I'm done (I hope), I can't go round and round any more, I keep getting distracted from a great Agatha Christie movie.

As Laura would say Toodles!

600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and"
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision making, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a "confidential employee" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).

POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS"
I've proven plenty. As has this ruling. Grow up and focus on winning at the ballot box. If you don't think your candidate is capable of that then call on your party to assign someone to prosecute Trump for his unlawful keeping and handling of classified documents WHO IS ELIGIBLE AND QUALIFIED TO DO SO.

#259 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

you blah blahd something about officers, yet all the non-corrupt legal experts say this will be overturned. (I am not saying the SC won't agree-they are corrupted beyond redemption-I'm talking the appellate court).

hey, wanna bet that if it gets overturned you will stop posting on the DR? You, being the legal expert and all, are sure to be right, right?

I will agree to not insult you in any way or fashion for, like, 3 months.

What you say?

So what is your excuse for Biden and the classified documents that he WILLFULLY refused to return to SKFS while in office, i

Blah, blah, blah, why not ask the Republican Hur who found: "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter"

"Not gonna bother posting links to the transcripts for Joes investigation (FBI & Hur)."

How on earth does one argue with someone who posts ---- like this?

Hur ALSO wrote "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter"

Discussions like this show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our nation is doomed.

A republican appointed SC investigator investigated Biden and found ""evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter"

Yet he we are arguing whether biden did the same thing as trump

We are arguing about Hunter China stuff when the Republican HOR TRIED to impeach Biden for it but found ZERO evidence.

Again, our nation is doomed

It has nothing to do with Trump's guilt and everything to do with the fact that Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional for reasons that you've cited and also that I've cited.
They ignore all of that and launch into personal attacks.
Don't let the BS get to you. You are rocking this thread.

#246 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You've proven nothing you resistant toilet stain.

Nutter7, you should get that information to the HoR STAT, they are working on Impeachment for this!

Seriously Miranda, that is tinfoil nutter ----.

More like "Faces of Death".
#249 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

More like ------- of death

"You know, the junkie who orchestrated quid pro quo deals with Chinese nationals (that Joe didn't know about)"

WOW, I knew Miranda was ummm, something, but I had no idea she had gone full nutter.

Miranda, NEVER go full nutter!

Our country is doomed

------- is on tape SAYING he shouldn't be sharing a document, then shares the document. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic

Hur said he could not prove intent, you know, a part of the crime.

Now tell me how Biden and ------- did the same thing.

And square that with "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter"

what evidence is there that Biden intended to retain documents he was not entitled to retain?

If such evidence exists, then why did Hur find the following: "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter"

Now, see 212 for -------

Sheesh, you think you know more than Hur who would have bent every rule in the book to find anything hang on Biden

what evidence is there that Biden intended to retain documents he was not entitled to retain?

If such evidence exists, then why did Hur find the following: "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter"

Now, see 212 for -------

Sheesh, you think you know more than Hur who would have bent every rule in the book to find anything hang on Biden

Miranda, you will have to run to the Republican SC investigator who wrote the following " "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter"

He will certainly change his findings immediately

Now, Miranda, who wrote the following: " "evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", so "no criminal charges are warranted in this matter""

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

perhaps it is not my cranium inserted in a posterior orifice, but thine own noggin up the old chocolate highway

Jodie Foster??? That is so 1980, it would more likely be Sydney Sweeney, Anya Taylor-Joy or Kiernan Shipka.

Gogle "probable cause"

You don't think there was probable cause that ------- committed a crime retaining the documents?

Ill take "none of the above" for $200. I don't think even Jack Smith proferred that Trump had intent to "steal" classified documents. He was the President when they were packed up, He knew the secrets that were in them, like... in his head, and he could have just made copies and turned them in. What do you think he intended to do with them? If he wanted to sell secrets he would not have needed the original papers. There have been no alegations that either man did that. It is just stupid. Trumps primary crime was RETAINING them. No different than Biden's crime. This is a crime only because they were not protected from potential view by unauthorized persons. Like the gardener, or Hunter for example. For months (in Trumps case) or decades (in Bidens case)

#210 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

If you believe this then you are ignorant of the facts of the ------- investigation. Sorry, you simply are.

Claiming, publicly and frequently that they are HIS documents is problematic for -------, it shows intent-he does not have any possible ownership of nuclear secrets.

Taking efforts to HIDE the documents, shows intent

Taking the documents when he was leaving office and had no possible purpose for them, shows intent

The manner in which the documents were stored is indirect evidence of intent to deceive the purpose of retention, shows intent.

The whole conspiracy to hide the documents from valid search warrants shows intent.

These are just a few of the facts.

And pretty basic stuff.

Miranda, does the term mens rea mean anything to you?

Can you explain how mens rea applies to Biden, Pence and -------- various actions relative to classified documents?

Also, I am still waiting for ANY 2nd Amendment advocate to explain what Mr. Crooks did was wrong. All he did was use his god given right to use a gun to attempt to kill what he perceived to be a tyrant.

I think this is an incredibly important question.

You see, I believe that the 2nd Amendment was America's second sin, therefore, I can in good conscience argue against political assassinations.

I cannot for the life of me understand the opposing view. Perhaps they are deluded in what the 2nd Amendment means? Perhaps they are blind partisans? I don't know.

Will they justify some magat nutter taking a shot a Biden? I don't know.

Their silence on this issue today speaks volumes.

Twinpac,
It's one thing to engage in nasty rhetoric - Democrats do it a ton. It's not just Trump. Calling Trump a dictator, or calling Obama a Marxist is one thing.
Openly rooting for a successful assassination of a political opponent in this country is a whole different level.
That crosses a major red-line.

#5 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I abhor violence and condemn all political violence, but I will draw attention to the irrefutable fact that the world would be a far better place had Georg Elser set his clock 15 minutes earlier.

Oh yeah, btw, I think there is definitely something else at play here. It must be understood in the light of numerous reports of American intelligence assets going dark during -------- presidency and afterwards.

I STRONGLY suspect that the intelligence agencies are aware that --------hared intelligence that got people killed and is one of the reasons prompting pushing hard on this, though this is obviously conjecture and not something that would ever be officially stated.

If they had prosecuted BOTH (or neither) for retaining documents, then prosecuted Trump ONLY for obstruction related crimes, I would be okay with it, but that is not what they did.
#188 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-07-15 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#198 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

If you don't understand the provable intent that ------- has compared to Biden and Pence, I don't know what to say.

It's as obvious as the vagina neck on below -------'s chin

It's well documented.
Twoofhy,
Seriously, grow the eff up.
Letting raw emotion control how you process information is a terrible way to go through life.
Not unlike being fat, drunk and stupid.
Just. Grow. Up.

#196 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

hey jeff, being a lying piece of ----, just stop it, grow up, it is not a good way to go through life, get help, people might respect you a little.

But you won't

cause you can't

cause you're a lying piece of ----