Justice Department Offers Scathing Response to Trump: ‘Those Records Do Not Belong to Him’

[BamaFan1137]

So contrary to what you said...
A person does not have to can be found GUILTY of a criminal offense to be guilty of something



Was that the end of it for OJ Simpson?
No. He was found guilty in the Goldman's civil case





Who's denying trump the presumption of innocence?
If he's indicted he'll have his day in court



Court of public opinion is very different than the court of law

Its still America,,,I have a right to have an opinion, right?

The difference between my opinion and the trumpanzees is that mine is based on actual facts and theirs is based on a misunderstanding of the facts, relevant laws, and general misstating comments by anyone critical of trump



Its reasonable to speculate that some of the witnesses have actually sworn under oath. For example.. A trump lawyer in the trump org case has searched Mar-A-Lago

Think she may have seen something she didn't have security clearance to review?

So we're back to square 1

Your personal bar for running for president is pretty low
Just so long as he isn't a convicted criminal seems good enough to you

But don't worry buttercup...nothing in the Constitution says you can't run for POTUS even if you're under indictment ...or even in jail

I would suspect that trump will challenge any law that restricts him for the office of the presidency based on the Constitutional sparse requirements

Which will still make him a viable candidate in the eyes of the real diehard trumpanzees

My question will you go that route also?

It is absolutely useless to carry on a conversation with people like you.

 

[GatorshimesSubParMember]

So contrary to what you said...
A person does not have to can be found GUILTY of a criminal offense to be guilty of something



Was that the end of it for OJ Simpson?
No. He was found guilty in the Goldman's civil case





Who's denying trump the presumption of innocence?
If he's indicted he'll have his day in court



Court of public opinion is very different than the court of law

Its still America,,,I have a right to have an opinion, right?

The difference between my opinion and the trumpanzees is that mine is based on actual facts and theirs is based on a misunderstanding of the facts, relevant laws, and general misstating comments by anyone critical of trump



Its reasonable to speculate that some of the witnesses have actually sworn under oath. For example.. A trump lawyer in the trump org case has searched Mar-A-Lago

Think she may have seen something she didn't have security clearance to review?

So we're back to square 1

Your personal bar for running for president is pretty low
Just so long as he isn't a convicted criminal seems good enough to you

But don't worry buttercup...nothing in the Constitution says you can't run for POTUS even if you're under indictment ...or even in jail

I would suspect that trump will challenge any law that restricts him for the office of the presidency based on the Constitutional sparse requirements

Which will still make him a viable candidate in the eyes of the real diehard trumpanzees

My question will you go that route also?

OJ was not guilty of the crime of murder.
The civil case was exactly that, a civil case where a judgement was rendered. Different standard.


Alex Jones was pronounced guilty BY A JUDGE. Defamation is a criminal charge.

I've always said I would vote for the best candidate even if that candidate is the lesser of two evils. So as long as the Democrats are running on a woke, globalist, pro illegal alien, anti gun, America last platform they will never get my vote.

My low personal bar notwithstanding.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Barney Fife can't understand how he could be accused of only believing in equal application of the law for "certain people".

He believes in blind justice....blah, blah, blah

I'm for the equal application of the law. So sure, if that's what we're going to start doing, so long as it applies to EVERYONE, and assuming that guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, absolutely fine with it.

But this partisan application of the law? No son...that won't do.

Who are the "partisans" at the National Archives that started this investigation for political purposes?

If someone accuses another person of stealing their property
You interview the accused and they admit to having taken the property
Says to you he'll return it...and then doesn't
You return to the accused and say what's up I thought you said you would return
And they hand you a letter that says they have returned it and that you can't search their house without a warrant
You get a warrant and search the house...And guess what? You find the stolen material

Use all of law enforcement acumen you've sharpened in the field at the mall

And tell us Barney Fife...is the accused guilty of breaking the law?

 

[RayGravesGhost]

OJ was not guilty of the crime of murder.
The civil case was exactly that, a civil case where a judgement was rendered. Different standard.

Right...go back and read what you posted earlier

You claimed that unless you're "convicted of a criminal charge you aren't guilty of
ANYTHING"

Wrong. OJ was found guilty of in the civil case of being legally responsible for for Nicole's death.

Alex Jones was pronounced guilty BY A JUDGE. Defamation is a criminal charge.

Alex Jones was a not a criminal case...it was a civil case.


If convicted of defamation, the defendant is charged with a first degree misdemeanor for which he or she must serve up to 1 year in jail. Florida is one of the only states for which defamation remains a crime. With that said, it is important to exercise caution and decorum on internet platforms, online and in writing.Sep 10, 2021

Can You Be Arrested For Defamation Or Slander In Florida?​

I've always said I would vote for the best candidate even if that candidate is the lesser of two evils. So as long as the Democrats are running on a woke, globalist, pro illegal alien, anti gun, America last platform they will never get my vote.

My low personal bar notwithstanding.

You would rather vote for a republican who would be at that time a convicted felon
OK, that's where we started...you've been trying to bullshit everyone

Now that you found out that the term "guilty" means and that defamation is not a criminal charge maybe just maybe you'll admit your just FOS and would pretty much vote for trump no matter what

Which we can all agree means you were lying in Post #18

No one is surprised.... 🥱

 

[GatorshimesSubParMember]

Right...go back and read what you posted earlier

You claimed that unless you're "convicted of a criminal charge you aren't guilty of
ANYTHING"

Wrong. OJ was found guilty of in the civil case of being legally responsible for for Nicole's death.



Alex Jones was a not a criminal case...it was a civil case.


If convicted of defamation, the defendant is charged with a first degree misdemeanor for which he or she must serve up to 1 year in jail. Florida is one of the only states for which defamation remains a crime. With that said, it is important to exercise caution and decorum on internet platforms, online and in writing.Sep 10, 2021

Can You Be Arrested For Defamation Or Slander In Florida?​

You would rather vote for a republican who would be at that time a convicted felon
OK, that's where we started...you've been trying to bullshit everyone

Now that you found out that the term "guilty" means and that defamation is not a criminal charge maybe just maybe you'll admit your just FOS and would pretty much vote for trump no matter what

Which we can all agree means you were lying in Post #18

No one is surprised.... 🥱

Defamation is a criminal charge. I am a former LEO in the state of Florida, and you just referenced that. I didn't know the the details of the Jones case, I had to look it up. So in that case, no he isn't guilty of the crime of defamation, because it was a civil case.

Being found guilty in a civil case is not the same as being found guilty of a criminal charge. I don't know how I can make that clearer. OJ was found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit.


If Donald Trump stole documents and destroyed them, then he should be prosecuted. If he is found not guilty, then he's not guilty.


So no gotcha cookie for you. And don't call me a liar.

I don't believe the truth matters to you, you're just looking for some weird form of validation I'm not going to feed anymore.

Edited: I'm annoyed now and I'd like a ruling from a neutral party.

@BSC911
@Uniformed_ReRe

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Defamation is a criminal charge. I am a former LEO in the state of Florida, and you just referenced that. I didn't know the the details of the Jones case, I had to look it up. So in that case, no he isn't guilty of the crime of defamation, because it was a civil case.

He pled GUILTY what you watched was the penalty phase...there was no trial

Being found guilty in a civil case is not the same as being found guilty of a criminal charge. I don't know how I can make that clearer. OJ was found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit.

Yes...and your "logic" was that you aren't guilty of anything if not convicted of a criminal charge

That is wrong. or you simply don't understand the word guilty (legally rsponsible) applies to both criminal & civil cases

If Donald Trump stole documents and destroyed them, then he should be prosecuted. If he is found not guilty, then he's not guilty.

But even if he's convicted you've admitted you would vote for him anyway

That's about as trumpanzee as it gets

So no gotcha cookie for you. And don't call me a liar.

I don't believe the truth matters to you, you're just looking for some weird form of validation I'm not going to feed anymore.

The truth is you would elect a convicted felon for the office of President of the United States

That's pretty much all we've learned here today 🤣

 

[GatorshimesSubParMember]

He pled GUILTY what you watched was the penalty phase...there was no trial

Doesn't matter, it was a civil trial therefore he's not guilty of the CRIME of defamation, merely liable for a civil judgement.

Yes...and your "logic" was that you aren't guilty of anything if not convicted of a criminal charge

That is wrong. or you simply don't understand the word guilty (legally rsponsible) applies to both criminal & civil cases

We aren't talking about anything but criminal charges. You are muddying the argument because you're wrong. The original issue waaaaaaay back was criminal. Destruction of classified documents is a crime. The murder I used as an example was a crime.

But even if he's convicted you've admitted you would vote for him anyway

That's about as trumpanzee as it gets

Show me where I said that.

The truth is you would elect a convicted felon for the office of President of the United States

That's pretty much all we've learned here today 🤣

If he's convicted I can't vote for him. Convicted felons are ineligible for political office.

I'm done with your nonsense.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Doesn't matter, it was a civil trial therefore he's not guilty of the CRIME of defamation, merely liable for a civil judgement.

make up your bipolar mind... 🤣

"Defamation is a criminal charge. I am a former LEO in the state of Florida, and you just referenced that."

We aren't talking about anything but criminal charges. You are muddying the argument because you're wrong. The original issue waaaaaaay back was criminal. Destruction of classified documents is a crime. The murder I used as an example was a crime.

No one is "muddyng" anything...you make stupid statements like "You aren't guilty of anything unless you're convicted of a criminal charge"

now you can't figure out if defamation is a criminal offense...you've said both saides of that argument

And all that doesn't matter because you obviously don't know what the word guilty means

Show me where I said that.

HERE...here's where you said exactly that speaking of an indicted/convicted trump

I've always said I would vote for the best candidate even if that candidate is the lesser of two evils. So as long as the Democrats are running on a woke, globalist, pro illegal alien, anti gun, America last platform they will never get my vote.

My low personal bar notwithstanding.

If he's convicted I can't vote for him. Convicted felons are ineligible for political office.

I'm done with your nonsense.

Convicted felons ARE NOT ineligible for POTUS you idiot
Go read the US Constitution "Mr. law enforcement officer" you've got it wrong

trumpanzees like Hannity have been preparing for that reality for awhile


https://people.com/politics/sean-ha...ons-can-run-president-trump-investigated-doj/
Sean Hannity Reminds Listeners That Felons Can Run for President as Trump Is Investigated by DOJ
"Being a felon is not a disqualification," Hannity said on his radio show, though the former president has not been charged with any crimes at this point in the investigation

By Aaron Parsley Published on August 16, 2022 12:07 PM


Still, close Trump ally and Fox News host Sean Hannity wants listeners of his radio show to know that even if the former president is charged and eventually convicted of a crime, it won't be a dealbreaker when it comes to running for president.

"If they think that they're going to somehow make this about Donald Trump and prevent him from running from office, well they obviously have not read something called the Constitution," Hannity said Monday on Premiere Radio Network's The Sean Hannity Show. "Because the Constitution is pretty clear on what qualifies one to be able to run for president."

That's true. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states that U.S. citizenship, being 35 years or older and a resident for at least 14 years are what's required to be POTUS.

 

[GatorshimesSubParMember]

Defamation is a crime in Florida. I assumed it was a crime in the Jones case. That was my mistake.

I never said I would vote for Trump if he was convicted.

I thought that if you lose your right to vote you couldn't run for office, which seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw, and probably should be the standard. You can't vote or own a gun but you can be leader of the free world?????

Since you've resorted to name calling when I've been nothing but patient and polite, I'm placing you on ignore now. Serves me right for trying to be reasonable with an unreasonable person.

You are the very height of intellectual dishonesty. Someone used this metaphor before, but it's a good one so I'm going to recycle it.

Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. You knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like you've won something.

Shame on me for enabling you.

Enjoy your "win" and have a nice weekend.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Defamation is a crime in Florida. I assumed it was a crime in the Jones case. That was my mistake.

I never said I would vote for Trump if he was convicted.

I thought that if you lose your right to vote you couldn't run for office, which seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw, and probably should be the standard. You can't vote or own a gun but you can be leader of the free world?????

Yes because gun ownership has nothing to do with anything we're discussing

Since you've resorted to name calling when I've been nothing but patient and polite, I'm placing you on ignore now. Serves me right for trying to be reasonable with an unreasonable person.

Nothing but patient & polite?
You should check some of the comments you've "liked" or what you like to say in general ab

You are the very height of intellectual dishonesty. Someone used this metaphor before, but it's a good one so I'm going to recycle it.

You can recycle it...its a pretty common term. But maybe you should check on its meaning before using it...ya know like the word "guilty"

Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. You knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like you've won something.

Maybe you should be able to backup your claims with facts not your opinions

Because they usually result in you having to make excuses for why you've been proven wrong

Shame on me for enabling you.

Enjoy your "win" and have a nice weekend.

"Winning" isn't the issue but it does explain your intent

From student loans to this Mar-A-Lago case you just post stuff that's wrong


have a great weekend....Go Gators!!!

 

[BamaFan1137]

Barney Fife can't understand how he could be accused of only believing in equal application of the law for "certain people".

Did I say "for certain people?"

No I didn't. And only an idiot or a psychopath would add those three words, for some stupid reason, and then attempt to blame me for them.

Purchase a clue....or go away. I don't care which.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Barney Fife can't understand how he could be accused of only believing in equal application of the law for "certain people".

He believes in blind justice....blah, blah, blah




Who are the "partisans" at the National Archives that started this investigation for political purposes?

If someone accuses another person of stealing their property
You interview the accused and they admit to having taken the property
Says to you he'll return it...and then doesn't
You return to the accused and say what's up I thought you said you would return
And they hand you a letter that says they have returned it and that you can't search their house without a warrant
You get a warrant and search the house...And guess what? You find the stolen material

Use all of law enforcement acumen you've sharpened in the field at the mall

And tell us Barney Fife...is the accused guilty of breaking the law?

While you typed up this gem, I was wrapping up a capital murder case.

Not bad for Paul Blart if I do say so myself.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Being found guilty in a civil case is not the same as being found guilty of a criminal charge. I don't know how I can make that clearer. OJ was found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit.

The difference is quite stark of course.

Civil- the standard is probably or likely guilty

Criminal- beyond reasonable doubt

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Did I say "for certain people?"

You just admitted that without any evidence you don't support the prosecution of donald trump in regards to the documents he was caught stealing, destroying & lying about

And the only reason you can come up with its a partisan persecution with no proof

So who at NARA is politically persecuting donald trump?

Why is donald trump's theft case different in your eyes than anyone else?

That's how you prefer selective prosecution for "certain people"

No I didn't. And only an idiot or a psychopath would add those three words, for some stupid reason, and then attempt to blame me for them.

Purchase a clue....or go away. I don't care which.

Yeah your "blind" justice comes shining through when you call this investigation a political prosecution right after the search was completed

Your a cop that doesn't support law enforcement based on your political viewpoint

 

[RayGravesGhost]

The difference is quite stark of course.

Civil- the standard is probably or likely guilty

Criminal- beyond reasonable doubt

Which totally ignores the point of this exchange between myself & gatorshimes...

He said In America if you aren't convicted of a criminal offense you aren't guilty of anything...

Can we all agree that statement is 100% wrong?


The civil standard is more accurately described as "preponderance of the evidence"

Jus sayin'

 

[BamaFan1137]

You just admitted that without any evidence you don't support the prosecution of donald trump in regards to the documents he was caught stealing, destroying & lying about

Without evidence I wouldn't support the prosecution of anyone...you freaking dolt.

That's how you prefer selective prosecution for "certain people"

No goofball...I'm saying that if we're going to do this sort of thing to one parties candidate, we must do it to all of them.

If we're going to put people like Trump in jail for doing the things that you believe that he has done...fine. But then we also need to start putting people like Hillary in jail for the things we believe she's done.

And let's be honest, it wouldn't stop at those two.

IMHO it's dangerous as hell to start putting political rivals in jail for the things people believe that Hillary and Trump have done. It's banana republic sh1t...even though they are both probably guilty of these things (If not, certainly other similar actions).

But if you want to start doing it...fine. My point was and still is....equal application of the law (see blind justice).

Your lesson of the day endeths here sir.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Can we all agree that statement is 100% wrong?

No...he was referring to criminal charges, was he not?

I've been a busy boy and I haven't read all of the above...scanning it all, that was what he was referring to, no?

 

[BamaFan1137]

The civil standard is more accurately described as "preponderance of the evidence"

And how would you define the preponderance of evidence, smart-ass?

 

[RayGravesGhost]

No...he was referring to criminal charges, was he not?

I've been a busy boy and I haven't read all of the above...scanning it all, that was what he was referring to, no?

People who aren't convicted of a crime aren't guilty of anything.

This is America, not Russia or China.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Without evidence I wouldn't support the prosecution of anyone...you freaking dolt.





No goofball...I'm saying that if we're going to do this sort of thing to one parties candidate, we must do it to all of them.

We did...wasn't Hillary Clinton investigated?

If we're going to put people like Trump in jail for doing the things that you believe that he has done...fine. But then we also need to start putting people like Hillary in jail for the things we believe she's done.

And let's be honest, it wouldn't stop at those two.

I guess you've forgotten Nixon (political pardon) and Spiro Agnew?

Seems to me facing criminal prosecution and being pardoned for political affiliation is "blind justice" in your estimation

IMHO it's dangerous as hell to start putting political rivals in jail for the things people believe that Hillary and Trump have done. It's banana republic sh1t...even though they are both probably guilty of these things (If not, certainly other similar actions).

Is it a banana republic shift for pardoning Nixon?

Spiro Agnew was found guilty but that didn't prosecute him on his most serious charges (conspiracy) because the republican party got him to resign his position the day he went to court

Is that banana republic stuff or not?

But if you want to start doing it...fine. My point was and still is....equal application of the law (see blind justice).

Whaddya mean "start"? 🤣

Your lesson of the day endeths here sir.

I think you need to learn some more about US history if you think this is the first time we've faced this as a nation.

If you knew better then we wouldn't have all of the resistance to what's happening to trump because the evidence of what he's done is far worse than any POTUS ever in our history

 

[JimGaster]

I’d love to see this fraudulent, illegitimate POTUS & has Gestapo try and say Trump can’t run in 2024…

There is no way I’m ever going to fortune enough to see that!

 

[RayGravesGhost]

While you typed up this gem, I was wrapping up a capital murder case.

Not bad for Paul Blart if I do say so myself.

That's outstanding...Just glad you weren't involved in this clusterf*ck

 

[nothergator]

I'm speaking of your personal bar...

It seems you're all good if he isn't put on trial
Plenty of guilty people never even get indicted....let alone go to trial or jail

Are you thinking about Hunter Biden?

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Are you thinking about Hunter Biden?

Could be...have you ever seen me make a statement about Hunter Biden?

Investigate him

Why do trumpanzees on the other hand scream that trump shouldn't be investigated?

 

[DC407]

Could be...have you ever seen me make a statement about Hunter Biden?

Investigate him

Why do trumpanzees on the other hand scream that trump shouldn't be investigated?

They know he's guilty just because he's sloppy and reckless.

 

[BillCutting4585]

They know he's guilty just because he's sloppy and reckless.

So sloppy and reckless constitutes a crime?

 

[NavigatorII]

They know he's guilty just because he's sloppy and reckless.

 

[NavigatorII]

So sloppy and reckless constitutes a crime?

If that were the case, Bill Clinton would be in Leavenworth. 😂

 

[BillCutting4585]

If that were the case, Bill Clinton would be in Leavenworth. 😂

A few decades ago

 

[NavigatorII]

A few decades ago

Yep...........and in a twist of role reversals, it's Hillary who is the cuck in the relationship.

 

[BamaFan1137]

We did...wasn't Hillary Clinton investigated?




I guess you've forgotten Nixon (political pardon) and Spiro Agnew?

Seems to me facing criminal prosecution and being pardoned for political affiliation is "blind justice" in your estimation



Is it a banana republic shift for pardoning Nixon?

Spiro Agnew was found guilty but that didn't prosecute him on his most serious charges (conspiracy) because the republican party got him to resign his position the day he went to court

Is that banana republic stuff or not?




Whaddya mean "start"? 🤣




I think you need to learn some more about US history if you think this is the first time we've faced this as a nation.

If you knew better then we wouldn't have all of the resistance to what's happening to trump because the evidence of what he's done is far worse than any POTUS ever in our history

Sigh....I've got to stop wasting my valuable time with you. You miss the point on purpose...so what is the actual point?

I can't find one.

 

[BamaFan1137]

That's outstanding...Just glad you weren't involved in this clusterf*ck

View embedded media

Didn't watch.

They don't appear to be at a mall btw. 😂

 

[RayGravesGhost]

bama's best reply for Alabama's finest is he stuck his head in the sand and missed it 🤣

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Are you still employed bama?

https://www.al.com/news/2022/08/thi...ts-so-it-disbanded-the-entire-department.html

This Alabama city couldn’t fire cops who sent racist texts, so it disbanded the entire department​

• Published: Aug. 18, 2022, 11:06 p.m.