Who has read the indictments?

[SimplyMe]

As long as it's shown they were under someone's direction, yes.




Right...that's how I understand it.



I don't know if the plan was for VP to refuse to verify the votes or verify them.





It's certainly possible that she has evidence to support that.




Well yeah...I'm going under the assumption that they understood that the process doesn't allow just anyone to show up and claim to be an elector.





Well the case of these three people seems pretty bad...but it's not enough to get everyone involved. If it were, I suspect there would be far less defendants.




OK, I thought that's what you meant....just wanted to be sure.




Which statements have no evidence?



He worked under Trump....but I think there's been a considerable amount of exaggeration regarding his partisanship.

I mean, Garland sicced the FBI on parents attending school meetings. He sent the IRS after the last few honest reporters in the country. It's not like he's been facing a fraction of the criticism from the left for his appointment at the DOJ that Barr did.



I'm sure it was thorough. What exactly is a measure against widespread election fraud in the US?



It does if it's something like perjury, false statements, etc.



I'd have to go back and try to put together a timeline of events...and I'm sure you'll understand why I don't want to bother when I can just see what the prosecutor has if I wait.




Lol you're talking to someone old enough to remember the phrase "hanging chads".




Right.




Odd he would pay people to find fraud he didn't believe existed, eh? Seems like a waste of money if he didn't believe fraud occurred.




Ok.



I only read one article on the topic to familiarize myself...but I don't think he's saying that.





This is a bit like saying Alex Jones believed Parkland was a hoax, so that's a defense against defamation. It's not.




Yeah? Wasn't this electors thing tried in other states?




I can't recall a single case against Trump in the past 7 years that lasted longer than a week and didn't involve "sources close to the case" leaking information.

I'm not saying it's impossible this was just a coincidence though.

I'm going to take a step back. The point here is that the charges are part of a RICO act. RICO is not "tougher" sentencing or anything like that, it is merely a way to ensure the people involved in a criminal conspiracy can be punished, particularly people at the top who are orchestrating it while trying to keep their "hands clean."

Yes, it was started as a way to prosecute mobsters, where a mob boss wants someone killed but it ends up being almost impossible to prove he directly gave an order for the murder. Under RICO act, it allows prosecutors to tie a sequence of events together to prove the mob boss was part of the conspiracy to commit the murder. And since its inception, including in Georgia, it has been used for a wide range of criminal activity -- not just organized crime but business fraud, corruption inside government agencies, and even against a conspiracy inside a political campaign.

The other point is that not all the activity that is looked at in a RICO case needs to be a crime, it just needs to be a step in attempting to commit the crimes covered under the RICO laws. To use another analogy I've seen here -- calling your friend and say "let's go to the bank" is legal but, if you do it a 2 am and it occurs right before you break in and rob the bank, then it is part of the "conspiracy" that can prove a RICO act violation. And there only need to be two illegal acts, in Georgia, that are included in the RICO statute to convict on RICO laws (assuming that the necessary elements of the conspiracy is proven).

So, just to go back to the fake electors -- there was a plan floated to President Trump to have an "alternate slate of electors." Forms were sent out by people involved in the conspiracy to various states, including Georgia -- which becomes a RICO act even though, by itself, it is not against the law. The electors sign that they are the valid electors and send the forms to D.C -- and these acts include at least three separate crimes (as noted above) that are included in the law as RICO violations. So this, barring a good defense, would appear to be enough to convict anyone involved in the fake elector conspiracy, to include former Pres. Trump.

Another one that looks bad, from what I've looked at, is breaking into the election machine. This is a couple of, if not all, the Perjury charges -- and in this case the reason prosecutors know they perjured themselves is that their are cameras in the room the voting machines are kept in, so they have video evidence that the people lied in their depositions. The video shows they lied when they claimed they didn't enter the storage room where the voting machines were kept and that they lied when they didn't let anyone else in. Again, this is another element that looks as if it could be hard to defend, from the information in the indictment.

This doesn't prove that the co-conspirators will be convicted -- the prosecution has to prove these allegations in a trial and the defendants will have their lawyers make arguments to defend against the charges. RICO charges, because of the complexity of tying all the threads together, are difficult to prosecute -- though it is worth noting the DA has successfully prosecuted individuals under the RICO law previously. Another difference that will make this case interesting is that it will likely be televised, as Georgia allows cameras in courtrooms. It should provide some very interesting testimony -- though like all trials, much of what is testified to will also likely seem mundane and boring.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm going to take a step back. The point here is that the charges are part of a RICO act. RICO is not "tougher" sentencing or anything like that, it is merely a way to ensure the people involved in a criminal conspiracy can be punished, particularly people at the top who are orchestrating it while trying to keep their "hands clean."

Right. That's why they typically follow money. A bunch of criminals running numbers, laundering money, selling narcotics, performing protection rackets, etc....end up kicking part of their profits to the head of the organization. Typically RICO case. I wasn't saying it's tougher sentencing...it's just tougher to prosecute.

Yes, it was started as a way to prosecute mobsters, where a mob boss wants someone killed but it ends up being almost impossible to prove he directly gave an order for the murder. Under RICO act, it allows prosecutors to tie a sequence of events together to prove the mob boss was part of the conspiracy to commit the murder.

Right, typically through money. Sometimes through testimony. Sometimes by wiretap.

It's never a matter of simply sitting down with the jury and saying "here's what we think went down".

And since its inception, including in Georgia, it has been used for a wide range of criminal activity -- not just organized crime but business fraud, corruption inside government agencies, and even against a conspiracy inside a political campaign.

True. Probably not federal election fraud though.

The other point is that not all the activity that is looked at in a RICO case needs to be a crime, it just needs to be a step in attempting to commit the crimes covered under the RICO laws. To use another analogy I've seen here -- calling your friend and say "let's go to the bank" is legal but, if you do it a 2 am and it occurs right before you break in and rob the bank, then it is part of the "conspiracy" that can prove a RICO act violation. And there only need to be two illegal acts, in Georgia, that are included in the RICO statute to convict on RICO laws (assuming that the necessary elements of the conspiracy is proven).

I don't think that's going to fall under a RICO case. It's just a case of bank robbery and accessory to bank robbery.

So, just to go back to the fake electors -- there was a plan floated to President Trump to have an "alternate slate of electors."

Who floated it to him? This wasn't Trump's plan?

Forms were sent out by people involved in the conspiracy to various states, including Georgia -- which becomes a RICO act even though, by itself, it is not against the law. The electors sign that they are the valid electors and send the forms to D.C -- and these acts include at least three separate crimes (as noted above) that are included in the law as RICO violations. So this, barring a good defense, would appear to be enough to convict anyone involved in the fake elector conspiracy, to include former Pres. Trump.

That's going to depend upon at least a couple of things....

1. Trump was the one who sent out the forms or it can be shown he directed them to be sent out.

2. Whatever Trump did with the forms upon their arrival in DC. Like if he emailed his lawyer "got the fake forms at my desk, they're the best fake forms ever."

Another one that looks bad, from what I've looked at, is breaking into the election machine. This is a couple of, if not all, the Perjury charges -- and in this case the reason prosecutors know they perjured themselves is that their are cameras in the room the voting machines are kept in, so they have video evidence that the people lied in their depositions. The video shows they lied when they claimed they didn't enter the storage room where the voting machines were kept and that they lied when they didn't let anyone else in. Again, this is another element that looks as if it could be hard to defend, from the information in the indictment.

Is this the notorious video they forgot to disclose during discovery?

This doesn't prove that the co-conspirators will be convicted -- the prosecution has to prove these allegations in a trial and the defendants will have their lawyers make arguments to defend against the charges. RICO charges, because of the complexity of tying all the threads together, are difficult to prosecute -- though it is worth noting the DA has successfully prosecuted individuals under the RICO law previously. Another difference that will make this case interesting is that it will likely be televised, as Georgia allows cameras in courtrooms. It should provide some very interesting testimony -- though like all trials, much of what is testified to will also likely seem mundane and boring.

The trial is less interesting to me than the effects of this near constant investigation of Trump. Everyone insists its not politically motivated, but it's definitely unprecedented and Trump hasn't been successfully convicted of criminal charges yet. This may be where he runs into trouble.

 

[SimplyMe]

Right. That's why they typically follow money. A bunch of criminals running numbers, laundering money, selling narcotics, performing protection rackets, etc....end up kicking part of their profits to the head of the organization. Typically RICO case. I wasn't saying it's tougher sentencing...it's just tougher to prosecute.




Right, typically through money. Sometimes through testimony. Sometimes by wiretap.

It's never a matter of simply sitting down with the jury and saying "here's what we think went down".

Which is why the indictment lays out the conspiracy, explains the criminal actions that occurred.

True. Probably not federal election fraud though.

Which appears to by why this case is being prosecuted in state court with state laws.

I don't think that's going to fall under a RICO case. It's just a case of bank robbery and accessory to bank robbery.




Who floated it to him? This wasn't Trump's plan?





That's going to depend upon at least a couple of things....

1. Trump was the one who sent out the forms or it can be shown he directed them to be sent out.

2. Whatever Trump did with the forms upon their arrival in DC. Like if he emailed his lawyer "got the fake forms at my desk, they're the best fake forms ever."

Except this is what makes it work as a RICO case. You have a group that is headed by Pres. Trump working to ensure Trump is declared the winner of the election, despite the election, with the dates mandated by the Constitution, being certified that Biden won. As such, they don't have to have direct evidence that Trump sent the forms or even touched the forms -- just as there doesn't need to be direct evidence a mob boss directly ordered his crew to murder someone.

In this case, if the prosecutor introduces evidence that he told VP Pence to "toss out" the certified Georgia Electors and use the alternate slate, instead, that is enough proof that Trump was part of the alternate elector conspiracy. Though, it is possible they have evidence that when co-defendent John Eastman presented the plan to Pres. Trump agreed and stated it should be put in motion -- again, it will be interesting to see what information comes out at the trial.

Is this the notorious video they forgot to disclose during discovery?

No, particularly since discovery has not yet occurred for this trial.

The trial is less interesting to me than the effects of this near constant investigation of Trump. Everyone insists its not politically motivated, but it's definitely unprecedented and Trump hasn't been successfully convicted of criminal charges yet. This may be where he runs into trouble.

I'd say it is unprecedented for a former president to have broken the law, as Trump has. I don't think we've had a President try to claim that papers are his from his presidency and attempt to prevent the government from taking them since Nixon -- and Nixon (and his actions) were the entire reason for the Presidential Records Act that clarified that all Presidential documents belong to the government.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which is why the indictment lays out the conspiracy, explains the criminal actions that occurred.



Which appears to by why this case is being prosecuted in state court with state laws.



Except this is what makes it work as a RICO case. You have a group that is headed by Pres. Trump

What's the part that shows this? That the group is organized and run by Trump?

working to ensure Trump is declared the winner of the election, despite the election, with the dates mandated by the Constitution, being certified that Biden won. As such, they don't have to have direct evidence that Trump sent the forms or even touched the forms -- just as there doesn't need to be direct evidence a mob boss directly ordered his crew to murder someone.

Right...but it's still going to be evidence of direct involvement. I don't care if he sent in the forms or he told someone to....that's what the direct evidence is.

In this case, if the prosecutor introduces evidence that he told VP Pence to "toss out" the certified Georgia Electors and use the alternate slate, instead, that is enough proof that Trump was part of the alternate elector conspiracy.

Well...we also know he spent a lot of money on investigating fraud. I'm not sure saying that he wants to go with the alternate electors is proof he put those electors in place.

Though, it is possible they have evidence that when co-defendent John Eastman presented the plan to Pres. Trump agreed and stated it should be put in motion -- again, it will be interesting to see what information comes out at the trial.

Right.

No, particularly since discovery has not yet occurred for this trial.

It's delayed process due to the need for security clearances.

I'd say it is unprecedented for a former president to have broken the law, as Trump has.

Ummm....Biden walked out of the VP office with highly classified docs. Nobody even asked him about it for 6 years.

I don't think we've had a President try to claim that papers are his from his presidency and attempt to prevent the government from taking them since Nixon -- and Nixon (and his actions)

Again...see above, but frankly I'd be more concerned if there were some evidence that he tried or intended to profit from or otherwise gain personally from.

He was president for 4 years. More classified information has been placed on his desk than anyone other than former presidents. Until he dies...he'll be in possession of information that is vital to national security....unless he forgets it.

Now, as a matter of national security....I can understand why the documents being improperly secured is a big deal.

were the entire reason for the Presidential Records Act that clarified that all Presidential documents belong to the government.

Barack Obama signed an executive order to archive documents because of Nixon?

Odd no one thought of it before then. Perhaps someone should have considered it....but in all seriousness, Obama's update in 2014 lays out the relevant rules. Really though...the question you want to ask though, is exactly how does the archive operate? Are they keeping a list of literally everything a president touches that's classified? Are they performing audits to ensure they possess everything they should? I sincerely doubt it.

Trump didn't make it six months without the bookkeepers noticing he had records that shouldn't be his (allegedly...I don't know what the SCOTUS would rule the Presidential limits are on such things).


How did they miss the fact that Biden had multiple classified documents in his possession for at least 6 years.m? Clerical error? Are they a sham organization made for the appearance of accountability and nothing more?

Did Biden make copies and turn the originals in when he left office?

I'd like to know how these experts in what presidents are allowed to keep and what they must return somehow missed a 2 term VP taking docs for 6 years.

What happened? It seems a rather serious error that no one is interested in explaining the causes of.

I can offer some pretty simple explanations but I'd rather not guess. Unfortunately, the administration doesn't seem interested in fixing whatever problem occurred.

 

[SimplyMe]

What's the part that shows this? That the group is organized and run by Trump?




Right...but it's still going to be evidence of direct involvement. I don't care if he sent in the forms or he told someone to....that's what the direct evidence is.



Well...we also know he spent a lot of money on investigating fraud. I'm not sure saying that he wants to go with the alternate electors is proof he put those electors in place.

It sounds as if you need to read the indictment. Edit: I'll also add that doing some reading about the cases from actual lawyers might help you better understand. For example, Lawfare often has good explanations, as does the Volkh Conspiracy.

Right.



It's delayed process due to the need for security clearances.

It would help if you would indicate that you are switching trials, otherwise I have to assume you are still talking about the Georgia case. In any case, so long as all discovery is turned over prior to trial starting, particularly with defense having time to go through the discovery, then there is no violation. In the case you are talking about, the discovery was accidentally left out and added as soon as they realized the mistake (without the defense needing to ask for it), that isn't a discovery violation.

Ummm....Biden walked out of the VP office with highly classified docs. Nobody even asked him about it for 6 years.

Or at least staffers/movers, who packed his documents accidentally put them in the boxes to be moved. Their is no reason to believe that Biden or Pence knew that they had the documents until they started sorting through their records.

Again...see above, but frankly I'd be more concerned if there were some evidence that he tried or intended to profit from or otherwise gain personally from.

He was president for 4 years. More classified information has been placed on his desk than anyone other than former presidents. Until he dies...he'll be in possession of information that is vital to national security....unless he forgets it.

Now, as a matter of national security....I can understand why the documents being improperly secured is a big deal.

None of this is reasons why he should be allowed to keep the documents.

Barack Obama signed an executive order to archive documents because of Nixon?

Odd no one thought of it before then. Perhaps someone should have considered it....but in all seriousness, Obama's update in 2014 lays out the relevant rules.

You do realize it is the Presidential Records Act of 1978 (emphasis mine)? It was passed by Congress and signed by President Carter in 1978. Obama did sign an executive order to remove an executive order created by President G W Bush when he first entered office, allowing only living presidents to claim Executive Privilege on some records (the Bush EO had allowed family members of a former president to claim executive privilege); I'm guessing that is what you are referring to.

Under the 1978 law, all presidential records are required to be turned over when they leave office; the law doesn't allow them to take the records home and then review what they want to turn over.

Really though...the question you want to ask though, is exactly how does the archive operate? Are they keeping a list of literally everything a president touches that's classified? Are they performing audits to ensure they possess everything they should? I sincerely doubt it.

No, they aren't. NARA did develop a list of "key" records that they know of that should be turned over, since they know the public will have an interest in seeing them. Additionally, the Administration tends to keep documentation of their own records, a list that NARA had access to review (those lists were allegedly turned over). They also may get requests to see some records under the Freedom of Information Act, which requires them to find certain documents. In Trump's case, there were several "high profile" documents they were looking for, after his Presidency, that they were still looking for, after examining all the records the Trump administration had sent. There was a list of examples given by NARA, such as the "beautiful letters" between Trump and Kim Jung Un.

Trump didn't make it six months without the bookkeepers noticing he had records that shouldn't be his (allegedly...I don't know what the SCOTUS would rule the Presidential limits are on such things).

Again, because many of the records kept were high profile. It would have been difficult not to see they were missing, particularly with public interest in those documents.

How did they miss the fact that Biden had multiple classified documents in his possession for at least 6 years.m? Clerical error? Are they a sham organization made for the appearance of accountability and nothing more?

Likely the records Biden (and Pence) had were copies made for the Vice President's office, of Presidential Records that were likely turned over.

Did Biden make copies and turn the originals in when he left office?

Not that anyone is aware of.

I'd like to know how these experts in what presidents are allowed to keep and what they must return somehow missed a 2 term VP taking docs for 6 years.

What happened? It seems a rather serious error that no one is interested in explaining the causes of.

I can offer some pretty simple explanations but I'd rather not guess. Unfortunately, the administration doesn't seem interested in fixing whatever problem occurred.

No? A Special Prosecutor investigating the hows and whys (and whether laws were broken) isn't enough? And as for "fixing" the law to ensure all records are turned over, that change should occur in Congress -- I don't see the House being interested in changing the law.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It sounds as if you need to read the indictment.

I'm good.

Edit: I'll also add that doing some reading about the cases from actual lawyers might help you better understand. For example, Lawfare often has good explanations, as does the Volkh Conspiracy.

No worries, I've sat in on a few federal trials. I'm not an expert on procedure, but I'm familiar with procedure and a lot of dirty things lawyers do to manipulate outcomes.

It would help if you would indicate that you are switching trials, otherwise I have to assume you are still talking about the Georgia case.

When you said that they were still "in discovery" I thought you had switched cases lol.

Let's be clear, the Florida case wasn't "in discovery". On July 18th when the prosecutor informed the court he had turned over all evidence, and likewise the defense confirms they have received all evidence or otherwise files motions to request, suppress, or delay the indictment...but regardless of what motions the defense files, a tentative date is set to move to the next phase of trial. It's typically negotiable depending upon the amount of evidence and other external factors and blah blah blah...

Anyway, a few weeks later, after claiming that the defense had all the evidence, the prosecutor said "Oops, here's some evidence we forgot about and here's the new indictments." This is not considered the "discovery period" anymore. The judge could have, if they chose, told the prosecutor that any new evidence is inadmissible or declared a mistrial. He ran a risk. But the trick here is to give the defense time to consider the arguments they intend to make and how they intend to address the evidence and then throw them a curveball at the last minute that forces them to start over, frustrate, and stress out the defense as they may now have to start over in planning the defense from scratch. It's not a super common trick because it's risky and it matters if you know how the judge will likely decide to proceed.

Regardless, it is a Brady violation, and can overturn any conviction on appeal.

The judge decided to continue and likely will allow the defense as much time as they want now....to avoid any potential overturn.

But it's not a matter of opinion. The prosecution had stated they turned over all evidence, and I imagine the defense agreed they had it. Discovery was over. The prosecutor admitted to making false statements. This is not going to matter for the trial...but it's a point in Trump's favor for any appeals if he's convicted.

Or at least staffers/movers, who packed his documents accidentally put them in the boxes to be moved. Their is no reason to believe that Biden or Pence knew that they had the documents until they started sorting through their records.

Ok....well here's where your cognitive dissonance kicks in and I don't know how you resolve it. If you believe that Biden has staff move his possessions out of one office and into another (and I agree he probably does) and somehow, some way, he never noticed the highly classified documents in his possession for whatever reason you imagine (maybe you picture these sitting in boxes in the new office for six years never being unpacked).

Why did he call his lawyer to move these contents six years later?

We already know he has staff that does this for him. He certainly has even more staff available as president. He didn't call them though, he called someone who he has attorney-client privileges with. Why did he do that? How would the lawyer know what documents were in what locations?

I don't even think the lawyer moved anything from the office. He simply gathered up the documents Joe told him to grab, because they knew once Republicans had the House....they're going to search his offices and home. They know he has classified documents.
Do you really think his lawyer showed up with a moving van, a moving dolly, and started rolling filing cabinets across campus (wasn't the office in a university?) and down to the moving van....you know, because the staff he typically has move classified documents for him was busy that weekend lol.

It's a hilarious image to think of but I don't think anyone older than a little child would believe it. So just be honest...

You don't actually believe that story do you? You just want Trump out of the picture politically...for whatever reason....and it doesn't matter to you if Biden is clearly guilty of exactly the same thing.

I can at least understand that...I can understand the problem of admitting it because it's so blatantly hypocritical. I can also appreciate that if both presidents are corrupt or dangerous to national security....you're still just trying to think of who you consider the bigger danger, and perhaps that justifies an unfair application of justice in your mind.

I don't agree with you, but I can at least understand that sort of reasoning.

But please, don't tell me you believe that story. It's not just a bad lie....it's an obvious lie. It was always going to be a bad lie...but to sit there and defend it is insulting to not just my intelligence, but yours as well. There was never going to be a really good or even kinda good explanation for why top secret and higher classified documents were in his possession for six years....in multiple locations. It's not as if you, me, and everyone else with even average intelligence can't see the giant gaping holes in that story.

So please, just admit you know that's untrue....and make some sort of moral argument for this uneven application of justice. I certainly can't think of any plausible explanation why Joe sent his lawyer to move his office, why his lawyer agreed, and how his lawyer came to find classified documents in the process, that doesn't involve the fact that Joe knew he had those documents.

Just admit that you can't think of any explanation either and you can make whatever moral arguments you have for why we should throw Trump in jail and not Joe.

I can't think of any way to proceed with this discussion in good faith. To do so without having any acknowledging of what we must both surely know to be true...is akin to you thinking I'm some sort of mentally impaired buffoon....or me going home tonight and trying to explain Schrodinger's box to my dog and it's corollary to particle physics. It's either wildly insulting or entirely pointless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It sounds as if you need to read the indictment. Edit: I'll also add that doing some reading about the cases from actual lawyers might help you better understand. For example, Lawfare often has good explanations, as does the Volkh Conspiracy.




It would help if you would indicate that you are switching trials, otherwise I have to assume you are still talking about the Georgia case. In any case, so long as all discovery is turned over prior to trial starting, particularly with defense having time to go through the discovery, then there is no violation. In the case you are talking about, the discovery was accidentally left out and added as soon as they realized the mistake (without the defense needing to ask for it), that isn't a discovery violation.




Or at least staffers/movers, who packed his documents accidentally put them in the boxes to be moved. Their is no reason to believe that Biden or Pence knew that they had the documents until they started sorting through their records.


None of this is reasons why he should be allowed to keep the documents.



You do realize it is the Presidential Records Act of 1978 (emphasis mine)? It was passed by Congress and signed by President Carter in 1978. Obama did sign an executive order to remove an executive order created by President G W Bush when he first entered office, allowing only living presidents to claim Executive Privilege on some records (the Bush EO had allowed family members of a former president to claim executive privilege); I'm guessing that is what you are referring to.

Under the 1978 law, all presidential records are required to be turned over when they leave office; the law doesn't allow them to take the records home and then review what they want to turn over.



No, they aren't. NARA did develop a list of "key" records that they know of that should be turned over, since they know the public will have an interest in seeing them. Additionally, the Administration tends to keep documentation of their own records, a list that NARA had access to review (those lists were allegedly turned over). They also may get requests to see some records under the Freedom of Information Act, which requires them to find certain documents. In Trump's case, there were several "high profile" documents they were looking for, after his Presidency, that they were still looking for, after examining all the records the Trump administration had sent. There was a list of examples given by NARA, such as the "beautiful letters" between Trump and Kim Jung Un.



Again, because many of the records kept were high profile. It would have been difficult not to see they were missing, particularly with public interest in those documents.



Likely the records Biden (and Pence) had were copies made for the Vice President's office, of Presidential Records that were likely turned over.



Not that anyone is aware of.


No? A Special Prosecutor investigating the hows and whys (and whether laws were broken) isn't enough? And as for "fixing" the law to ensure all records are turned over, that change should occur in Congress -- I don't see the House being interested in changing the law.

Here's a simple way to explain why court procedure doesn't work the way you think it does and it shouldn't either.

Imagine if "discovery" was some vague period where I as the prosecutor am going to hand you evidence right up until the trial starts. You're going to get a confusing and largely irrelevant pile of evidence about your client....literally everything I've compiled that isn't important in any way until the day before the trial when I dump all the relevant evidence in your lap and we're making opening arguments the next morning.

That's pretty unfair, very dirty, and I would probably do this for every trial I had and be known as the most successful prosecutor in history. I could send pretty much anyone to jail for anything. It's hard to mount a defense if you get evidence the last moment and have no time to prepare.

So we don't do discovery that way. It's not a specific amount of time. It may take me awhile to figure out my strategy and all evidence relevant to my charges...it's gonna take you longer in most cases to sort it all out and figure out a plausible defense. We'll negotiate that in front of the judge once I have told the judge, or rather the court, that I've handed you everything relevant.

After that...you've got all I can possibly use to prove your client's guilt. To pop up with evidence I haven't handed you is a violation of my previous statement to the court that I've given you everything. In some cases, it's completely understandable....like Anthony Weiner's laptop...if I intend to examine it and possibly use it because it's brand new evidence I didn't have before....I'll have to go amend my statement before the court. If I had the evidence the entire time? That's probably not an accident. It's a calculated risk. I'm in violation for making false statements. It's certainly better to do before the trial....if I tried it after the trial or during...I might be disbarred. The defense might get it thrown out or a significant extension to consider the defense argument...but it's a lot of extra work if I pick the right piece of evidence.

 

[SimplyMe]

I'm good.




No worries, I've sat in on a few federal trials. I'm not an expert on procedure, but I'm familiar with procedure and a lot of dirty things lawyers do to manipulate outcomes.





When you said that they were still "in discovery" I thought you had switched cases lol.

Let's be clear, the Florida case wasn't "in discovery". On July 18th when the prosecutor informed the court he had turned over all evidence, and likewise the defense confirms they have received all evidence or otherwise files motions to request, suppress, or delay the indictment...but regardless of what motions the defense files, a tentative date is set to move to the next phase of trial. It's typically negotiable depending upon the amount of evidence and other external factors and blah blah blah...

Anyway, a few weeks later, after claiming that the defense had all the evidence, the prosecutor said "Oops, here's some evidence we forgot about and here's the new indictments." This is not considered the "discovery period" anymore. The judge could have, if they chose, told the prosecutor that any new evidence is inadmissible or declared a mistrial. He ran a risk. But the trick here is to give the defense time to consider the arguments they intend to make and how they intend to address the evidence and then throw them a curveball at the last minute that forces them to start over, frustrate, and stress out the defense as they may now have to start over in planning the defense from scratch. It's not a super common trick because it's risky and it matters if you know how the judge will likely decide to proceed.

Regardless, it is a Brady violation, and can overturn any conviction on appeal.

The judge decided to continue and likely will allow the defense as much time as they want now....to avoid any potential overturn.

But it's not a matter of opinion. The prosecution had stated they turned over all evidence, and I imagine the defense agreed they had it. Discovery was over. The prosecutor admitted to making false statements. This is not going to matter for the trial...but it's a point in Trump's favor for any appeals if he's convicted.

Yes, it was a whole 10 days later -- that doesn't make it a Brady violation for a case that isn't going to be tried until at least January and maybe far longer. Yes, if it had not had been turned over until a week before the trial, that would be something completely different but no court is going to charge a Brady violation on what appears to be a mistake of 10 days -- and beyond that, over a recording that the Defendant made and so the Defense should have already had available.

Ok....well here's where your cognitive dissonance kicks in and I don't know how you resolve it. If you believe that Biden has staff move his possessions out of one office and into another (and I agree he probably does) and somehow, some way, he never noticed the highly classified documents in his possession for whatever reason you imagine (maybe you picture these sitting in boxes in the new office for six years never being unpacked).

Yes, that is exactly what I think happened. I recently moved and had to go through boxes that I hadn't looked at for over 20 years; I can understand why the former VP hadn't felt he needed to go through boxes of personal papers (such as the various preparation and financials of Beau's funeral) since he left the White House.

Of course, I also think it is the same with former VP Pence -- it appears he also had his personal papers removed from the White House and put them directly in storage. It would appear that he also had seen no reason to look at them, until Biden found Classified documents, at which point he decided he better check to ensure he had no classified documents. If Biden hadn't have looked at his boxes and found documents then I'm guessing that Pence may have waited over six years without every opening the boxes.

Seriously, how often do you go through documents from the past, such as bank statements, loan agreements, etc, unless you are getting audited?

Why did he call his lawyer to move these contents six years later?

I can think of a few reasons -- but basically because he wanted the lawyers to go through the papers and destroy any personal documents no longer needed (such as bank statements that are past the limitation of being audited), maybe keeping items from Beau's funeral, etc. You would want lawyers doing that and boxing up and then giving the boxes to whatever company is moving them, since they have the expertise to understand what documents still could be needed legally and what could be trashed.

We already know he has staff that does this for him. He certainly has even more staff available as president. He didn't call them though, he called someone who he has attorney-client privileges with.

Using Presidential staff would be illegal, since they are personal records before his time as President. Also, most "staff" would not know what records might need to be kept and what could be trashed.

Why did he do that? How would the lawyer know what documents were in what locations?

He was moving out of the office. I'm sure much of the thought was to limit the future moving and storage of documents; if he could take 20 (or how many boxes were in the office) and whittle them down to 5, that makes it much easier to move and store. And particularly at Biden's age, I'm sure he is interested in removing as much of the "trash" that we accumulate over our lifetime as he could.

And I'm not sure what you mean by, "How would the lawyer know what documents were in what locations?" What location was there other than his office at the Penn Biden Center? My understanding is that the lawyers were readying the boxes of documents to get them moved out.

It was the FBI, specifically invited to search Biden's home after the documents were found at the Penn Biden Center, that found the remainder of the Classified Documents.

I don't even think the lawyer moved anything from the office. He simply gathered up the documents Joe told him to grab, because they knew once Republicans had the House....they're going to search his offices and home. They know he has classified documents.

I'm sorry, no. Congress cannot authorize search warrants. If Biden was really worried about that, he could have just followed Trump's example and ignore any subpoenas issued by Congress due to "executive privilege" or similar argument.

Do you really think his lawyer showed up with a moving van, a moving dolly, and started rolling filing cabinets across campus (wasn't the office in a university?) and down to the moving van....you know, because the staff he typically has move classified documents for him was busy that weekend lol.

It's a hilarious image to think of but I don't think anyone older than a little child would believe it. So just be honest...

I put it above -- I think the lawyers were going through the boxes eliminating old documents that were no longer needed, to reduce the amount to be moved. They then, after putting documents they believed needed to be kept back in boxes, they turned the boxes over to the movers.

In fact, the lawyers would likely be the last people Biden would want "finding" the Classified documents, if he were trying to hide them. This is because his lawyers would have legally been required to report the documents, both because it is a violation of law for them to see and possess the documents as well as it would make them guilty (and remove privilege) of hiding the documents from the government, along with Biden. Your argument only makes sense if you think Biden was intentionally wanting to be caught with Classified documents.

You don't actually believe that story do you? You just want Trump out of the picture politically...for whatever reason....and it doesn't matter to you if Biden is clearly guilty of exactly the same thing.

The key difference here -- despite your belief that Biden "had to know all along" -- is that you have zero evidence for your belief; just as there is no evidence that former VP Pence knew he had documents. If Biden actually knew, do you honestly think he would have invited the FBI to search his home for documents? Would he have immediately instructed his lawyers -- when they found the documents -- to turn them over to the government?

Seriously, I don't think you can honestly believe what you are saying -- you are saying that Biden, in an attempt to "hide" documents from Republicans -- specifically sent his lawyers to get them and turn them over to the government. Wasn't that just giving Republicans the ammo they wanted, without them even to have to try to find them?

Wouldn't it logically make more sense to have the sealed boxes just moved to the White House? Then he could either remove the documents and include them with other "presidential records" that would get turned over to NARA when he leaves, if he no longer cared to have them, or just have them moved out along with his other personal records when he leaves the White House. After all, no one is going to authorize a search warrant for the White House, and he could have even ensured they were stored in a secure area where it would be legal for them to be stored (no evidence of a violation of the law).

But again, the evidence suggests (since there is no actual evidence to the contrary) that Biden turned over the papers as soon as they were found, even inviting the FBI to ensure there were not any other documents included in other boxes from his time in office. Trump, by contrast, refused to turn over the documents, had his lawyers swear he'd turned them all over, all the while hiding documents from the government -- there is a huge difference there.

I can at least understand that...I can understand the problem of admitting it because it's so blatantly hypocritical. I can also appreciate that if both presidents are corrupt or dangerous to national security....you're still just trying to think of who you consider the bigger danger, and perhaps that justifies an unfair application of justice in your mind.

I don't agree with you, but I can at least understand that sort of reasoning.

But please, don't tell me you believe that story. It's not just a bad lie....it's an obvious lie. It was always going to be a bad lie...but to sit there and defend it is insulting to not just my intelligence, but yours as well. There was never going to be a really good or even kinda good explanation for why top secret and higher classified documents were in his possession for six years....in multiple locations. It's not as if you, me, and everyone else with even average intelligence can't see the giant gaping holes in that story.

So please, just admit you know that's untrue....and make some sort of moral argument for this uneven application of justice. I certainly can't think of any plausible explanation why Joe sent his lawyer to move his office, why his lawyer agreed, and how his lawyer came to find classified documents in the process, that doesn't involve the fact that Joe knew he had those documents.

Just admit that you can't think of any explanation either and you can make whatever moral arguments you have for why we should throw Trump in jail and not Joe.

I can't think of any way to proceed with this discussion in good faith. To do so without having any acknowledging of what we must both surely know to be true...is akin to you thinking I'm some sort of mentally impaired buffoon....or me going home tonight and trying to explain Schrodinger's box to my dog and it's corollary to particle physics. It's either wildly insulting or entirely pointless.

Sorry, I've explained my thinking. Again, if you have evidence that Biden knew he had the documents, I'm sure the Special Counsel appointed to look for violations of the law committed by Biden in regards to the documents would love to hear from you. My hope is that the Special Counsel is doing a full investigation and will issue a report of what he finds and if Biden broke any laws. At this point, I don't know of any and, to the best of my knowledge, you have no evidence of violations of the law (just your presumptions), either.

By contrast, we seemingly have clear evidence former Pres. Trump knowingly held on to documents he was told he had to turn over, had workers hide them, and even more recently his IT person appears to be claiming that Trump had subpoenaed video erased that showed documents being moved to hide them from searchers. I'm not sure what cognitive dissonance you are going through to try and pretend those to things are exactly the same, much less that I don't care if Biden violated the law. I'm just stating, as of now, there is no evidence and even your "straw man" of what happened doesn't make sense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, it was a whole 10 days later -- that doesn't make it a Brady violation for a case that isn't going to be tried until at least January and maybe far longer. Yes, if it had not had been turned over until a week before the trial, that would be something completely different but no court is going to charge a Brady violation on what appears to be a mistake of 10 days -- and beyond that, over a recording that the Defendant made and so the Defense should have already had available.



Yes, that is exactly what I think happened. I recently moved and had to go through boxes that I hadn't looked at for over 20 years; I can understand why the former VP hadn't felt he needed to go through boxes of personal papers (such as the various preparation and financials of Beau's funeral) since he left the White House.

Of course, I also think it is the same with former VP Pence -- it appears he also had his personal papers removed from the White House and put them directly in storage. It would appear that he also had seen no reason to look at them, until Biden found Classified documents, at which point he decided he better check to ensure he had no classified documents. If Biden hadn't have looked at his boxes and found documents then I'm guessing that Pence may have waited over six years without every opening the boxes.

Seriously, how often do you go through documents from the past, such as bank statements, loan agreements, etc, unless you are getting audited?



I can think of a few reasons -- but basically because he wanted the lawyers to go through the papers and destroy any personal documents no longer needed (such as bank statements that are past the limitation of being audited), maybe keeping items from Beau's funeral, etc. You would want lawyers doing that and boxing up and then giving the boxes to whatever company is moving them, since they have the expertise to understand what documents still could be needed legally and what could be trashed.



Using Presidential staff would be illegal, since they are personal records before his time as President. Also, most "staff" would not know what records might need to be kept and what could be trashed.



He was moving out of the office. I'm sure much of the thought was to limit the future moving and storage of documents; if he could take 20 (or how many boxes were in the office) and whittle them down to 5, that makes it much easier to move and store. And particularly at Biden's age, I'm sure he is interested in removing as much of the "trash" that we accumulate over our lifetime as he could.

And I'm not sure what you mean by, "How would the lawyer know what documents were in what locations?" What location was there other than his office at the Penn Biden Center? My understanding is that the lawyers were readying the boxes of documents to get them moved out.

It was the FBI, specifically invited to search Biden's home after the documents were found at the Penn Biden Center, that found the remainder of the Classified Documents.



I'm sorry, no. Congress cannot authorize search warrants. If Biden was really worried about that, he could have just followed Trump's example and ignore any subpoenas issued by Congress due to "executive privilege" or similar argument.



I put it above -- I think the lawyers were going through the boxes eliminating old documents that were no longer needed, to reduce the amount to be moved. They then, after putting documents they believed needed to be kept back in boxes, they turned the boxes over to the movers.

In fact, the lawyers would likely be the last people Biden would want "finding" the Classified documents, if he were trying to hide them. This is because his lawyers would have legally been required to report the documents, both because it is a violation of law for them to see and possess the documents as well as it would make them guilty (and remove privilege) of hiding the documents from the government, along with Biden. Your argument only makes sense if you think Biden was intentionally wanting to be caught with Classified documents.



The key difference here -- despite your belief that Biden "had to know all along" -- is that you have zero evidence for your belief; just as there is no evidence that former VP Pence knew he had documents. If Biden actually knew, do you honestly think he would have invited the FBI to search his home for documents? Would he have immediately instructed his lawyers -- when they found the documents -- to turn them over to the government?

Seriously, I don't think you can honestly believe what you are saying -- you are saying that Biden, in an attempt to "hide" documents from Republicans -- specifically sent his lawyers to get them and turn them over to the government. Wasn't that just giving Republicans the ammo they wanted, without them even to have to try to find them?

Wouldn't it logically make more sense to have the sealed boxes just moved to the White House? Then he could either remove the documents and include them with other "presidential records" that would get turned over to NARA when he leaves, if he no longer cared to have them, or just have them moved out along with his other personal records when he leaves the White House. After all, no one is going to authorize a search warrant for the White House, and he could have even ensured they were stored in a secure area where it would be legal for them to be stored (no evidence of a violation of the law).

But again, the evidence suggests (since there is no actual evidence to the contrary) that Biden turned over the papers as soon as they were found, even inviting the FBI to ensure there were not any other documents included in other boxes from his time in office. Trump, by contrast, refused to turn over the documents, had his lawyers swear he'd turned them all over, all the while hiding documents from the government -- there is a huge difference there.



Sorry, I've explained my thinking. Again, if you have evidence that Biden knew he had the documents, I'm sure the Special Counsel appointed to look for violations of the law committed by Biden in regards to the documents would love to hear from you. My hope is that the Special Counsel is doing a full investigation and will issue a report of what he finds and if Biden broke any laws. At this point, I don't know of any and, to the best of my knowledge, you have no evidence of violations of the law (just your presumptions), either.

By contrast, we seemingly have clear evidence former Pres. Trump knowingly held on to documents he was told he had to turn over, had workers hide them, and even more recently his IT person appears to be claiming that Trump had subpoenaed video erased that showed documents being moved to hide them from searchers. I'm not sure what cognitive dissonance you are going through to try and pretend those to things are exactly the same, much less that I don't care if Biden violated the law. I'm just stating, as of now, there is no evidence and even your "straw man" of what happened doesn't make sense.

We already established that you don't understand discovery. That's fine. You may think it's not a big deal but courts have rules. We'll move on....

I believe that you believe what you're saying. You just don't understand how any of this works.

I'll give you the shortest explanation I possibly can so we don't need to waste each other's time.

NARA works for Biden.
The FBI works for Biden.
The DOJ works for Biden.
The lawyers work for Biden.

Who is holding Biden accountable here? No one.

Here's the lie you were told that you probably believe because the media, correctly guessed their audience is clueless. Ready?

"The big difference between these two cases is that Biden swiftly responded to NARA's requests for the documents."

That's a hilarious statement because NARA answers to Biden. They're telling you that this man has integrity, because some librarians with no enforcement wing, sent Biden a request after Biden told them to.

Is that simple enough? The media relied upon your lack of knowledge about the federal government to convince you that some measure of accountability occurred. In reality, they lied to you because they know you don't understand how the federal government works, and you will accept it as long as it's what you want to hear.

 

[SimplyMe]

We already established that you don't understand discovery. That's fine. You may think it's not a big deal but courts have rules. We'll move on....

I believe that you believe what you're saying. You just don't understand how any of this works.

I'll give you the shortest explanation I possibly can so we don't need to waste each other's time.

NARA works for Biden.
The FBI works for Biden.
The DOJ works for Biden.
The lawyers work for Biden.

Who is holding Biden accountable here? No one.

Here's the lie you were told that you probably believe because the media, correctly guessed their audience is clueless. Ready?

"The big difference between these two cases is that Biden swiftly responded to NARA's requests for the documents."

That's a hilarious statement because NARA answers to Biden. They're telling you that this man has integrity, because some librarians with no enforcement wing, sent Biden a request after Biden told them to.

Is that simple enough? The media relied upon your lack of knowledge about the federal government to convince you that some measure of accountability occurred. In reality, they lied to you because they know you don't understand how the federal government works, and you will accept it as long as it's what you want to hear.

Execept NARA didn't know the records existed until Biden told them that they were found. We don't know why yet but I'm guessing we may learn at some point -- the best guess is that they were copies of Presidential Records that were turned over to NARA. Or they could have been minor enough, particularly if they were primary documents of another department, that there was no record of these documents being "Presidential (or VP, in this case) records."

So, again, if Biden was "hiding" them, why would he turn them in? Why would he ask the FBI to check his home, if he knew they woudl find more? He could have easily just had those boxes from the Penn Center and from his home brought to the White House where no one would check them. And why were things the same with Pence's documents, where NARA never asked but he turned them in anyway? If the Biden DoJ was really going after his political opponents, wouldn't they have weaponized against Pence?

Also, it wasn't "Biden's NARA" until 2021 -- for the previous years they had every reason to try and get documents from Biden, had they known about them. And don't pretend that Trump wouldn't have wanted to go after Biden -- as was shown with his actions in Ukraine (even if you don't believe he was trying to "bribe" Ukraine, he was definitely working to "get dirt" on Biden so that he could prosecute him).

Is that simple enough? Your cognative dissonance is preventing you from seeing things clearly; particularly since you imagine I'm some type of Biden fan. I didn't want Biden in 2020 but saw him as a better choice of the two major candidates. I don't want either Biden or Trump as President and don't want those two as the choice in 2024. I'll be interested in the Special Prosecutor's report on Biden's documents.

And let's not forget that this whole thing about "Joe's documents" is a "whataboutism" for Trump's alleged breaking of the law -- of which there appears to be substantial evidence to say that he did try to obstruct the government.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Execept NARA didn't know the records existed until Biden told them that they were found. We don't know why yet but I'm guessing

No need to guess. If they weren't classified or inconsequential in some way....we'd know exactly what the contents of those boxes was.

Instead, Biden assigned a special prosecutor to "investigate" something that nobody except him is hiding. He could tell NARA to release the contents of the boxes to the public. He could tell the FBI to release the contents to the public. If NARA had gone through the boxes....the Republicans in Congress could subpoena a record of the contents of the boxes from NARA...or subpoena whomever went through the contents of the boxes.

They wouldn't be able to hide them from the public that way...so they assigned someone to "investigate" the contents of the boxes.

Any possible scenario where the boxes aren't filled with classified documents or something else incriminating would have been over months ago....and released to the public.

After all....if he was innocent not hiding classified docs like Trump....why wouldn't he release the proof to the public???

Biden is the only one preventing those boxes from being opened.

Since that answers the rest of your questions I just decided to erase them.

Is it clear yet? Why Biden hired two lawyers one to share the 10 docs with the press and the other to turn over likely hundreds of docs in multiple boxes which your news source only decided to report once the topic changed. Does it make sense that once Republicans gained majority in Congress they could subpoena records and NARA employees?

You understand that one of the key FBI investigators of the Trump-Russia investigation was working for a Russian Oligarch? They spent years looking for evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia...while working alongside a guy colluding with Russia. It's a pretty bad situation. That's why they keep having whistleblowers....and those people fully understand they have sacrificed their professional careers. They simply can't continue the farce that's currently happening in Washington.

And don't give me any nonsense about "whataboutism". That's just a buzzword that you don't seem to understand. It either matters or it doesn't. If it matters....then the corrupt guy in office is a bigger problem than the one out of office. I didn't think it was actually possible...but this administration is actually worse than the last. Somehow, some way, they managed to screw up worse than Trump. Can you imagine if Covid had hit us now? Biden is falling asleep in front of crowds that just lost their homes to fire. He's spent 40% of his term on vacation.

How did the Democratic Party end up like this? I get that it's embarrassing that Hillary lost to Trump....but it's not Trump's fault, it's Hillary's.

I'll give you two good reasons why you shouldn't want Trump to go to prison. First one is obvious, but apparently I shouldn't assume it's obvious to everyone.

1. All former President's are criminals. All of them are at least war criminals (with the possible exception of Trump). Obama drone striked US citizens overseas....for a fact. Why? Suspected ties to terrorism. I say suspected because they never stood trial. He's also guilty of human rights violations, like his predecessor, because he allied with Afghani warlords who had a taste for raping enslaved boys....on US military bases. I promise you these people are walking out of office with docs. It's a good way to keep mouths shut after you leave....keep some of the dirt on your political allies and enemies.

2. Just for the safety of the nation. There's a real chance at this point he can get elected from prison. Seriously. He won't be staying there if he does. If he goes to prison before he gets elected....do you think it's going to go better or worse for everyone in Washington DC than if he gets elected as a free man? I'd invest in paper shredders if he wins. There's going to be a lot of people who might have to flee the country but at least there won't be widespread violence.

There's nothing for Biden to run on as achievements. Everyone is poorer....their dollars are worth less and everything costs more. If you told me there would be black people in Georgia on the streets outside the jail he was bailed from shouting "Free Trump" in early 2023 two years ago...I'd have said that was impossible. For some reason, the Democratic Party doesn't realize that every further indictment and accusation is literally driving his popularity up. Do you think it's got something to do with the fact that he's been investigated for 7 years and never convicted of a criminal offense? Maybe it start to look a little like an abuse of power when you spent more money, time, and effort than I can count searching for any crime that will stick...and nothing comes of it....it starts to look like you're persecuting someone a little unfairly? Maybe that's why his numbers keep going up? I know they don't understand it because after he lost that "totally legitimate" civil case, CNN invited him on to try and humiliate him. Apparently they forgot they fired all their good reporters. It certainly doesn't help that we can see the media lying about the crimes of the current president. We have whistleblowers posting pictures of Hunter's dms where he's asking for bribes and pointing out his father is in the room....and the best thing the Democrats can say is "well just because he's in the room doesn't mean that he is involved in the bribes uhhh...I mean business transactions."

How are they intending to run him as a candidate? We already know there's no debates in his future. We know he's not going to making a lot of appearances on the campaign trail. He certainly won't be taking questions from the public.

In 2021 in February I remember reading articles about how the GOP was in trouble or outright finished as a party. It certainly seemed that way....because all the Democrats had to do was just slightly better than Trump did....and let him fade from memory. I don't see them turning this around and if you're the praying type....try asking God to make sure the words "Russian disinformation" aren't said by any Democrats in 2024.

It doesn't even matter if there's actual Russian disinformation this time. They won't be believed.

Edit- oh BTW, it appears we may have already elected the first gay president. That little detail came out right after his chef died under totally normal and not suspicious circumstances while paddle boarding in the pond by the Obama's house where he stayed as their personal chef. Seriously. I don't even think there's an investigation...everyone knows that paddle boarders can't swim. That's why they need the paddle and the board lol. They sink like lead weights without them.

 

[SimplyMe]

No need to guess. If they weren't classified or inconsequential in some way....we'd know exactly what the contents of those boxes was.

Why would we know the contents of the boxes? What was the contents of the boxes where Trump kept classified documents? What was in the Pence boxes? This doesn't even make sense.

Instead, Biden assigned a special prosecutor to "investigate" something that nobody except him is hiding. He could tell NARA to release the contents of the boxes to the public. He could tell the FBI to release the contents to the public. If NARA had gone through the boxes....the Republicans in Congress could subpoena a record of the contents of the boxes from NARA...or subpoena whomever went through the contents of the boxes.

They wouldn't be able to hide them from the public that way...so they assigned someone to "investigate" the contents of the boxes.

Any possible scenario where the boxes aren't filled with classified documents or something else incriminating would have been over months ago....and released to the public.

After all....if he was innocent not hiding classified docs like Trump....why wouldn't he release the proof to the public???

Biden is the only one preventing those boxes from being opened.

Again, what is with boxes? Who looked at Pence's "boxes"? NARA and the DoJ were trying to let Trump handle going through his boxes -- but he kept not giving them the documents, despite a court order, and forced the DoJ to get a search warrant (based on the testimony of what appears to have been a Mar-A-Lago employee) -- that is the only reason the FBI looked at his boxes.

And, again, Biden invited the FBI to search for more documents -- the FBI opened plenty of "boxes" to ensure there were no Classified documents, and this was well before any Special Prosecutor had been appointed.

Seriously, this is a horrible argument that appears to be made solely to somehow justify Trump's actions. But since you are claiming we'd know the content of the "boxes" -- tell me, exactly what was in all of the Trump boxes beyond the Classified documents?

Since that answers the rest of your questions I just decided to erase them.

Is it clear yet? Why Biden hired two lawyers one to share the 10 docs with the press and the other to turn over likely hundreds of docs in multiple boxes which your news source only decided to report once the topic changed. Does it make sense that once Republicans gained majority in Congress they could subpoena records and NARA employees?

You understand that one of the key FBI investigators of the Trump-Russia investigation was working for a Russian Oligarch? They spent years looking for evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia...while working alongside a guy colluding with Russia. It's a pretty bad situation. That's why they keep having whistleblowers....and those people fully understand they have sacrificed their professional careers. They simply can't continue the farce that's currently happening in Washington.

You realize Republicans ran the Russia investigation?

And don't give me any nonsense about "whataboutism". That's just a buzzword that you don't seem to understand. It either matters or it doesn't. If it matters....then the corrupt guy in office is a bigger problem than the one out of office. I didn't think it was actually possible...but this administration is actually worse than the last. Somehow, some way, they managed to screw up worse than Trump. Can you imagine if Covid had hit us now? Biden is falling asleep in front of crowds that just lost their homes to fire. He's spent 40% of his term on vacation.

How did the Democratic Party end up like this? I get that it's embarrassing that Hillary lost to Trump....but it's not Trump's fault, it's Hillary's.

I'll give you two good reasons why you shouldn't want Trump to go to prison. First one is obvious, but apparently I shouldn't assume it's obvious to everyone.

1. All former President's are criminals. All of them are at least war criminals (with the possible exception of Trump). Obama drone striked US citizens overseas....for a fact. Why? Suspected ties to terrorism. I say suspected because they never stood trial. He's also guilty of human rights violations, like his predecessor, because he allied with Afghani warlords who had a taste for raping enslaved boys....on US military bases. I promise you these people are walking out of office with docs. It's a good way to keep mouths shut after you leave....keep some of the dirt on your political allies and enemies.

2. Just for the safety of the nation. There's a real chance at this point he can get elected from prison. Seriously. He won't be staying there if he does. If he goes to prison before he gets elected....do you think it's going to go better or worse for everyone in Washington DC than if he gets elected as a free man? I'd invest in paper shredders if he wins. There's going to be a lot of people who might have to flee the country but at least there won't be widespread violence.

There's nothing for Biden to run on as achievements. Everyone is poorer....their dollars are worth less and everything costs more. If you told me there would be black people in Georgia on the streets outside the jail he was bailed from shouting "Free Trump" in early 2023 two years ago...I'd have said that was impossible. For some reason, the Democratic Party doesn't realize that every further indictment and accusation is literally driving his popularity up. Do you think it's got something to do with the fact that he's been investigated for 7 years and never convicted of a criminal offense? Maybe it start to look a little like an abuse of power when you spent more money, time, and effort than I can count searching for any crime that will stick...and nothing comes of it....it starts to look like you're persecuting someone a little unfairly? Maybe that's why his numbers keep going up? I know they don't understand it because after he lost that "totally legitimate" civil case, CNN invited him on to try and humiliate him. Apparently they forgot they fired all their good reporters. It certainly doesn't help that we can see the media lying about the crimes of the current president. We have whistleblowers posting pictures of Hunter's dms where he's asking for bribes and pointing out his father is in the room....and the best thing the Democrats can say is "well just because he's in the room doesn't mean that he is involved in the bribes uhhh...I mean business transactions."

How are they intending to run him as a candidate? We already know there's no debates in his future. We know he's not going to making a lot of appearances on the campaign trail. He certainly won't be taking questions from the public.

In 2021 in February I remember reading articles about how the GOP was in trouble or outright finished as a party. It certainly seemed that way....because all the Democrats had to do was just slightly better than Trump did....and let him fade from memory. I don't see them turning this around and if you're the praying type....try asking God to make sure the words "Russian disinformation" aren't said by any Democrats in 2024.

It doesn't even matter if there's actual Russian disinformation this time. They won't be believed.

Edit- oh BTW, it appears we may have already elected the first gay president. That little detail came out right after his chef died under totally normal and not suspicious circumstances while paddle boarding in the pond by the Obama's house where he stayed as their personal chef. Seriously. I don't even think there's an investigation...everyone knows that paddle boarders can't swim. That's why they need the paddle and the board lol. They sink like lead weights without them.

As for the rest of this post (or maybe even all of it) it reads more like it belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why would we know the contents of the boxes?

Because if it would clear Biden of a crime...he's going to want to release that information.

What was the contents of the boxes where Trump kept classified documents?

Last I checked? 300 classified documents.

What was in the Pence boxes?

No boxes...just 1 doc.

And, again, Biden invited the FBI to search for more documents -- the FBI opened plenty of "boxes" to ensure there were no Classified documents, and this was well before any Special Prosecutor had been appointed.

After he had turned over 6-9 boxes to NARA.

You realize Republicans ran the Russia investigation?

Did they? We know from the Durham Report that the lead FBI agents in the investigation were strongly biased against Trump before any evidence was found. They were Hillary supporters. They were angry he won. I have no idea why you think Republicans ran the investigation.

As for the rest of this post (or maybe even all of it) it reads more like it belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

I'm the only one here who isn't making things up lol. You're inventing moving companies that didn't exist.

 

[SimplyMe]

Because if it would clear Biden of a crime...he's going to want to release that information.

What crime would it clear him of, since there is evidence Biden had Classified documents?

Last I checked? 300 classified documents.

And what else? Seriously, you are claiming the contents of the boxes are some type of conspiracy, so what was so incriminating other than the Classified documents that we know were in Biden's boxes?

No boxes...just 1 doc.

Oh? And what else was in the boxes -- why hasn't he let us know (at least based on your wild speculation about Biden)? There is no reason for a "box" to hold one, single document. Why aren't you as suspicious of Pence finding one Classified document in an entire box (and of likely dozens of boxes removed from the White House) as you are of Biden?

After he had turned over 6-9 boxes to NARA.

Source? I'm finding no evidence of that -- merely that 16 Classified documents total were returned to NARA that had been found at Biden's office in the Penn-Biden center (10 Classified documents) and a second six that were found in a room adjacent (a library/storage office) to Biden's garage where his Corvette is parked.

Did they? We know from the Durham Report that the lead FBI agents in the investigation were strongly biased against Trump before any evidence was found. They were Hillary supporters. They were angry he won. I have no idea why you think Republicans ran the investigation.

They all were? Sorry, no. Yes, we know of a handful that politically supported Clinton -- at the same time, other than the one illegal changing of a document (which was found by the FBI IG) Durham found no evidence that suggested their political beliefs significantly changed the investigation. The most he could criticize was that it was turned into an actual "investigation" at the beginning (based on the intelligence provided by the Australians).

At the same time, the Special Prosecutor was a Republican who was appointed and overseen by Trump's appointees in the DoJ. The House and Senate investigations were both led by Republicans -- but even the Republican House and Senate felt there was enough evidence to require that they open investigations. At best you can claim that some "Democrats" (not leaders) were foot soldiers that were overseen by their Republican leaders.

I'm the only one here who isn't making things up lol. You're inventing moving companies that didn't exist.

Oh, what moving companies did I make up? I was merely going off of your claim of how ludicrous to think it is that lawyers actually moved boxes. I rather agree -- again, from my experience lawyers would be brought in to see what documents are there, what documents were no longer needed and could be trashed, so that fewer boxes had to be moved and stored at the new site. Since the lawyers, as you point out, were unlikely to actually move the boxes, then they either had other workers -- such as secretaries or paralegals -- be the "movers" or more likely contracted with another company (perhaps one they commonly use to transport boxes for them) to move the boxes. But, sure, if you want we can assume that it was the lawyers themselves who moved the boxes after getting rid of the documents that were no longer needed.