[Action80]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

They do.  They have an audio recording of Donald Trump talking about the classified documents he's showing including the reaction of the two people there who clearly see the document he's holding up and acknoledge that it is, indeed, classified and they shouldn't see it.

Oh yes...an audio recording clearly demonstrates these people actually looked at the document. [/sarcasm]

[Lord Dave]

The prosecutors involved have been quite clear as to what crimes Trump has been accused of. You may not personally feel that those acts should be crimes, but they are.

Feelings have nothing to do with it. The fact is, they are not crimes.

And prosecuting Trump is the right thing for a just society to do regardless of how popular (or unpopular) it makes him. Partisan political calculations should not affect the application of justice.

You are correct. You shouldn't prosecute anyone exercising lawful conduct.

Just because the only law you understand is the law of the jungle, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignornat.

"ignornat." - Does this misspelling mean you are ignorant?

How could we trust your word you would have any clue whatsoever regarding the level of my legal expertise in other areas outside of the jungle? I mean, come on...

It means I typed on a phone without spellcheck.  But you seem to have gotten the message.


As for how we can trust it: same way we trust that you have any legal expertise.
We look at your posts and determine how often you misunderstand laws.

Turns out, its alot.

Actually, you have nothing to back up your bluster and it's (please note the apostrophe) and instead offer weak personal attacks.

Is showing classified documents to unauthorized people a crime: yes or no?

Do you have evidence that unauthorized people have looked at classified documents? Cause the prosecutor hasn't.

They do.  They have an audio recording of Donald Trump talking about the classified documents he's showing including the reaction of the two people there who clearly see the document he's holding up and acknoledge that it is, indeed, classified and they shouldn't see it.

Oh yes...an audio recording clearly demonstrates these people actually looked at the document. [/sarcasm]

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

[markjo]

Some legal scholars are beginning to say that Trump's role in the Jan 6 insurrection disqualifies him from ever holding office again under section 3 of the 14th amendment.
https://time.com/6305003/trump-indictment-14th-amendment/

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[Action80]

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

[Lord Dave]

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

And the person showing you those just committed a crime.
First off, the people in the recording were not 5 feet away from Trump.
Secondly, the document was not behind a closed folder.
Third, it wouldn't matter.  Just having the document and folder out where non-authorized people could view it, is illegal.  Do you not know this? 

And why did he even have it in such a setting anyway?

Regardless, its very clear from the audio that Trump showed the pages to the people he was talking to, they could see them, and they all knew such actions were illegal.

[Action80]

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

And the person showing you those just committed a crime.
First off, the people in the recording were not 5 feet away from Trump.
Secondly, the document was not behind a closed folder.
Third, it wouldn't matter.  Just having the document and folder out where non-authorized people could view it, is illegal.  Do you not know this? 

And why did he even have it in such a setting anyway?

Regardless, its very clear from the audio that Trump showed the pages to the people he was talking to, they could see them, and they all knew such actions were illegal.

How do you know they were not five feet away?

How do you know the document wasn't in a folder?

How do you know it is illegal to have the document out?

Like juner wrote, they got him this time...OMB syndrome runs rampant among you ilk.

[Tom Bishop]

It doesn't appear that any of this is doing much to dissuade Trump voters.

https://ground.news/article/trump-voters-trust-ex-president-more-than-their-family-and-friends-poll_4ec127

[Lord Dave]

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

And the person showing you those just committed a crime.
First off, the people in the recording were not 5 feet away from Trump.
Secondly, the document was not behind a closed folder.
Third, it wouldn't matter.  Just having the document and folder out where non-authorized people could view it, is illegal.  Do you not know this? 

And why did he even have it in such a setting anyway?

Regardless, its very clear from the audio that Trump showed the pages to the people he was talking to, they could see them, and they all knew such actions were illegal.

How do you know they were not five feet away?

How do you know the document wasn't in a folder?

How do you know it is illegal to have the document out?

Like juner wrote, they got him this time...OMB syndrome runs rampant among you ilk.

Volume level of the audio and the context of why they were there.

You can hear him shuffle papers and he says how this proves his case with commenters agreeing.  Now its possible they were staring at a blank folder and just agreeing to him like the Emporer's new clothes but that seems unlikely.

As for how I know its illegal...

“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

“Now we have a problem,” his staffer responds.

“Isn’t that interesting,” Trump says.

[honk]

It doesn't appear that any of this is doing much to dissuade Trump voters.

https://ground.news/article/trump-voters-trust-ex-president-more-than-their-family-and-friends-poll_4ec127

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Trump's supporters trusting him more than their own friends and families is sad and pathetic, but again, not surprising.

[Lord Dave]

Which is the whole problem the GOP has.  Trump's core is like 30% of all voters.  His core is blindly loyal and will support him no matter what.
But outside of that, he has little support.  Which means he can't win a general election.

[Tom Bishop]

In 2020 Trump got 74 million votes vs Biden's alleged 81 million votes. If Trump voters are only doubling down in their convictions then Biden's re-election campaign is toast. Biden has notably lost popularity and many democrats want him out.

If there is a worthy dem contender to take Biden's place next year then he or she has yet to be identified or gain notable momentum.

[Lord Dave]

In 2020 Trump got 74 million votes vs Biden's alleged 81 million votes. If Trump voters are only doubling down in their convictions then Biden's re-election campaign is toast. Biden has notably lost popularity and many democrats want him out.

If there is a worthy dem contender to take Biden's place next year then he or she has yet to be identified or gain notable momentum.

Ummm Tom?
74 is less than 81.
So if all the people who voted for Trump double down...
They'll just lose again.  You can't vote twice, ya know.

And while many dems want him out (myself included) I'll take him over Trump.  Which is what all democrats will do.

So doubling down does nothing to help Trump.  He needs to appeal to the voters he didn't snag in 2020.  And so far, he isn't doing that.  He doesn't even want to do debates for the GOP nomination.

[Action80]

Your knowledge of law is so odd.

So if I say "Look at this thing"
And you say "wow, I see that thing"
That, to you, doesn't prove you saw the thing?


Also, fun fact: Even if everyone has their eyes closed, it would still be illegal.  All you need to show is that you displayed the documents to people not authorized to see it, not that they actualy saw it or remembered it.

Fun fact: I can look at a piece of paper from five feet away and have no clue what is written on it.

Fun fact: I can look at manila folder labeled "CLASSIFIED," containing documents and have no clue what is written on it.

And the person showing you those just committed a crime.
First off, the people in the recording were not 5 feet away from Trump.
Secondly, the document was not behind a closed folder.
Third, it wouldn't matter.  Just having the document and folder out where non-authorized people could view it, is illegal.  Do you not know this? 

And why did he even have it in such a setting anyway?

Regardless, its very clear from the audio that Trump showed the pages to the people he was talking to, they could see them, and they all knew such actions were illegal.

How do you know they were not five feet away?

How do you know the document wasn't in a folder?

How do you know it is illegal to have the document out?

Like juner wrote, they got him this time...OMB syndrome runs rampant among you ilk.

Volume level of the audio and the context of why they were there.

COMEDY GOLD! Got a handle on the type of microphone, I am sure...

You can hear him shuffle papers and he says how this proves his case with commenters agreeing.  Now its possible they were staring at a blank folder and just agreeing to him like the Emporer's new clothes but that seems unlikely.

To the OMB crowd, nothing is definite, but OMB.

As for how I know its illegal...

“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

“Now we have a problem,” his staffer responds.

“Isn’t that interesting,” Trump says.

Again, COMEDY GOLD!!!

[Action80]

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

[Lord Dave]

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Trump's supporters trusting him more than their own friends and families is sad and pathetic, but again, not surprising.

[/quote]

Mara lago raid: August 2022
Trump announces re-election: November 2022.

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

[Action80]

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Trump's supporters trusting him more than their own friends and families is sad and pathetic, but again, not surprising.

Mara lago raid: August 2022
Trump announces re-election: November 2022.

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

So. now you are claiming there is established  legal precedent that a candidate running for the office of POTUS is exempt from prosecution?

Serious question, and I truly mean this: Have you lost your mind?

[juner]

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters

tbh that is more of a biden thing

[Tom Bishop]

And while many dems want him out (myself included) I'll take him over Trump.  Which is what all democrats will do.

That's not how the general population works though. If there is an unpopular candidate on their side they just won't vote. Only the political left votes "blue no matter who".

[Action80]

And while many dems want him out (myself included) I'll take him over Trump.  Which is what all democrats will do.

That's not how the general population works though. It there is an unpopular candidate on their side they just won't vote. Only the political left "votes blue no matter who".

^This is about as true a statement as could be. until Ronnie got shot by Czar Bush the I... I didn't vote for any presidential candidate after 1980. When Hillary ran for office. I voted for Trump, even though I knew him to be a lifelong democrat, shitbag, because I knew that Hillary was an even BIGGER, democrat shitbag.

[GHenley]

Man. It's hilarious how they got two old men pretending to be "presidential candidates" for half an hour a day and the entire world is arguing about them instead of focusing on real issues.