Are they actually facts? And they actually mean what you have to been led to believe?
Be less patronizing if you wanna be taken seriously.
I disagree with chumlee's response but I have my own problem with that evidence you posted, which is that it doesn't actually dispute the charge that people dislike Trump. Rather, it seems to be about Joe Biden having even lower likability than Trump in polling, which is a non sequitur. Trump does indeed seem to have majority unfavorable in favorable/unfavorable polling, just as he has for the vast majority of the past seven years. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.htmlAnyway, my last post concerning evidence was right here. One of your random claims was that "most people dislike Trump". I gave you some direct evidence that for several months now, all major opinion polls have concluded otherwise. Then you proceeded to dodge the actual topic and tried to shift the goalposts in all sorts of novel directions. Remember?
That was the actual quote?THAT ^^^^ was the actual quote delivered by the DOJ to Congress.
No, but it is a paraphrasing.That was the actual quote?
No, but it is a paraphrasing.
'She did it, but without criminal intent' was what the FBI declared.
Not with classified information handling it doesn't.Intent is absolutely something to take into consideration though, and it's very clear that what was done absolutely had no criminal intent and if it weren't the political agenda behind it, it would be a complete non-issue.
It could be taken into account for the purposes of sentencing guidelines. but not for the crime. there are many crimes that require no intent. this is one of them. I also doubt that she didn't intend it. but if they want to say she is a boomer and doesn't understand tech that still isn't actually a defense against the charges. it just says she is dumb not malicious in this instance.Intent is absolutely something to take into consideration though, and it's very clear that what was done absolutely had no criminal intent and if it weren't the political agenda behind it, it would be a complete non-issue.
Eric turns 40 in January."His young life has already been unfairly disturbed and disrupted enough on this corrupt Witch Hunt."
And trump is, what, 81?So let's see if I have this clear. Trump says that his son Eric will not be testifying because ...
Eric turns 40 in January.
77, but afterall what is the significance of four years?And trump is, what, 81?
40 is young compared to that.
It could be taken into account for the purposes of sentencing guidelines. but not for the crime.
Ummm...the investigators don't have the responsibility OR authority to determine that. The DoJ investigators refused to submit the charges to the Federal DAs for further pursuit of criminal charges.Given the context, it was deemed that a sentence was unnecessary.
emphasized the point at issue: The records were behind lock and key in a restricted area. Trump's group further restricted access upon the govt's request. There was no 'just hanging around' nonsense in regard to these documents.How about Trump having classified documents just hanging around Mar-a-lago?
He actually had the authority to declassify it, and while I can't track down a citation I'm pretty sure there was a case confirming implicit use for close to exactly what Trump did with one of the many times an ex-president was found out to have had classified documents laying around. And as The Whispering Monk mentioned, he'd been contacted by the appropriate authority and did as requested.How about Trump having classified documents just hanging around Mar-a-lago? Where's the outrage?
emphasized the point at issue: The records were behind lock and key in a restricted area. Trump's group further restricted access upon the govt's request. There was no 'just hanging around' nonsense in regard to these documents.
He actually had the authority to declassify it, and while I can't track down a citation I'm pretty sure there was a case confirming implicit use for close to exactly what Trump did with one of the many times an ex-president was found out to have had classified documents laying around. And as The Whispering Monk mentioned, he'd been contacted by the appropriate authority and did as requested.
Hence the past-tense and reference to case law establishing implicit use. It's not that it's retroactive, but that the courts accepted "well you trivially could have made this perfectly above-board, we won't begrudge a missing boiler-plate statement".A former President has precisely zero authority to declassify anything. You don't keep powers retroactively.
Hence the past-tense and reference to case law establishing implicit use. It's not that it's retroactive, but that the courts accepted "well you trivially could have made this perfectly above-board, we won't begrudge a missing boiler-plate statement".
By a court.Sounds awfully similar to "there was no criminal intent."
No, because Trump declassified everything he took to MAL, as was his right as POTUS to declass anything he wanted, and the National Archives and Biden decided to play more fuck-fuck games with the DoJ to try to hit Trump for something they lied about and effectively ignored all previous precedent by POTUS's on declassing things.Sounds awfully similar to "there was no criminal intent."