There is also no ambiguity when you say "they're mine" like Biden and Reagan did.
Show me where the FBI came to Biden asking for the return of classified documents and Biden said no. I'll wait.
And after you're done finding that example, please explain how Biden lied, concealed, and obstructed the FBI's investigation into their whereabouts.
he doesn't get to declare classified documents his any more than you or I.
Then why can Biden and Reagan?
Neither of them did. Reagan asserted executive privilege, something Trump could have tried even though he did not have a legitimate case. Instead he lied, concealed, and obstructed. Those are two different things.
So you think some nameless bureaucrats in the justice department own presidential records but the president doesn't.
Do you know what legal entity is? Do you know the difference between an entity and the people working for it?
sometimes you need to use your common sense to say 'that person shouldn't be going to jail for that'
...and then do it 99% until people actually think it's legal waiting for that one time your political rival "breaks the law"...
No former office holder ever took classified documents and then lied, concealed, and obstructed the FBI' investigation afterwards.
You can pretend as many times as you want that this didn't happen, it did. Deal with it.
No, you just used it as an excuse for why you don't have to explain why Biden isn't guilty under your interpretation or justify that your interpretation is correct.
I have explained, multiple times now, how Biden isn't guilty. Biden didn't lie, conceal, and obstruct. Do you know what those words mean? Can you read? How much longer are you going to keep pretending that I'm not making the argument I've been making for months now?
You "don't want to get into legal details" because don't you just feel deep in your gut how evil Trump is?
I have gone way further into the legal details on this topic than you have, but pretending is your MO so of course you'll pretend I haven't.
The reason I would prefer not to get into the legal details is because it's obvious that you really don't care about that. This is all just a distraction to you because you can't defend Trump's actions, so you instead pretend illegality is the bar for a former president and current frontrunner so that you can try to hide the obvious fact that he was wrong in a web of arguments around legal statutes, legal definitions, legal precedent, and legal theory... Because there's so much there that you can use to obfuscate the conversation. That's the only reason we're talking about the law instead of what's right. It's fundamentally dishonest.
See how quickly respect and obedience to those institutions has evaporated without control of the media.
Doesn't address anything I've argued
As far as your interpretation of the law is concerned his actions are precedented by every president and probably every vice president since classification existed.
When you give yourself the luxury of just ignoring the parts that are unprecedented, of course what's left will be precedented. That isn't shocking.
Trump lied, concealed and obstructed. No one else ever has. Deal with it.
You appealed to discretion because the law did not describe his action as criminal, and without that there is no obstruction and no crime to cover up.
I appealed to descretion because the law absolutely describes Trump's behavior, but it takes thought to interpret it, because that's how laws work. But this is the game you play; you can't defend your position so instead you turn this into a debate over whether we should be able to think when asking ourselves whether a person's actions violate a law. It's essentially a version of the nuclear method, if you can't prove your position just blow up all knowledge so that any assertion at all is just as unjustified as yours.
And no you're just wrong; it is not required for an underlying crime to be proven in order for someone to be guilty of obstruction of justice and for obvious reasons, if someone successfully obstructs the investigation then of course the authorities would not be able to find the evidence of the crime. In this case, if Trump's employees did wipe the footage the FBI would probably Jane never had the evidence they needed for the search warrant. So no, you don't get to lie and obstruct regardless of what you did or didn't do.
If the only difference is whether you admit to what you're doing that's not much of a difference is it? I was just predicting democrats aren't fully realizing that it won't be as fun when the victim fights back.
Yeah, this is the difference between us. You have been so conditioned to think of politics as warfare that you can't even fathom that others don't see it that way. That when others hold someone accountable for their crimes out couldn't possibly be due to belief in the rule of law, no it must be lawfare. It's called projection.
Democrats don't "admit" to weaponization the justice department because we haven't. Republicans want to. That's why we're different.
Bill Mahr did a pretty good job of highlighting it here.
