25th Amendment gaining traction against joey

[Orangeclad]

It's amazing how the experts who read the report and like to lecture other people just seemed to have missed the following criminal offense, FROM THE REPORT.

"Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said.

You're wasting your time having any debate with @kalimgoodman as he is not willing to accept ANY evidence you give him. Believe me, I know.

 

[RussellCasse]

The mental gymnastics must be exhausting.

More blind defending @FresnoGator ...

It’s quite comical really. When you cannot accept what even left wing media CNN is saying…then you are not being rational. And you definitely ARE blind defending due to political bias. It’s what he has ALWAYS done. He has double standards based on political affiliation. Always has.

 

[NavigatorII]

I don't how the guy could be more clear. Biden is either a moronic dawdling fool, or he intentionally broke the law. In either case, he has no business being Occupier In Chief.

 

[fatman76]

It’s quite comical really. When you cannot accept what even left wing media CNN is saying…then you are not being rational. And you definitely ARE blind defending due to political bias. It’s what he has ALWAYS done. He has double standards based on political affiliation. Always has.

View embedded media

"I killed my wife 10 years ago but I now have Alzheimer's, so I'm innocent."

- No developed country's justice system in history

 

[jb1215]

I don't know. kamala and joey are both stupid, woke, and incompetent. Joey boy was forced to be woke. He has always been a racist and bigot, libtards just refuse to admit it. I think they remove joey and then what is kamala running on? The libs can't hide behind her age. She is just flat out stupid.

 

[Orangeclad]

Remember Sandy Berger from the Clinton administrtion? He took classified material from the National Archives. He was fined, put on 2 years probation, sentenced to community service and disbared.
And Biden, nothing.
People defendng Biden on this one just look ridiculous.
How did he get classified material out of a SCIF when he was a senator?
Just an accident?

 

[NavigatorII]

Remember Sandy Berger from the Clinton administrtion? He took classified material from the National Archives. He was fined, put on 2 years probation, sentenced to community service and disbared.
And Biden, nothing.
People defendng Biden on this one just look ridiculous.
How did he get classified material out of a SCIF when he was a senator?
Just an accident?

No telling what China did with that information either.

 

[RussellCasse]

"I killed my wife 10 years ago but I now have Alzheimer's, so I'm innocent."

- No developed country's justice system in history

Here is the silly part. Kalim doesn’t blindly defend dems 😂.

Yet everyone I know on the right + kalim…would say Mitch has diminished mental capacity to serve. Now, let’s apply the same logic to Biden. Kalim won’t.

It would appear to me, that the members of the board on the right, are the ones deserving of “not blindly defending”.

Just sayin.

💊

 

[fatman76]

Here is the silly part. Kalim doesn’t blindly defend dems 😂.

Yet everyone I know on the right + kalim…would say Mitch has diminished mental capacity to serve. Now, let’s apply the same logic to Biden. Kalim won’t.

It would appear to me, that the members of the board on the right, are the ones deserving of “not blindly defending”.

Just sayin.

💊

But if DJT makes ONE mistake (which is possibly a troll to get people to say Pelosi was actually in charge of turning the NG down on J6), look out. That deserves it's own thread.

Blind. Defending.

 

[kalimgoodman]

The picture is in the report.

Why are you avoiding this fact?

Did Biden have classified documents he took as a Senator and VP?

Here is a picture of them. Is that picture real?

He's not capable of getting a fair trial because he comes across as too feeble to really have intended to keep the documents.

"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," the report said. "It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him -- by then a former president well into his eighties -- of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness."

Was he in this state when he took them? If I robbed a bank 10 years ago then got brain damage, am I now innocent?

So here's your choice - he's either too mentally compromised to stand trial or he's a criminal. Neither Senators nor VP's can classify/declassify. Which is it?

Special counsel won't charge Biden in classified docs probe, despite evidence he 'willfully retained' materials

Special counsel Robert Hur won't recommend charges against President Biden for his handling of classified documents,, despite evidence he "willfully retained" materials.

abcnews.go.com

He also said that he can't prove his case behind a reasonable doubt. Having documents and taking documents are not the same and if you actually read it, you will see Hur speak to that. So until you actually read, I will ignore you this topic. It's a waste of our time.

 

[kalimgoodman]

It's amazing how the experts who read the report and like to lecture other people just seemed to have missed the following criminal offense, FROM THE REPORT.

"Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said.

You're wasting your time having any debate with @kalimgoodman as he is not willing to accept ANY evidence you give him. Believe me, I know.

Did you read the report?

 

[fatman76]

He also said that he can't prove his case behind a reasonable doubt. Having documents and taking documents are not the same and if you actually read it, you will see Hur speak to that. So until you actually read, I will ignore you this topic. It's a waste of our time.

What?

You can have documents that you never took? Is this seriously your argument? 😆

And the entire report is 388 pages. Zero chance you sat down and read that entire thing. You're trapped and deflecting...again.

"More blind defending cleanup on aisle 5" 😆

 

[kalimgoodman]

What?

You can have documents that you never took? Is this seriously your argument? 😆

And the entire report is 388 pages. Zero chance you sat down and read that entire thing. You're trapped and deflecting...again.

"More blind defending cleanup on aisle 5" 😆

You didn't read it, so it sounds funny to you. That's why I said read. SMH

 

[RussellCasse]

What blindly defending looks like.

💊 counter lives matter

 

[RussellCasse]

My favorite part is where Biden couldn’t remember the year his own son died, nor when his term as VP finished.

That’s the guy with access to nuclear codes.

 

[NavigatorII]

You didn't read it, so it sounds funny to you. That's why I said read. SMH

Here's another fine example of your lying POS Big Guy.

 

[fatman76]

You didn't read it, so it sounds funny to you. That's why I said read. SMH

From the Report - Biden took information from classified documents in a SCIF and shared it with an author:

Twice in 2017, Mr. Eiden visited theNational Archives SCIF to review his classified notecards while writing his book. Yethe kept his notebooks, which also contained classified information, in unlockeddrawers at home. He had strong motivations to do so and to ignore the rules forproperly handling the classified information in his notebooks. He consulted thenotebooks liberally during hours of discussions with his ghostwriter and viewed themas highly private and valued possessions with which he was unwilling to part.

More evidence Biden actually removed documents from a SCIF as a VP and those documents were found in his home - you can't even take a cell phone into a SCIF they are so secure:

The next morning, November 3, 2022, the National Archives sent two archivists to retrieve the documents and the three boxes in which they were found. 24Upon reviewing the documents in a SCIF, the National Archives found ninedocuments, totaling 44 pages, with classification markings. 2.5 The documents were classified up to the Top Secret level and included codes indicating some of theinformation was Sensitive Compartmented Infonnation. 26 The marked classifieddocuments were located in two of the three boxes. 1 All three boxes contained recordsdating from Mr. Biden's time as vice president.

It's common knowledge that even if you write down classified information on a notecard...it's still classified:

More generally, McGrail said he was unaware of any conversations among staffin the Office of the Vice President suggesting that Mr. Biden could take classifiedmaterials home after leaving office and keep them outside a SCIF, noting, "It was theopposite. It was how are we going to find him a SCIF in case he ever has a reason togo to a SCIF?"2G7 When asked during his interview about whether anyone told Mr.Eiden that the Presidential Records Act authorizes a former vice president to keepcertain materials at home, even if they are classified, McGrail said no, and added"[T]hat doesn't make logical sense to me .... [M]y understanding is that ... if youcopy or write down classified information on a piece of paper, it maintains itsclassified status."

 

[LordofallSocks]

He also said that he can't prove his case behind a reasonable doubt. Having documents and taking documents are not the same and if you actually read it, you will see Hur speak to that. So until you actually read, I will ignore you this topic. It's a waste of our time.

You: Can't prove case BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

ALSO YOU: Donald Trump was found liable for damages in civil court so hes a rapist.

AND HE DIDNT SAY HE DIDNT HAVE A CASE HE DIDNT THINK HE COULD GET A JURY TO CONVICT.

Jury nullification and not having a strong case are not the same thing.

How many times do you need to see in the report that he broke the law?

 

[fatman76]

You: Can't prove case BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

ALSO YOU: Donald Trump was found liable for damages in civil court so hes a rapist.

AND HE DIDNT SAY HE DIDNT HAVE A CASE HE DIDNT THINK HE COULD GET A JURY TO CONVICT.

Jury nullification and not having a strong case are not the same thing.

How many times do you need to see in the report that he broke the law?

He probably shouldn’t have demanded I “read the report” 😂

 

[kalimgoodman]

You: Can't prove case BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

ALSO YOU: Donald Trump was found liable for damages in civil court so hes a rapist.

AND HE DIDNT SAY HE DIDNT HAVE A CASE HE DIDNT THINK HE COULD GET A JURY TO CONVICT.

Jury nullification and not having a strong case are not the same thing.

How many times do you need to see in the report that he broke the law?

Yes it is a fact that Trump is an adjudicated rapist.

I never said that he didn't have a case or that Biden didn't have documents or even defended him. I am just clarifying what the report did or didn't say. You guys seem to freak out and lose your shit when presented with the truth.

He said multiple times that "he did this"....but I can't prove it BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

In the legal world; It's not what you know but what can you prove. That is what he was highlighting.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Yes it is a fact that Trump is an adjudicated rapist.

I never said that he didn't have a case or that Biden didn't have documents or even defended him. I am just clarifying what the report did or didn't say. You guys seem to freak out and lose your shit when presented with the truth.

He said multiple times that "he did this"....but I can't prove it BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

In the legal world; It's not what you know but what can you prove. That is what he was highlighting.

there's no such thing as an adjudicated rapist, because rape is a felony criminal act.

 

[kalimgoodman]

there's no such thing as an adjudicated rapist, because rape is a felony criminal act.

Tell the judge that

 

[LordofallSocks]

Tell the judge that

Every lawyer I know is bagging on that idiot. Also libel or slander from the bench is judicial malfeasance.

 

[greyghost14]

The picture is in the report.

Why are you avoiding this fact?

Did Biden have classified documents he took as a Senator and VP?

Here is a picture of them. Is that picture real?

He's not capable of getting a fair trial because he comes across as too feeble to really have intended to keep the documents.

"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," the report said. "It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him -- by then a former president well into his eighties -- of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness."

Was he in this state when he took them? If I robbed a bank 10 years ago then got brain damage, am I now innocent?

So here's your choice - he's either too mentally compromised to stand trial or he's a criminal. Neither Senators nor VP's can classify/declassify. Which is it?

Special counsel won't charge Biden in classified docs probe, despite evidence he 'willfully retained' materials

Special counsel Robert Hur won't recommend charges against President Biden for his handling of classified documents,, despite evidence he "willfully retained" materials.

abcnews.go.com

If he’s too mentally compromised to stand trial then he’s too mentally compromised to remain as President.
If he’s mentally good enough to remain President then he’s mentally good enough to stand trial.

 

[fatman76]

If he’s too mentally compromised to stand trial then he’s too mentally compromised to remain as President.
If he’s mentally good enough to remain President then he’s mentally good enough to stand trial.

And if he's mentally good enough to remain President he knowingly and willfully took classified information & classified documents and gave it to an author who did not have the proper security clearances....as a VP without classification control.

He should be in jail. Hur knew Garland would never take the recommendation to indict so he told the truth...which might be more damaging.

 

[fatman76]

Tell the judge that

The Carroll case was a jury.

And they didn't find him guilty of rape. They found him liable for sexual assault and defamation. Which is ridiculous because she claimed she was penetrated by his penis...but the jurors thought it was just his hand. In other words, the jurors didn't believe her story but still went after Trump.

And it was a Civil case, not a criminal one, so the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" didn't come into play. Trump has never been convicted of the crime of rape. He's also not been convicted of the crime of sexual assault.

And the reason Hur said he felt there would be "reasonable doubt" in the Biden docs case was because he wasn't mentally with it enough....which is BS because these documents were from many years ago, and he was plenty mentally fit when the crime occurred.

"Based on our direct interactions with andobservations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identifyreasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convicthim-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony thatrequires a mental state of willfulness."

 

[Orangeclad]

He probably shouldn’t have demanded I “read the report” 😂

When the following was presented to @kalimgoodman FROM THE REPORT,

Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen," the report said.

The response was Have you read the report?
Pavlov and his dogs knew what auto responses were all about.

 

[LordofallSocks]

In the legal world; It's not what you know but what can you prove. That is what he was highlighting.

Are you seriously lecturing me on the standard of proof in criminal cases?

 

[Orangeclad]

Ate you seriously lecturing me on the standard of proof in criminal cases

Don't you know that @kalimgoodman stayed at a Holiday Inn last night?

 

[kalimgoodman]

The Carroll case was a jury.

And they didn't find him guilty of rape. They found him liable for sexual assault and defamation. Which is ridiculous because she claimed she was penetrated by his penis...but the jurors thought it was just his hand. In other words, the jurors didn't believe her story but still went after Trump.

And it was a Civil case, not a criminal one, so the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" didn't come into play. Trump has never been convicted of the crime of rape. He's also not been convicted of the crime of sexual assault.

And the reason Hur said he felt there would be "reasonable doubt" in the Biden docs case was because he wasn't mentally with it enough....which is BS because these documents were from many years ago, and he was plenty mentally fit when the crime occurred.

"Based on our direct interactions with andobservations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identifyreasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convicthim-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony thatrequires a mental state of willfulness."

Lord and I discussed this Trump civil case already. Over it

Ignoring the rest.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Lord and I discussed this Trump civil case already. Over it

Ignoring the rest.

You and I literally had this argument in reverse over the election stealing issue.

 

[kalimgoodman]

Are you seriously lecturing me on the standard of proof in criminal cases?

You seem confused. As previously discussed, a prosecutor will evaluate if they can actually win a case. If they believe that they can't, they will decline to press charges. That is so common, there is nothing controversial about that.

Case and point; the grand jury voted 13-7 to indict Lindsey Graham in Georgia BUT Fani didn't think that she could win that case and declined to press charges. I am willing to bet that you didn't whine about that or question that.

 

[greyghost14]

Are you seriously lecturing me on the standard of proof in criminal cases?

No, he’s just putting forth his best Lieutenant Caffey impersonation.

 

[LordofallSocks]

You seem confused. As previously discussed, a prosecutor will evaluate if they can actually win a case. If they believe that they can't, they will decline to press charges. That is so common, there is nothing controversial about that.

Case and point; the grand jury voted 13-7 to indict Lindsey Graham in Georgia BUT Fani didn't think that she could win that case and declined to press charges. I am willing to bet that you didn't whine about that or question that.

bruh.

 

[RussellCasse]

You seem confused. As previously discussed, a prosecutor will evaluate if they can actually win a case. If they believe that they can't, they will decline to press charges. That is so common, there is nothing controversial about that.

Case and point; the grand jury voted 13-7 to indict Lindsey Graham in Georgia BUT Fani didn't think that she could win that case and declined to press charges. I am willing to bet that you didn't whine about that or question that.

It’s case in point, not case and point.

Case and point is an eggcorn.


Only the brightest on the left.

💊 counters lives matter.

 

[RussellCasse]

bruh.

No matter how hard I try, I can’t seem to go BACK to the reading level required to converse with certain people. And no, I am not talking about you sir.

 

[fatman76]

Lord and I discussed this Trump civil case already. Over it

Ignoring the rest.

Of course you are 😂

 

[fatman76]

bruh.

We really do deserve better.

 

[LordofallSocks]

It’s case in point, not case and point.

Case and point is an eggcorn.


Only the brightest on the left.

💊 counters lives matter.

My old man, may he rest in power, once cautioned me about wrestling with pigs.

You end up tired and filthy, and they enjoy it.

To wit, there is neither enough beer nor deodorant on the planet to make continuing this exercise in futility worthwhile.

 

[kalimgoodman]

bruh.

you never answer and I know why