Not working out according to plan: Trump starting to run away from Biden

[2012Bearcat]

There is a very simple explanation for why the DOJ chose not to prosecute Trump, and it has nothing to do with whether the DOJ thought the case was open and shut. Do you even know what this simple explanation is?

According to you Obviously not. Why don't you share your legal opinion on why the DOJ didn't prosecute Trump. Naturally you will avoid this in an effort to keep from going on record that could be held against you later. That's what attorneys do.

There is no open and shut guilt regarding President Biden and Hillary Clinton. The legal standard to charge both was not met. And the legal reasoning for this is sound and backed up by the evidence.

You believe it is open and shut because of your political biases. But we don't charge people in this country based on your political biases.

It's real simple, Did or didn't Biden have classified documents he was not legally allowed to have? Since the answer is unquestionable yes, he broke the law and should be prosecuted. Nothing political about it.
Did Hillary destroy evidence or did she not? Did she or did she not conduct government business on a private server? Again unquestionable, she did and broke the law. Nothing political about that at all, she should have been prosecuted.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

According to you Obviously not. Why don't you share your legal opinion on why the DOJ didn't prosecute Trump. Naturally you will avoid this in an effort to keep from going on record that could be held against you later. That's what attorneys do.

It's real simple, Did or didn't Biden have classified documents he was not legally allowed to have? Since the answer is unquestionable yes, he broke the law and should be prosecuted. Nothing political about it.
Did Hillary destroy evidence or did she not? Did she or did she not conduct government business on a private server? Again unquestionable, she did and broke the law. Nothing political about that at all, she should have been prosecuted.

I am not trained in law. Many aqaintences are. Oh drat! These aquaintences know as little about law as 2012Bearcat.

I'll say it again. I don't believe any of us will have to give a thought to my_20mils passing the Arkansas bar. Hillary passed the Arkansas Bar after failing the DC Bar.

 

[my_2cents]

And yet 2pesos is the one who runs and hides.

Where or when have I ran and hid from this thread? I'm right here.

 

[my_2cents]

I'll say it again. I don't believe any of us will have to give a thought to my_20mils passing the Arkansas bar. Hillary passed the Arkansas Bar after failing the DC Bar.

I passed the Florida bar on my first try. I'm sure if I wanted to pass the Arkansas bar, I could. btw, today, if one passes the Arkansas bar (UBE), one can also then be admitted to the D.C. bar.

How many state bar exams have you passed?

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

I passed the Florida bar on my first try. I'm sure if I wanted to pass the Arkansas bar, I could. btw, today, if one passes the Arkansas bar (UBE), one can also then be admitted to the D.C. bar.

How many state bar exams have you passed?

None. I've never studied law. I know lawyers. I sometimes show them declarations posted by you. They laugh.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I passed the Florida bar on my first try. I'm sure if I wanted to pass the Arkansas bar, I could. btw, today, if one passes the Arkansas bar (UBE), one can also then be admitted to the D.C. bar.

How many state bar exams have you passed?

Had a good friend that just passed away who was a lawyer. He was a heavy equipment operator that got pissed off over some sort of legal issue, didn't like the way it was being handled and decided to become a lawyer to handle the case himself. He went to law school passed the bar and ended up winning the case. He told me running heavy equipment was harder than becoming a practicing lawyer. Who knows just what he said. He was a great guy who I had many good time with, he will be missed.

 

[my_2cents]

Why don't you share your legal opinion on why the DOJ didn't prosecute Trump. Naturally you will avoid this in an effort to keep from going on record that could be held against you later. That's what attorneys do.

I asked you if you know what the very simple explanation is. I am not going to tell you until you let us know if you even know what it is.

So do you know what this simple explanation is? Yes or no? If yes, what is it?

It's real simple, Did or didn't Biden have classified documents he was not legally allowed to have? Since the answer is unquestionable yes, he broke the law and should be prosecuted. Nothing political about it.

Sorry, but it isn't that simple legally.

What has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt isn't just that Biden had classified documents he was not legally allowed to have. There are other elements to the crime that also must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Did Hillary destroy evidence or did she not? Did she or did she not conduct government business on a private server? Again unquestionable, she did and broke the law. Nothing political about that at all, she should have been prosecuted.

And again, what has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is more than what you are discussing here. There are other elements that have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is what you keep ignoring.

 

[my_2cents]

None.

You don't say? lol

 

[my_2cents]

He told me running heavy equipment was harder than becoming a practicing lawyer.

I wouldn't disagree with him.

There are many jobs that are harder than becoming a practicing lawyer. There are many jobs harder than being a practicing lawyer.

It also depends on the person as well.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I asked you if you know what the very simple explanation is. I am not going to tell you until you let us know if you even know what it is.

So do you know what this simple explanation is? Yes or no? If yes, what is it?


Sorry, but it isn't that simple legally.

What has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt isn't just that Biden had classified documents he was not legally allowed to have. There are other elements to the crime that also must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


And again, what has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is more than what you are discussing here. There are other elements that have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is what you keep ignoring.

Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 makes it a federal crime to knowingly remove classified documents or materials from their designated locations without authorization or retain them in an unauthorized area. Simply put, this federal statute deals with the unauthorized removal of classified documents.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. You either did or didn't.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Where or when have I ran and hid from this thread? I'm right here.

Yes. And you’ll soon be gone for another six months.

 

[my_2cents]

Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 makes it a federal crime to knowingly remove classified documents or materials from their designated locations without authorization or retain them in an unauthorized area. Simply put, this federal statute deals with the unauthorized removal of classified documents.

Why didn't you keep on reading the article you cut and pasted this from? All you had to do was scroll down where you would have read this:

"First, for an individual to be convicted of this crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt three elements:

1. The defendant was a government officer or employee, contractor, or another person who lawfully had custody and control of classified documents;

2. The defendant unlawfully and knowingly removed such documents from their designated locations; and

3. The defendant intended to retain such documents at an unauthorized location."

Notice the second element. "Unlawfully and knowingly." Those words have legal meanings. They deal with mens rea, criminal intent.

In order to be found guilty of this charge, each of these elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element, including element two. And it was determined by a legal investigation that all of these elements could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, no charges.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. You either did or didn't.

But it isn't as cut and dry as "you either did it or didn't." This is what you either or ignoring or failing to understand.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Why didn't you keep on reading the article you cut and pasted this from? All you had to do was scroll down where you would have read this:

"First, for an individual to be convicted of this crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt three elements:

1. The defendant was a government officer or employee, contractor, or another person who lawfully had custody and control of classified documents;

2. The defendant unlawfully and knowingly removed such documents from their designated locations; and

3. The defendant intended to retain such documents at an unauthorized location."

Notice the second element. "Unlawfully and knowingly." Those words have legal meanings. They deal with mens rea, criminal intent.

In order to be found guilty of this charge, each of these elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element, including element two. And it was determined by a legal investigation that all of these elements could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, no charges.


But it isn't as cut and dry as "you either did it or didn't." This is what you either or ignoring or failing to understand.

If he sticks to his normal pattern now that he knows it he’ll ignore it.

 

[my_2cents]

And you’ll soon be gone for another six months.

Just because someone doesn't post on this board every day or decides to take an extended break from this board doesn't mean they are "running and hiding."

lol, seriously man, are you six now?🤣

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Just because someone doesn't post on this board every day or decides to take an extended break from this board doesn't mean they are "running and hiding."

lol, seriously man, are you six now?🤣

No. Just a person with a grasp on reality.

 

[my_2cents]

No. Just a person with a grasp on reality.

lol, thanks for this joke.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Why didn't you keep on reading the article you cut and pasted this from? All you had to do was scroll down where you would have read this:

"First, for an individual to be convicted of this crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt three elements:

1. The defendant was a government officer or employee, contractor, or another person who lawfully had custody and control of classified documents;

2. The defendant unlawfully and knowingly removed such documents from their designated locations; and

3. The defendant intended to retain such documents at an unauthorized location."

Notice the second element. "Unlawfully and knowingly." Those words have legal meanings. They deal with mens rea, criminal intent.

In order to be found guilty of this charge, each of these elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element, including element two. And it was determined by a legal investigation that all of these elements could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, no charges.


But it isn't as cut and dry as "you either did it or didn't." This is what you either or ignoring or failing to understand.

LMAO. Both Biden and Hillary were in government at the time they has custody and control of classified document.
Both knowingly and willing removed documents from their designated locations. Biden had documents from secure skiffs, knew it was illegal and willingly took them. Hillary had classified document on her private server, knew it was illegal and willingly set up and received those documents on her private server.
Biden's garage nor his multiple offices were authorized locations, neither was Hillary's private server.
Strange how all of the criteria is met to at the very least prosecute but the powers that be didn't allow it to go that far.

 

[my_2cents]

Both knowingly and willing removed documents from their designated locations.

Do you know what the legal definition of "knowingly" (as used in this statute and would be used in the jury instructions) is? Yes or no? And if so, would you please provide that definition.

Strange how all of the criteria is met to at the very least prosecute but the powers that be didn't allow it to go that far.

Again, all the criteria was not met. Each element was not able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Do you know what the legal definition of "knowingly" (as used in this statute and would be used in the jury instructions) is? Yes or no? And if so, would you please provide that definition.


Again, all the criteria was not met. Each element was not able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

LMAO, it was all merle an oversight right 2 cents. SMFH

 

[my_2cents]

LMAO, it was all merle an oversight right 2 cents. SMFH

Again, . . .
Do you know what the legal definition of "knowingly" (as used in this statute and would be used in the jury instructions) is? Yes or no? And if so, would you please provide that definition.

Also, there is a very simple explanation for why the DOJ chose not to prosecute Trump, and it has nothing to do with whether the DOJ thought the case was open and shut. Do you even know what this simple explanation is?

Don't start dodging, deflecting, and ignoring the questions you don't want to (or can't?) answer. Answer them.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Again, . . .
Do you know what the legal definition of "knowingly" (as used in this statute and would be used in the jury instructions) is? Yes or no? And if so, would you please provide that definition.

Also, there is a very simple explanation for why the DOJ chose not to prosecute Trump, and it has nothing to do with whether the DOJ thought the case was open and shut. Do you even know what this simple explanation is?

Don't start dodging, deflecting, and ignoring the questions you don't want to (or can't?) answer. Answer them.

to commit an act "knowingly" is to do so with knowledge or awareness of the facts or situation, and not because of mistake, accident or some other innocent reason
the act was done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

to commit an act "knowingly" is to do so with knowledge or awareness of the facts or situation, and not because of mistake, accident or some other innocent reason
the act was done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident.

Careful there. That’s borderline mAnSpLaInInG

 

[my_2cents]

to commit an act "knowingly" is to do so with knowledge or awareness of the facts or situation, and not because of mistake, accident or some other innocent reason
the act was done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident.

Thank you.

Now, what did the investigations find concerning this element? What legal reasoning (in light of the evidence) was given for whether or not this element of the crime could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

And cite the findings of the legal investigation, not your own opinion.

 

[osu_orangestreak]

You guys are missing the obstruction of justice part of it.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Yes. And you’ll soon be gone for another six months.

I've answered this question for the board's slow. Do you believe they can remember the correct answer?

With a magic marker, can you make a straight line on a softball?

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

You don't say? lol

I do say. Do you lack skills with the dominant West Germanic language?

 

[my_2cents]

I do say. Do you lack skills with the dominant West Germanic language?

That comment went right over your head, didn't it?

🤣🤣

Allow me to help you with the dominate West Germanic language . . .

Link

Do I need to define "lol" for you too?🤣

 

[my_2cents]

I've answered this question for the board's slow. Do you believe they can remember the correct answer?

With a magic marker, can you make a straight line on a softball?

I don't have to remember anything you've posted in the past to answer that silly question.

The answer is no.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Thank you.

Now, what did the investigations find concerning this element? What legal reasoning (in light of the evidence) was given for whether or not this element of the crime could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

And cite the findings of the legal investigation, not your own opinion.

Joe was an well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.

 

[my_2cents]

Joe was an well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.

I asked you to cite the actual findings. Not give your opinion or synopsis.

Did you even read the whole special counsel report or did you allow it to be filtered to you through right-wing sources? Be honest.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

I've answered this question for the board's slow. Do you believe they can remember the correct answer?

With a magic marker, can you make a straight line on a softball?

Isn't a softball round?

 

[2012Bearcat]

I asked you to cite the actual findings. Not give your opinion or synopsis.

Did you even read the whole special counsel report or did you allow it to be filtered to you through right-wing sources? Be honest.

Did you not read the Hur report. That is damn near exactly what he said on why he couldn't get a conviction.

 

[my_2cents]

Did you not read the Hur report.

Yes I read the report and it is rather clear from this discussion that you didn't read it.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Yes I read the report and it is rather clear from this discussion that you didn't read it.

Did Hur say that in the report or not?

Hmmm, why yes he did
In opting not to bring charges, Hur, who was appointed by former President Trump to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland in 2017, cited the shortage of evidence, but also how Biden would present himself to a jury.

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur wrote.

“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Oh and the shortage of evidence? What shortage, the documents Biden should have never had found in Biden's garage, offices and other non secured locations? LMAO indefensible.

Loading…

thehill.com

 

[Ponca Dan]

Did Hur say that in the report or not?

Hmmm, why yes he did
In opting not to bring charges, Hur, who was appointed by former President Trump to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland in 2017, cited the shortage of evidence, but also how Biden would present himself to a jury.

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur wrote.

“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Oh and the shortage of evidence? What shortage, the documents Biden should have never had found in Biden's garage, offices and other non secured locations? LMAO indefensible.

Loading…

thehill.com

God forbid I ever get caught supporting @my_2cents. But you keep showing your ass in this thread. He says he read the *actual report* while you’re countering with a news article saying what he said. Now please excuse me while I go scrub my hands.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

God forbid I ever get caught supporting @my_2cents. But you keep showing your ass in this thread. He says he read the *actual report* while you’re countering with a news article saying what he said. Now please excuse me while I go scrub my hands.

Take a shower.

 

[2012Bearcat]

God forbid I ever get caught supporting @my_2cents. But you keep showing your ass in this thread. He says he read the *actual report* while you’re countering with a news article saying what he said. Now please excuse me while I go scrub my hands.

LMAO if he read the report he would have know that is what Hur said.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

I don't have to remember anything you've posted in the past to answer that silly question.

The answer is no.

Your answer is correct. 79% of the 56 members of my class room incorrectly answered yes. Where your failure is glaring? You label the questing as "silly." This is a common trait among your kind.

 

[Ponca Dan]

LMAO if he read the report he would have know that is what Hur said.

How would you know? You didn’t read the report.

 

[2012Bearcat]

How would you know? You didn’t read the report.

It's real simple, did Hur say this in his report or not? I'm sorry Catlin is not reporting on this for you to believe it. She's to busy pushing Hamas propaganda to bother with it so we will have to rely on other journalist and verify it ourselves.

Page 6 of the Hur report. It's online if you would like to verify what is being reported.
Copy and pasted from the report.
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Eiden would likely present himselfto a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning,elderly man with a poor memory.

Loading…

www.justice.gov