All Of A Sudden The Six Classified Items Seized From Biden Turn Into 300+

[jomar]

Worse, there's no requirement to help the government gather evidence to use to convict you. In fact, there's the 5th Amendment which says you can't be forced to do that.

Apparently asserting your rights is a crime to the Left.

Trump: You don’t plead the fifth unless you’ve got something to hide, probably criminal, I’m just saying

Trump testifying under oath: I plead the fifth for the hundredth time, you honor

 

[HisArpy]

Trump: You don’t plead the fifth unless you’ve got something to hide, probably criminal, I’m just saying

Trump testifying under oath: I plead the fifth for the hundredth time, you honor

And?

It's almost like you think that requiring the government to obey the constitution is a crime.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So it's a crime to require the government to get a warrant to search your stuff?

Wow, who knew...

lol , To get a warrant you need evidence, judges don't just sign off on them. Surprise they found evidence, justifying the warrant. Keep going down the road "Councillor", between you and ican't, the pretzel making of logic by you two is a source of great humour.

 

[jomar]

And?

It's almost like you think that requiring the government to obey the constitution is a crime.

It’s almost like you miss the point ever damn time!

 

[HisArpy]

It’s almost like you miss the point ever damn time!

Nope.

if you have a different point then make it clearly and unequivocally. It is NOT a crime to require the government do their fucking job and get a warrant. It's also not a crime to demand that they produce a warrant before they can enter. Nor is it a crime or hypocritical to say one thing on the campaign trail and another in private life.

So, given the above, what's this supposed point I'm missing?

 

[HisArpy]

lol , To get a warrant you need evidence, judges don't just sign off on them. Surprise they found evidence, justifying the warrant. Keep going down the road "Councillor", between you and ican't, the pretzel making of logic by you two is a source of great humour.

No.

To get a warrant all that's required is "reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime is in the place to be searched." To prove that reasonable suspicion the police have to file an affidavit which details the specific crime, the specific evidence sought, and the specific place to be searched.

This is a very low bar. In this case Trump allowed the archivist to come to Mar A Lago and look through the boxes of papers he had. The archivist examined the docs, took what they wanted, and told Trump to lock everything else up in the storeroom. Trump did that.

The very next thing that happened was the search based on a warrant.

Gee, I wonder where the cops got the information they needed to get that warrant? Maybe the archivist told them? Maybe they did it AFTER they had access to the docs and took everything they said they wanted leaving behind incriminating evidence against the ex President they hated?

I don't know if it's true but it's within the realm of possibility that the docs were planted or the situation manufactured just to "get Trump." Even if that's not the case, all the cops needed was the archivist to reveal the presence of classified materials. That would be enough to satisfy the requirement of reasonable suspicion and get a warrant.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No.

To get a warrant all that's required is "reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime is in the place to be searched." To prove that reasonable suspicion the police have to file an affidavit which details the specific crime, the specific evidence sought, and the specific place to be searched.

Thanks for admitting there was reasonable suspicion.

Gee, I wonder where the cops got the information they needed to get that warrant? Maybe the archivist told them? Maybe they did it AFTER they had access to the docs and took everything they said they wanted leaving behind incriminating evidence against the ex President they hated?

Yes, it's because everyone hates Trump,that's your go to. I suggest you take a seat, and relax with a cold glass of carbon based water. We all know that makes you feel better.

I don't know if it's true but it's within the realm of possibility that the docs were planted or the situation manufactured just to "get Trump."

LMFAO, sure they were. They just waltz in past the SS details carrying file cases. Then throw them on the floor, waiting for the FBI to show up and search. I guess the cleaning staff were slacking that day (s). But hey there also Illegals and you know how "lazy" they are....

Even if that's not the case, all the cops needed was the archivist to reveal the presence of classified materials. That would be enough to satisfy the requirement of reasonable suspicion and get a warrant.

Thanks again for highlighting the "reasonable suspicion".

 

[HisArpy]

Thanks for admitting there was reasonable suspicion.

As I said, it's a low bar to clear.

Yes, it's because everyone hates Trump,that's your go to. I suggest you take a seat, and relax with a cold glass of carbon based water. We all know that makes you feel better.

Total fail on your part as an attempt to discredit what you don't understand. The timing is suspicious as was the specific things to be sought in the specific place to be searched. To me it's plausible that the archivist (or staff) LEAKED the information to the police for the specific purpose of the cops getting the warrant and executing it against Trump.

LMFAO, sure they were. They just waltz in past the SS details carrying file cases. Then throw them on the floor, waiting for the FBI to show up and search. I guess the cleaning staff were slacking that day (s). But hey there also Illegals and you know how "lazy" they are....

It would be simple to do since they are the archivist (or staff) and have preclearance. All the SS would do is check for weapons or explosives and pass them through. They would not examine any documents or contents of any folders other than the standard machine scan.

Thanks again for highlighting the "reasonable suspicion".

Not my fault you don't know anything until after I explain it to you. Perhaps you need to change your hydration methodology.

 

[jomar]

Nope.

if you have a different point then make it clearly and unequivocally. It is NOT a crime to require the government do their fucking job and get a warrant. It's also not a crime to demand that they produce a warrant before they can enter. Nor is it a crime or hypocritical to say one thing on the campaign trail and another in private life.

I’m not even in the warrant conversation at all. You’re not keeping track of your conversations

So, given the above, what's this supposed point I'm missing?

As I said, the above is irrelevant to our back and forth.

But to the point, you said: Worse, there's no requirement to help the government gather evidence to use to convict you. In fact, there's the 5th Amendment which says you can't be forced to do that.

Apparently asserting your rights is a crime to the Left.

To which I joked:
Trump: You don’t plead the fifth unless you’ve got something to hide, probably criminal, I’m just saying

Trump testifying under oath: I plead the fifth for the hundredth time, you honor

You responded, possibly thinking of your warrant conversation: And? It's almost like you think that requiring the government to obey the constitution is a crime.

I then said: It’s almost like you miss the point ever damn time!

Which brings us up to your quoted post above. So the point is, while it is one’s right to plead the fifth, based on trump’s own statement his taking the fifth meant he had something to hide, probably criminal in nature. It’s not complicated if you can keep things straight.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

As I said, it's a low bar to clear.

Yes, but one Trump cleared.

Total fail on your part as an attempt to discredit what you don't understand.

Excuse me? I don't understand? I'm not the one running around like a chicken whit his head cut off, defending Trump. That's you.In fact if you check my posting I have not once ever said he's guilty, that is for a Jury to decide. What I have said is;there is a mountain of evidence showing Trump did in fact obstruct the investigation.

The timing is suspicious as was the specific things to be sought in the specific place to be searched. To me it's plausible that the archivist (or staff) LEAKED the information to the police for the specific purpose of the cops getting the warrant and executing it against Trump.

Leaked...lmfao ,how about they actually reported it. That is plausible. Someone knew he was lying about having turned in the records and told the FBI. Just because you're a loyal little lemming, doesn't mean everyone is.

It would be simple to do since they are the archivist (or staff) and have preclearance. All the SS would do is check for weapons or explosives and pass them through. They would not examine any documents or contents of any folders other than the standard machine scan.

Yah sure, simple in your mind. The pictures however paint a whole other story....bathroom full, a stage covered in them, files scattered all over the floor. Yep simple.

So simple you can go do that to Biden's garage. In fact I'll bet it was a plant, both on Biden and Pence. I blame it on disgruntled Ex Trump sycophants.

Not my fault you don't know anything until after I explain it to you. Perhaps you need to change your hydration methodology.

The only thing you have ever explained his how absolutely fucking stupid you are.

Are you suggesting carbon based water? Myself I prefer the regular H2O.

 

[HisArpy]

Which brings us up to your quoted post above. So the point is, while it is one’s right to plead the fifth, based on trump’s own statement his taking the fifth meant he had something to hide, probably criminal in nature. It’s not complicated if you can keep things straight.

Fine, let's explore this.

Do you know that an accused pleading the 5th and refusing to take the stand and testify in his own defense cannot be used as evidence either for or against the accused?

Do you know that if a jury does use it as part of their verdict either way, it is juror misconduct and results in an immediate mistrial?

Do you know that if a prosecutor even refers to it in passing that prosecutor is subject to mandatory reporting to the bar for discipline?


And yet here you are saying that, based on his political campaign statements, if Trump had nothing to hide he wouldn't have asserted his rights as if none of the above ever made it into your thought process. If a court of law cannot use that act either way, why should you do so just to raise a point that cannot be used anywhere except as a false political narrative that Trump is a hypocrite?

I suspect that we all have fallen into the same situation. Which makes me wonder why Trump gets to be singled out for doing the same? Personal animus against him seems to be the reasonable explanation. Which has no place in a court of law or political discussion of the legal facts and ramifications.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fine, let's explore this.

Damn I thought you were going to explain why Trump said "anyone who invokes the 5th is a criminal trying to hide their guilty, but Trump then went on to claim the 5th over 100 times. So using Trump's own words, he must be a criminal?

That's what I thought the explanation was going to be about. Explaining what Trump said and why what he did jives. Either he's a criminal, or he was wrong about people pleading the 5th. Which is it?

 

[HisArpy]

As an illustration of what I mean by the above let me say this:

I believe Bill Clinton was an excellent President.

I also believe he was a horrible boss in a stress filled environment and that led him to do illegal things when questioned about his and Lewinsky's relationship.

I do not confuse the 2 issues. His lying under oath does not detract from his Presidential successes. Nor does it make him a bad President. It does make him suck as a person but that's irrelevant to his holding office.

OTOH, most anti-Trump voices do exactly what I do not. They mix the 2 positions (the man and the office) as if they are one and the same and then denigrate the office because of dislike of the man. It is to that which I object.

 

[Bray123]

Who cares what documents Biden had in his garage? He had the power to declassify them in hindsight by the power of mere thought.

 

[HisArpy]

Who cares what documents Biden had in his garage? He had the power to declassify them in hindsight by the power of mere thought.

Lol.

Biden NEVER had that authority when he UNLAWFULLY possessed classified materials as a Senator or VP.

Please try to keep up.

 

[Bray123]

Lol.

Biden NEVER had that authority when he UNLAWFULLY possessed classified materials as a Senator or VP.

Please try to keep up.

I said, 'with hindsight'. Try to keep up, counsellor.

 

[HisArpy]

I said, 'with hindsight'. Try to keep up, counsellor.

Lol, you relying on a self created fiction doesn't change the reality. Biden NEVER had the authority and does not now have the ability to give it to himself retroactively.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I said, 'with hindsight'. Try to keep up, counsellor.

He's already put on his "blinders", running away from explaining a simple problem....

Damn I thought you were going to explain why Trump said "anyone who invokes the 5th is a criminal trying to hide their guilty, but Trump then went on to claim the 5th over 100 times. So using Trump's own words, he must be a criminal?

That's what I thought the explanation was going to be about. Explaining what Trump said and why what he did jives. Either he's a criminal, or he was wrong about people pleading the 5th. Which is it?

 

[jomar]

Fine, let's explore this.

Do you know that an accused pleading the 5th and refusing to take the stand and testify in his own defense cannot be used as evidence either for or against the accused?

Yes

Do you know that if a jury does use it as part of their verdict either way, it is juror misconduct and results in an immediate mistrial?

Irrelevant to the conversation

Do you know that if a prosecutor even refers to it in passing that prosecutor is subject to mandatory reporting to the bar for discipline?

Ditto

And yet here you are saying that, based on his political campaign statements, if Trump had nothing to hide he wouldn't have asserted his rights as if none of the above ever made it into your thought process.

So are you agreeing that trump is a liar?

If a court of law cannot use that act either way, why should you do so just to raise a point that cannot be used anywhere except as a false political narrative that Trump is a hypocrite?

I‘m not in a court of law. And why is it a false political narrative? Trump said one thing about taking the fifth implying guilt and did that exact thing when it helped him. And trump being a hypocrite is beyond doubt

I suspect that we all have fallen into the same situation. Which makes me wonder why Trump gets to be singled out for doing the same? Personal animus against him seems to be the reasonable explanation. Which has no place in a court of law or political discussion of the legal facts and ramifications.

Taking the high road today, eh? Trump gets singled out for things because of his statements and behavior, he thrives on it or he’d simmer down. I agree that personal animus should be set aside in a court of law, but please don’t pretend innocence of it yourself in these threads regarding other posters and Biden.

 

[stxjimmy]

I don't know if it's true but it's within the realm of possibility that the docs were planted or the situation manufactured just to "get Trump." Even if that's not the case, all the cops needed was the archivist to reveal the presence of classified materials. That would be enough to satisfy the requirement of reasonable suspicion and get a warrant.

Not even trump has claimed anything so preposterous, think about your legal reputation and don’t end up like habba.