@mott-the-hoople saidThe one who might (there was a question mark after Big Guy in the email) have been earmarked for 10% of the profits from a deal that never happened?
“But absent their use for illegal or other nefarious purposes”
tell us who “the big guy” is …thx
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI left paralegals long ago, and also have limited Code access, not that I can travel through all of that anyway.
Ok, how about this:
You tell me exactly what section of the US Code you think Biden violated and I'll look at it and tell you whether I think he did and if it warrants criminal charges based on what we know now.
Mind you, DOJ has already appointed a Special Prosecutor for this case.
So, just as you rely on Rachel Maddow for your news, I rely on people like Brit Hume and Gingrich and the many lawyers interviewed on talk shows. To the last man, he broke the law. So I just have to believe them. We will leave it that you think he did not break the law, and I think he did break the law. So we will look back in a month or so and see which one of us is right.
Funny that you advise me here that a DOJ prosecutor has been appointed, when, on the other hand, you think that this is a trivial matter, which begs the question…. why are you all about the special prosecutor when you should be saying there is no reason for a special prosecutor?
You libs give us all a headache.
@averagejoe1 saidI've never watched Rachel Maddow. The US code is available online here: https://uscode.house.gov/
I left paralegals long ago, and also have limited Code access, not that I can travel through all of that anyway.
So, just as you rely on Rachel Maddow for your news, I rely on people like Brit Hume and Gingrich and the many lawyers interviewed on talk shows. To the last man, he broke the law. So I just have to believe them. We will leave it that you think he did not ...[text shortened]... you should be saying there is no reason for a special prosecutor?
You libs give us all a headache.
You should try to think for yourself and not rely on Brit Hume and Newt Gingrich.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidPoint made, but time is precious and I am not going through the Code when we can get the answers later***. You win at the moment, as I have no evidence, demonstrative or otherwise, to counter your findings. But I reserve right to file an appeal when the findings come out.
I've never watched Rachel Maddow. The US code is available online here: https://uscode.house.gov/
You should try to think for yourself and not rely on Brit Hume and Newt Gingrich.
Why Newt and Brit? Because I trust them, and Andrew Wilkow and Dan Bongino,, all of whom are on this 24/7. And they won't ruin their reputations with fake news.
Another reason....they make it where I can play golf while they do Code stuff.
*** Can you imagine having spent all the time on Jan 6 hearings like Sonhouse, I would have missed several profitable deal-makings if I had gotten mired in all that. Aint gonna do it. Let me know when Jan. 6 is over.
Factoid: Brit Hume just said this. Unauthorized removal and possession of govt classified documents is illegal under Federal Law. That means if you leave the WH with such documents, there is only ONE place to take them.....the National Archives.
So, if Biden has now been shown to have done same, he has broken the law.....possession of such documents Outside Of The National Archives, is breaking the law.
Could you POSSIBLY address just that.? Say True or False, or muddy it all up, just please comment.
These words are true on its face. Period.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidMeant to say recite the facts to jury, not the law. I am stating the facts, I am not 'thinking for myself'.
PS: Think for myself? So, if am reciting the law to a jury, am I 'thinking for myself', or am I simply stating a legal fact? I am sitting a legal fact, I need not think for myself.
Libs do not answer questions
@averagejoe1 saidWhy are you relying for legal analysis on a man who is not a lawyer, has no legal training and who's only advanced degree is a BA in English? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume
Factoid: Brit Hume just said this. Unauthorized removal and possession of govt classified documents is illegal under Federal Law. That means if you leave the WH with such documents, there is only ONE place to take them.....the National Archives.
So, if Biden has now been shown to have done same, he has broken the law.....possession of such documents Outside Of T ...[text shortened]... or False, or muddy it all up, just please comment.
These words are true on its face. Period.
Biden clearly had authority when he was Vice-President to view and take with him classified documents. The question now is how the documents got into these places and whether there was any intent to use them for illegal or nefarious purposes. Until those questions are answered a simple "he broke the law" is premature at best and political propaganda at worst.
@no1marauder saidso you have a source that we dont?
Why are you relying for legal analysis on a man who is not a lawyer, has no legal training and who's only advanced degree is a BA in English? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume
Biden clearly had authority when he was Vice-President to view and take with him classified documents. The question now is how the documents got into these places and whether there was any ...[text shortened]... ons are answered a simple "he broke the law" is premature at best and political propaganda at worst.
fill us in, what were these documents?
@no1marauder saidThat they are not lawyers is irrelevant. They are smarter than most lawyers, and their resources are as deep as any lawyer who reads the law. Why is that so complicated? Do you know that one need not be a lawyer to become one of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court? And you and I know a lot of unqualified lawyers. And what more qualified person than Gingrich, past Speaker, who in the end will prove you, the lawyer, wrong.
Why are you relying for legal analysis on a man who is not a lawyer, has no legal training and who's only advanced degree is a BA in English? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume
Biden clearly had authority when he was Vice-President to view and take with him classified documents. The question now is how the documents got into these places and whether there was any ...[text shortened]... ons are answered a simple "he broke the law" is premature at best and political propaganda at worst.
It is Brit Hume’s job to interpret all this, and he is right 100% of the time. You are more of an Adam Schiff kind of guy, the lyingest of them all, who himself is calling Biden a bad person. You should change horses. Have you ever admitted you are wrong?
Your para above cannot be correct. He Takes the documents, thus being responsible therefore? And justifies that .”I don’t know nuthin how they got in my garage”.? That’s it for Marauder? Case closed?
@no1marauder saidLord, you googled Hume? We are just having fun here. Google some of his commentary, you will be satisfied with his stuff, trust me. Can’t tell his politics, even keel.
Why are you relying for legal analysis on a man who is not a lawyer, has no legal training and who's only advanced degree is a BA in English? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_Hume
Biden clearly had authority when he was Vice-President to view and take with him classified documents. The question now is how the documents got into these places and whether there was any ...[text shortened]... ons are answered a simple "he broke the law" is premature at best and political propaganda at worst.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidLMAO! Maybe you should start a thread in Spirituality musing about the infallibility of Brit Hume.
That they are not lawyers is irrelevant. They are smarter than most lawyers, and their resources are as deep as any lawyer who reads the law. Why is that so complicated? Do you know that one need not be a lawyer to become one of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court? And you and I know a lot of unqualified lawyers. And what more qualified person than Gingrich, past Speaker, ...[text shortened]... ifies that .”I don’t know nuthin how they got in my garage”.? That’s it for Marauder? Case closed?
The gullibility of right wingers never ceases to amaze; you really are a bunch of sheep.
@mott-the-hoople saidI'm more telling you what questions to ask rather than assuming what Brit Hume tells you must be true.
so you have a source that we dont?
fill us in, what were these documents?