Biden Presidency

[Irish#1]

I don't know that there was so much support for Trump when his classified docs story broke, but more of a let's wait and see given the Russia story was found to have been fabricated.

 

[drayer54]

Oh yes, a hoax.

Do you have the pee tape?

Also- the cooperating thing is amazing to me because we have a DOJ scheduling this crap with lawyers, no leaked pictures of docs on the floor, and releasing carefully worded statements to run PR for the President. His team does this in an environment of minimal media scrutiny because journos shall not criticize a D. The DOJ's use of the word consensual during their analysis is validation that we have two systems of justice.

 

[TorontoGold]

Do you have the pee tape?

Also- the cooperating thing is amazing to me because we have a DOJ scheduling this crap with lawyers, no leaked pictures of docs on the floor, and releasing carefully worded statements to run PR for the President. His team does this in an environment of minimal media scrutiny because journos shall not criticize a D. The DOJ's use of the word consensual during their analysis is validation that we have two systems of justice.

Yeah its a big mystery as to why an FBI agent isn't leaking pictures. Hmm. Classic biased media not covering this, haven't seen a mention of this anywhere.

Yeah certainly two systems, if we know anything about JB is that he's always in some sort of lawsuit and he's just able to get out of it. He just has a bevy of legal issues. I mean...his sons dick! That's got to be a crime....right? But Jim Acosta won't cover it so...that's corruption and crime and also biased.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

 

[Irish#1]

No way this is real. Right? Right? I mean no way a Dem POTUS would take money from foreign governments. It's only those GOP guys who are crooked.

(The Center Square) President Joe Biden is under investigation for holding on to classified documents from his time in the Obama administration, but now lawmakers have a new question: did Chinese money influence Biden’s policies?

“The Penn Biden Center appears to have acted as a foreign-sponsored source of income for much of a Biden Administration in-waiting,” House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said in a letter to Mary Magill, the group’s president.

“Between 2017 and 2019, UPenn paid President Biden more than $900,000, and the university employed at least 10 people at the Penn Biden Center who later became senior Biden administration officials,” Comer wrote. “This level of access and opportunity raises questions about who had access to the classified documents found at the Penn Biden Center.”

Biden's China Ties Come Under Scrutiny Due to Classified Docs Scandal | Headline USA

(The Center Square) President Joe Biden is under investigation for holding on to classified documents from his time in the Obama administration, but now lawmakers have a new question: did Chinese money influence Biden’s policies? The question arose when news broke that some of the classified...

headlineusa.com

 

[SeekNDestroy]

No way this is real. Right? Right? I mean no way a Dem POTUS would take money from foreign governments. It's only those GOP guys who are crooked.

Biden's China Ties Come Under Scrutiny Due to Classified Docs Scandal | Headline USA

(The Center Square) President Joe Biden is under investigation for holding on to classified documents from his time in the Obama administration, but now lawmakers have a new question: did Chinese money influence Biden’s policies? The question arose when news broke that some of the classified...

headlineusa.com

Headlineusa.com 😂

 

[jprue24]

No way this is real. Right? Right? I mean no way a Dem POTUS would take money from foreign governments. It's only those GOP guys who are crooked.

Biden's China Ties Come Under Scrutiny Due to Classified Docs Scandal | Headline USA

(The Center Square) President Joe Biden is under investigation for holding on to classified documents from his time in the Obama administration, but now lawmakers have a new question: did Chinese money influence Biden’s policies? The question arose when news broke that some of the classified...

headlineusa.com

Are you trying to be disingenuous or do you really not see the difference?

 

[Irish#1]

Pence Did Trump Dirty w/ Classified Docs | Headline USA

(Mark Pellin, Headline USA) Instead of former Vice President Mike Pence directing his attorneys to search for classified documents of his own in the wake of the FBI’s raid on his former boss’s Mar-a-Lago home, Pence for unknown reasons failed to act until this month while proclaiming he had no...

headlineusa.com

 

[Irish#1]

Are you trying to be disingenuous or do you really not see the difference?

I've already acknowledged there's a difference. My question to you is why you think Biden having classified documents is less severe? Because of the number of docs? Because he didn't force the government to get a subpoena?

Everyone can see that Biden announced he was cooperating to get out in front of this and try to make this look like a nothing burger.



Trump already gave them the example of what not to do. You think it's a coincidence that Pence did the same thing as Biden?

 

[TorontoGold]

I've already acknowledged there's a difference. My question to you is why you think Biden having classified documents is less severe? Because of the number of docs? Because he didn't force the government to get a subpoena?

Everyone can see that Biden announced he was cooperating to get out in front of this and try to make this look like a nothing burger.



Trump already gave them the example of what not to do. You think it's a coincidence that Pence did the same thing as Biden?

Lol what are you arguing about, just for the sake of it?

Shouldn't you be arguing with Bishop who called the document stuff a hoax?

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

 

[Blazers46]

Lol what are you arguing about, just for the sake of it?

Shouldn't you be arguing with Bishop who called the document stuff a hoax?

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

It’s all hoax. Classified docs or not… the result will be the same.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Lol what are you arguing about, just for the sake of it?

Shouldn't you be arguing with Bishop who called the document stuff a hoax?

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

Whoa! Get your facts straight. I never said anything about the document stuff being a hoax. You need to read more carefully, Toronto.

 

[TorontoGold]

Whoa! Get your facts straight. I never said anything about the document stuff being a hoax. You need to read more carefully, Toronto.

"This wasn't another misleading, overblown, political stunt just before an election or anything, right"

Your words, right? Or no? I guess those words are very totally completely different than hoax.

 

[Irish#1]

The United States National Archives has ignored and missed the House Oversight Committee’s deadline to turn over information about President Joe Biden’s mishandled classified documents, Axios reported.

The committee requested that the National Archives turn in the information by Tuesday, Jan. 24, which came and passed with no word from the Archives regarding the four batches of illegal materials discovered in President Biden’s home. Some of the materials date back to Biden’s time in the U.S. Senate, which ended in 2009, when he assumed the vice presidency.

Per committee spokesman, the USNA’s refusal to cooperate has dragged the investigation from Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., to a halt. “Chairman Comer’s request still stands and anticipates moving forward with a transcribed interview with NARA’s general counsel soon,” the spokesman noted. Comer made the initial request on Jan. 10, before the subsequent batches of classified documents were discovered.

However, the USNA, noted on Jan. 18 that, due to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of a special counsel, that counsel would have to approve any information turned over to Republicans in Congress. Considerable speculation has arisen that special counsel Robert Hur’s appointment may have been part of a DOJ effort to cover up the crimes and thwart the oversight of the new House GOP majority rather than to investigate them for possible prosecution.

But the lack of transparency has fueled even more questions about the handling of the documents as they pass from one administrative-state official to another. Thus far, the White House response, led by press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, has been to avoid any straight answers concerning the nature of the classified documents or the president’s mishandling of those documents.

“After the special counsel was named, but before the FBI searched, President Biden went to his house in Wilmington. What was he doing in there?” Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked. “I would refer you to the White House Counsel’s Office,” Jean-Pierre responded. “So, something relating to this case,” Doocy questioned. “I would refer you to the White House Counsel’s Office,” Jean-Pierre unhelpfully repeated, continuing on to repeat the same line two more times./QUOTE]

 

[Irish#1]

Lol what are you arguing about, just for the sake of it?

Shouldn't you be arguing with Bishop who called the document stuff a hoax?

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

Arguing? jprue24 asked a question. I replied.

 

[jprue24]

I've already acknowledged there's a difference. My question to you is why you think Biden having classified documents is less severe? Because of the number of docs? Because he didn't force the government to get a subpoena?

Everyone can see that Biden announced he was cooperating to get out in front of this and try to make this look like a nothing burger.



Trump already gave them the example of what not to do. You think it's a coincidence that Pence did the same thing as Biden?

It is less severe because of intent. See below why that matters.

1. Does not take away from my point because in this scenario Trump is a "murderer" and Biden and Pence committed "involuntary manslaughter" or something.

2. There is more than one legal standard that applies, "Willful" is a legal standard that gets attached to the level of negligence and that particular legal standard goes a very long way to determining the punishment.

From the DOJ - "An act is done 'willfully' if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids."

910. Knowingly and Willfully

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Reads like intent to me.


Tell me more about those spending 10 years in jail (if any time in jail) for unintentionally mishandling classified information (hint: there aren't any).

Intent is literally the reason the FBI gave for not recommending charges for Hillary Clinton. Here is the FBI saying exactly that.

Just to put a bow on this, here is what US code says.

"Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both." (emphisis mine)

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Bishop2b5]

"This wasn't another misleading, overblown, political stunt just before an election or anything, right"

Your words, right? Or no? I guess those words are very totally completely different than hoax.

I didn't use the word "hoax" in my comment, nor did I intend to suggest that idea, and there was nothing in what I wrote that suggested such. You should consult a dictionary and learn the difference between a hoax and a misleading, overblown, political stunt. There's a world of difference. Even more importantly, don't make the mistake of intentionally misunderstanding, let alone misrepresenting, my views or comments. This thread is full of examples of people who did so and got their feelings hurt in reply. The need to intentionally misrepresent another's view or assertion in order to make it easier to refute or argue against is a dead giveaway of someone who's on the wrong side of an issue or is incapable of holding their own in a factual discussion. There's a phrase for it, too.

You have a habit of arguing in bad faith... straw man arguments, misrepresenting what others say, or flatly refusing to answer difficult questions. If you can't hold your own here without doing those things, that's fine. Say so and I'll expect no better from you. If that's not the case, then don't continue that nonsense with me if you want to be taken seriously and be regarded as a worthy participant in serious, factual, honest discussions. We already have one resident intellectually dishonest nitwit. We don't need another.

 

[TorontoGold]

I didn't use the word "hoax" in my comment, nor did I intend to suggest that idea, and there was nothing in what I wrote that suggested such. You should consult a dictionary and learn the difference between a hoax and a misleading, overblown, political stunt. There's a world of difference. Even more importantly, don't make the mistake of intentionally misunderstanding, let alone misrepresenting, my views or comments. This thread is full of examples of people who did so and got their feelings hurt in reply. The need to intentionally misrepresent another's view or assertion in order to make it easier to refute or argue against is a dead giveaway of someone who's on the wrong side of an issue or is incapable of holding their own in a factual discussion. There's a phrase for it, too.

You have a habit of arguing in bad faith... straw man arguments, misrepresenting what others say, or flatly refusing to answer difficult questions. If you can't hold your own here without doing those things, that's fine. Say so and I'll expect no better from you. If that's not the case, then don't continue that nonsense with me if you want to be taken seriously and be regarded as a worthy participant in serious, factual, honest discussions. We already have one resident intellectually dishonest nitwit. We don't need another.

"Alexa, what is a synonym of hoax?"

I mean, is Merriam-Webster not worthy of the almighty Bishop rules for linguistics and diction? What is that little word in the bottom left...is that mislead? So someone that routinely uses hoax to describe previous investigations and legal matters of DJT, and then now describes a new matter as "misleading" I think it's fair to connect those previous statements together. Consult a thesaurus?

Thesaurus results for HOAX

Synonyms for HOAX: counterfeit, fake, sham, forgery, phony, copy, reproduction, replica; Antonyms of HOAX: original, undeceive, reveal, debunk, expose, show up, unmask, uncover

www.merriam-webster.com

Just say you were wrong, or that your position has changed. I understand you're maybe 30-40 years older than me, but I'm not sure what arena this holier than thou approach works? Do you try this on interns or the paper boy? I'm genuinely curious on how you think people perceive this, because it reeks of "old man yelling at the cloud" levels of meme'ry. Relax dude you ain't Clint Eastwood.

 

[GoIrish41]

I didn't use the word "hoax" in my comment, nor did I intend to suggest that idea, and there was nothing in what I wrote that suggested such. You should consult a dictionary and learn the difference between a hoax and a misleading, overblown, political stunt. There's a world of difference. Even more importantly, don't make the mistake of intentionally misunderstanding, let alone misrepresenting, my views or comments. This thread is full of examples of people who did so and got their feelings hurt in reply. The need to intentionally misrepresent another's view or assertion in order to make it easier to refute or argue against is a dead giveaway of someone who's on the wrong side of an issue or is incapable of holding their own in a factual discussion. There's a phrase for it, too.

You have a habit of arguing in bad faith... straw man arguments, misrepresenting what others say, or flatly refusing to answer difficult questions. If you can't hold your own here without doing those things, that's fine. Say so and I'll expect no better from you. If that's not the case, then don't continue that nonsense with me if you want to be taken seriously and be regarded as a worthy participant in serious, factual, honest discussions. We already have one resident intellectually dishonest nitwit. We don't need another.

Can you explain the difference between disinformation and a hoax … for those of us who don’t see a lick of difference? Thanks!

 

[Bishop2b5]

Toronto, you just spent way too much time & space saying essentially nothing and spinning. Let's be clear. Don't misrepresent what I or anyone else says or means. It's weak.

 

[drayer54]

It is less severe because of intent. See below why that matters.

So how do we know the intent of those docs that his drug addicted and access selling son had access to wasn’t to make money? Are we just assuming Joe is a nice guy and this was just a big ole coincidence?

 

[drayer54]

Can you explain the difference between disinformation and a hoax … for those of us who don’t see a lick of difference? Thanks!

Disinformation is a KJP press conference where she tells blatant lies to steer a political narrative.

A hoax is something you pay a British spy con man for a report alleging cooperation with Russian election collusion and then use the baloney report to obtain a FISA warrant and begin spinning a divisive and damaging narrative to undermine a presidency.

 

[jprue24]

So how do we know the intent of those docs that his drug addicted and access selling son had access to wasn’t to make money? Are we just assuming Joe is a nice guy and this was just a big ole coincidence?

How do we know that Glenn Beck didn't rape and kill a young girl in 1990? Do we just assume she was the type of person who has an autoerotic asphyxiation kink?

 

[jprue24]

So how do we know the intent of those docs that his drug addicted and access selling son had access to wasn’t to make money? Are we just assuming Joe is a nice guy and this was just a big ole coincidence?

It's why there is an investigation going on right now silly.

 

[GoIrish41]

Disinformation is a KJP press conference where she tells blatant lies to steer a political narrative.

A hoax is something you pay a British spy con man for a report alleging cooperation with Russian election collusion and then use the baloney report to obtain a FISA warrant and begin spinning a divisive and damaging narrative to undermine a presidency.

I’m not interested in your garbage analysis … just the definition of the words. Thanks.

 

[TorontoGold]

Toronto, you just spent way too much time & space saying essentially nothing and spinning. Let's be clear. Don't misrepresent what I or anyone else says or means. It's weak.

See, the thing about being tech savy I can whip up a post like that in 5 min tops.

State clearly what was misrepresented. Is mislead not a synonym of hoax? Have you not used hoax in the past?

It's weak to have these Andrew Tate-esque alpha male type posts on an internet forum. Leave the "I'm smart you're dumb" posts at the door, ok? Thanks!

 

[GoIrish41]

See, the thing about being tech savy I can whip up a post like that in 5 min tops.

State clearly what was misrepresented. Is mislead not a synonym of hoax? Have you not used hoax in the past?

It's weak to have these Andrew Tate-esque alpha male type posts on an internet forum. Leave the "I'm smart you're dumb" posts at the door, ok? Thanks!

His post about you calling him out about disinformation and him denying it is peppered with disinformation about his disinformation. That’s all the information you need.

 

[Bishop2b5]

See, the thing about being tech savy I can whip up a post like that in 5 min tops.

State clearly what was misrepresented. Is mislead not a synonym of hoax? Have you not used hoax in the past?

It's weak to have these Andrew Tate-esque alpha male type posts on an internet forum. Leave the "I'm smart you're dumb" posts at the door, ok? Thanks!

Again, don't misrepresent what I say. I always say exactly what I mean. It needs no spin nor reinterpretation from you or anyone else. Don't try to misrepresent it or twist it. If your points are valid, you'll have no need to do so.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Just remember,@jprue24 and @TorontoGold, that @Bishop2b5 is the smartest man in the room (just ask him) and he remembers every utterance he’s ever made.

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Sorry @GoIrish41. I didn’t mean to leave you out of the previous post.

 

[jprue24]

Just remember,@jprue24 and @TorontoGold, that @Bishop2b5 is the smartest man in the room (just ask him) and he remembers every utterance he’s ever made.

I just see him playing semantics to avoid having to square his comments.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯