t quantify or prove that, a pic showing paper ripped up and thrown in the loo, which could be any random loo on the planet, is an actual loo from the White House.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

It still doesn’t quantify or prove that, a pic showing paper ripped up and thrown in the loo, which could be any random loo on the planet, is an actual loo from the White House.

It's been verified though, hasn't it. However, it doesn't mean a prosecutable offence has been committed.