Should Trump Go to Prison?
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion of the Trump indictment with constitutional lawyer Clark Neily.
The Justice Department's criminal case against former President Donald Trump "will likely represent a stress test both for the criminal justice system and constitutional provisions that have rarely—if ever—been explored or invoked," wrote Clark Neily, a constitutional lawyer, an adjunct professor at George Mason's Antonin Scalia School of Law, and senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute. "Buckle up—it's going to be a wild ride."
Join Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller this Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion with Neily about the case against Trump, whether it's "selective prosecution" as National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden has said and whether America's legal system and constitutional republic are likely to withstand the "stress test" that Neily is predicting.
Watch and leave questions and comments on the YouTube video above or on Reason's Facebook page.
- Producer: Bess Byers
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Watch and leave questions and comments on the YouTube video above or on Reason's Facebook page.
No Mastodon?
I get paid more than $90 to $100 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on.the accompanying site…
.
.
Following this information:-:-:-:-:-:-:- https://Www.Coins71.Com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
The world has masto-moved-on.
Groan
Points for horrible dad joke though.
The world has mastur-moved-on.
Want To Work From Home Without Selling Anything? No Experience Needed, Weekly Payments… Join Exclusive Group Of People That Cracked The Code Of Financial Freedom! Learn More details Good luck
🙂
🙂
:
:
Visit this website—————->> Reason7.com
I’m surprised they don’t have a MySpace page.
I’m sure this will be a fair and balanced discussion.
certainly hope everyone's answer is no.
I guess this is Edward Snowden's way of saying "Trump failed to drain the swamp". As usual, Snowden's insights are pretty spot-on.
Very diplomatic way of saying, "Fuck you!"
>>failed to drain the swamp
should have expected the #resistance from New York, California, and Kentucky
We are legion
We don't forgive
We don't forget
You should have expected us.
Except for the fact that his doing anything triggered in estimations and impeachments. Fire a corrupt FBI agent, investigation to stymie his administration; investigate a corrupt politician and trigger an impeachment for daring to threaten the status quo.
LOL, Trump made no attempt to drain any swamps.
He fired comey first few months then dems triggered a Special Prosecutor. He demanded 10% cuts to all departments in the executive, then the resistance publicized itself. He was under constant attacks from dems, the IC, and media.
Of course they had no say in anything.
Do you not know what attempt means?
And he had most of his own party actively working against him.
Very true.
Then what did you spend the last 7 years having daily aneurysms about Trump destroying our cherished democratic norms and dismantling our heroic and brave 3 letter agencis for, Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq.? Just like Bush, Trump is your quantum president. He simultaneously did nothing and was a stupid buffoon, but also is the most evil man who has ever lived and spent his entire presidency masterminding so many nefarious plots that we're still trying to unravel them all 3 years later.
I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. ——>>> salerybitecoin.com
Hey, Tulpa! How was your weekend?
Hi Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq.! Pretty good! I spent most of it shoving specious arguments so far up the assholes of lying piece of shit bootlicking Nazi faggots that it came out their nostrils. You?
Hence Snowden's comment being "spot on".
Trump did fail to drain the swamp. Reasonable people can argue why, but he failed...utterly to drain it.
If Trump had failed to drain the swamp there would not be an effort so great to keep him from office.
Trump kicked a hole in the swamp and it is leaking. They think by keeping him from office the breach will be healed.
It will not. It was a mortal blow
The more mortal to the most leftists, the better.
Hence Snowden’s comment being “spot on”.
At the same time, getting an "Enjoy your stay in the international zone." from the *one* politician who pretty openly said "I'd strongly consider a pardon." rather than "Hang 'em." would be fair play.
If you fail to drain the swamp, you naturally deserve more punishment than those who make the swamp.
Whether Trump was capable of doing much about the swamp, are put that much actual effort into it, this criticism is strange, suggesting it is better to do nothing than to fail.
Well, it’s a little more than that. He campaigned on draining the swamp, swore he would do it if only he were elected. He was elected, and was immediately out- maneuvered (see: Flynn, Michael). He appointed people to high posts without understanding that the people he elevated would work against him. He stood by, impotent, as Fauci and Birx seized his power. Why should I believe that he would be any more effective if given a second chance? Also, he is solely responsible for the Democrats having the majority in the Senate. But yes, it is better to have tried and failed, etc.
Congratulations you've come to the same conclusions as the GOPe, CNN, MSNBC, etc
Nobody who is an actual threat to the swamp will be allowed to win in 2024. Rigged elections have consequences. They screwed up in 2016, corrected it in 2018 (with some help from Paul Ryan), then went scorched earth in 2020. 2022 they continued because nobody did a damn thing about 2020, and GOPe is swamp.
Things aren't going back to normal.
https://twitter.com/TheRealZBlog/status/1669021524043472908?t=4WP35W2Qmp0Ie5m41Uz1JQ&s=19
I have made the point a few times that Ron DeSantis is the blue pill option. His fans want to go back to some point in the past where normies could pretend to debate lefties over economics. They find Trump icky and gross and they really hate the culture war.
You see it in this DeSantis plan. Instead of exacting vengeance on the bastards who have done so much damage over the last decade, he will unilaterally disarm on day one. That is what he is planning to do when he says end the weaponization of the DOJ.
[Link]
This is basic bitch conservatism. The bad guys create a mess and the conservatives clean it up. It is why the ratchet effect exists. On the other hand, if a GOP president used the DOJ to terrorize the Left, then maybe lefty thinks twice about causing trouble.
More important, simply getting the tormentors to take a break is the goal of a pussy. A man wants to exact some revenge on the people who attacked him and his allies. DeSantis fans, however, are all about forgive and forget.
[Link]
I would be happy to execute every single leftist if that’s what it takes. I’m just as happy to allow them all to live if they off their complete and unconditional surrender
Watch and leave questions and comments on the YouTube video above or on Reason's Facebook page.
Translation: Ignore the nitwits in the Reason.com comments.
For those who need a reminder, ENB hates Reason commenters, and I doubt she's the only one.
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/1601256561086988289
She's not wrong.
And the commenters are right to criticize the staff.
The commentors who constantly criticize the staff couldn't tell the difference between a libertarian and a hole in the ground.
Listen to him! Sarc took an online test!!
He also has an IQ of 140, Jesse.
difference between a libertarian and a hole in the ground.
This is correct, because mainline establishment libertarians have increasingly started to look like holes in the ground.
Well, they look like some kind of hole, anyway.
She is, and they deserve at least some of the criticism they get.
Only if you are so incredibly small-minded that you equate disagreement with Republicans with support for the left.
Nice strawman.
What if you're so incredibly small-minded that you equate support for the Democrats with libertarianism?
Or so incredibly small minded you have a mute list?
Nobody here has done that, drunky. Also that's not the only reason the staff could conceivably deserve criticism. The fact that you are so religiously devoted to the scribblings of a handful of 20 and 30-something Twitter bots that you think they are beyond critique and the only possible reason for disagreement is tribal politics would be hilariously ironic in its small-mindedness if it wasn't just so fucking sad and pathetic. The things that /r/atheism substitutes for divinity are wild.
Worst appeal to authority ever.
ENB once freaked out over a dumb but harmless "make me a sammich" joke.
I hope she's not representative of libertarians.
First rule. When you work somewhere with direct customer feedback - never read it yourself. It will just give you a big sad.
The habitual Reason critic club here are not customers. They brag that they don’t subscribe to the magazine and don’t contribute during the web-a-thons. They are proudly freeloading on the comments section.
Cry harder
Cite?
Lol. In this case Mike is correct. I've seen this multiple time.
¡Gracias!
Many of them used to contribute before reason turned to shit. So Mike is wrong. They stopped supporting a rag that has turned from first principles.
Also. Cite? Mike demands them of his past comments so please show who you and him are referring to.
In this case freeloaders are still like customers in terms of the negative feedback effect.
Reason staff cares what people like JesseAz think?
If they wanted to return to their roots even a decade ago they would. Unfortunately they gave been redirected to a post modernist set if libertine. Just like Charles Koch is, see Dave smith debate.
So youre like Mike and don't understand how online advertising works?
That’s why it’s hilarious that inbred, homophobes like Weigel’s Cock Ring think anyone at Reason gives a shit what you rubes think.
Most Reason commenters are white trash nobodies. If Reason staff even feel anything for them it’s pity.
I'm sure she does a great job getting the laundry off the clothesline in the back yard. It's the regurgitation of the stuff she hears over the fence from Masnick, French, and the NYT at large that's really loathsome, but that's not really her work.
Everyone was already ignoring you, drunky. Pretty sure ENB doesn't need an abusive alcoholic white knight btw, she's already got a cucky.
No. And Snowden and Assange and Trump (assuming the Judge doesn't dismiss his case) should receive pardons.
If Snowden was pardoned and returned to the US, someone would kill him within a week.
And you would cheer it on. Or is that only when abuses are against your enemies? Hard to tell anymore.
...someone would kill him within a week.
You misspelled "federal contractor."
If I know several ex-military folks who consider the guy a traitor and would cheerfully kill him themselves, then there must be many, many more.
Victims of propaganda turned political assassins.
They consider themselves to be patriotic, have or had security clearances, and really don't like people who leak classified information. I haven't talked with any of them recently about the Trump's classified documents kerfuffle. I imagine they'd back him up though. Last I checked they were all deranged Trump cultists.
All of my imaginary friends live up to my stereotypes too. Isn't that convenient?
I bet sarcs imaginary friends are super-cool though!
I haven’t talked with any of them recently...
Last I checked they were all deranged Trump cultists.
Now I know why they haven't talked with you.
How did you know that I haven't run into them since the company closed the physical office and sent everyone home to work remotely?
By the way, if you're going to accuse everyone who criticizes Trump of having TDS, don't be surprised if they hit back by observing your cult-like worship of the man as a sign of mental illness.
He hasn't done that. But you have accused everyone who doesn't believe in political prosecutions to be a trump cultist. Just this morning in fact.
Your all-male laser tag team that you rented a median-price AirBNB with aren't exactly "ex-military" drunky.
Yes, just not for anything he's being charged with or in the hopper to be charged.
Poor eunuch
Did Sandy Berger?
Did David Petraeus?
And especially, did the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton)?
How about a compromise?
Simply handcuff all these folks together (well, *maybe* not Berger) and then let them continue to go about their business.
Yes, the Con Man should go to prison.
Not so much for obstruction on the document scandal but for treason concerning Jan 6 and the election plot to replace the electors with his toadies and have Pence facilitate the switch along with pressuring states to rig votes for him.
Pence, as much as I despise that ghoulish Fundie-Freak, did the right thing for once in his life.
Did you type that before or after your spank-it session while watching kiddie porn?
Why is your keyboard so sticky?
If Jan 6 was treason, so was May 29.
unfortunately, by bringing these charges before those around election interference, he will never be held accountable for any of it. talking points will be firmly established and drown out his conduct there. he will play the martyr card right to the white house. over the next 4 yrs he will probably get those charges dropped when his people are installed. the ones in NY will be dragged out and appealed and he will probably die of old age before he ever sees any consequences.
At this point, even a video of Trump personally offering a bag of cash to Georgia election officials would not be believed.
probably not.
Stop samefagging your own posts, shreek, it's cringe.
fuck off, dim wit. pathetic pieces of garbage who simply cannot believe more than one person on the whole internet thinks you are fucking morons.
“I have friends. I really do!”
-shriek
"but for treason concerning Jan 6 and the election plot to replace the electors with his toadies"
OH WOW! HOW HORRIBLE...
What did he do to facilitate that amazing accusation, Shrike? Give us an actual example so that we can all join in on heaping opprobrium.
You mean by stealing classified documents as vice president with no declassification authority, shreek?
Speaking of prison, did you know that the mere possession of child pornography is a federal felony? True story. That time you got your original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography could have landed you a longer prison term than Trump will ever face if Reason had done the right thing and turned over your IP address and registration information to law enforcement.
He should go straight to a firing squad. And then his kids. And then he should be airbrushed out of all pictures.
I see you know how to Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome.
A summary of the pro-Trump arguments
1. He declassified the docs before they left the White House (not true)
2. Moving them to Mar-a-Lago is implicit declassification (not true)
3. He had every right to the docs owing to Judicial Watch v NARA (not true as any informed reading makes clear)
4. The PRA leads to civil action not criminal (irrelevant – he was not indicted under PRA)
5. Obstructing the return of the documents is no different from not obstructing the return. (obviously not true)
6. This is selective prosecution because they did it too (opinion requiring #5 in support)
7. You shouldn’t prosecute a presidential candidate before the election (unwarranted opinion – a “Trump exception” argument)
8. It should be left to the People to decide at the election (unwarranted opinion – a “Trump exception” argument)
9. The prosecution is part of a Deep State conspir’cy (no evidence)
10. Biden or his handlers instructed the DOJ to prosecute (no evidence)
11. Jack Smith is a RINO/corrupt/a liar (opinion, irrelevant to the case)
12. You can’t prosecute Trump because waaaaah!
It seems that #12 is the most honest reason, though it underlies all the others.
You forgot the argument that his followers find to be the most logical and convincing: HILLARY!!!!!
I will quote my longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=379970&p=4514843#post4514843
Is it anyone wonder Chris greatly influenced my own political views for twenty-five years! I leanred so much from him.
What we do know is that the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) operated a private server and used it to send classified e-mnails.
We know that the Cunt®™ used BleachBit to destroy the hard drives on the servers.
We know that the Cunt®™ smashed cellular telephones with hammers.
We know that the Cunt®™ commissioned a fake dossier to provide to the FBI so that they could give the illusion of credibility to her Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election Big Lie.
The Cunt®™ unlawfully obtained classified information, forged evidence to spy on a opponent's political campaign, and undermined democracy.
When is the Cunt®™ going to prison?
(Having read Chris's online posts and comments for twenty-five years, I am certain what he would think about it)
When you have an ® you don't need the ™.
Stay in your lane you ignorant piece of shit drunk.
Hi Tulpa. How many handles have you gone through so far this week?
Less than you have this morning, drunky. Oh, you meant screen names, didn't you? You gonna bust out your Kill All Rednecks sock to do your anti-Mormon shtick with Idaho Bob?
It's not a legal argument, it's just fun to rub your nose in the fact that you supported giving the secretary of state a get out of jail free card for unquestionably violating the law and then obstructing the investigation while you call for Trump to go to prison for committing a crime that the president literally is unable to legally commit.
You are still too stupid to understand the discussion. Lol. Good work shrike. At least you convinced idiots like sarc.
Weird how you ran from the morning thread you commented on.
I'm still not shrike and you still don't understand the Judicial Watch case, else you'd have been able to answer the question I've asked (more than once).
I didn't run - I just can't be arsed to go back on every thread here and continue to remake the same arguments you don't understand.
Hey! He said "arsed"! See how British shreek is until he goes into rage mode and busts out all of his tics?
I've explained and quoted from that decision multiple times shrike. Oddly you keep asking a question you yourself don't answer. I'm sure you have an incorrect assumption on that case derived from a CNN article, so please share.
"not true as any informed reading makes clear"
You keep claiming this, but you never explain how. Shouting "You're wrong!" isn't a counterargument.
I've give you dozens of direct citations from the ruling to bolster my argument, but you've given us jackshit. It's almost like you don't actually have a counterargument at all.
The same applies with all your "Not true!" accusations. You've given us no arguments and no citations to support your claims that they're false. Despite the fact that many of people here have given citations and arguments demonstrating that they are.
It's starting to look like an Oxford legal education isn't worth very much.
TLDR: Start backing up your claims or fuck off.
That is exactly what shrike has done. He keeps asking the same question over and over despite multiple citations from the case law as if it is a counter argument. He won't posy his argument from CNN as he knows it will get destroyed lol.
It goes a little something like this for shreek:
Judicial Watch is conservative boogeyman
Judicial Watch lost case
Therefore case cannot possibly support Trump because Trump also conservative boogeyman!
As usual, he doesn't read anything he links to. And of course, he didn't even start linking to that case until he got his updated ActBlue PDF a week after everyone else was already discussing it.
You keep claiming this, but you never explain how. Shouting “You’re wrong!” isn’t a counterargument.
I’ve give you dozens of direct citations from the ruling to bolster my argument, but you’ve given us jackshit. It’s almost like you don’t actually have a counterargument at all.
You're lying. I have indeed quoted from the decision, pointed out what you're missing, and just because you've posted quotations doesn't mean you understand the relevance.
The same applies with all your “Not true!” accusations. You’ve given us no arguments and no citations to support your claims that they’re false. Despite the fact that many of people here have given citations and arguments demonstrating that they are.
Nah. Most of you provide no citations for most of your shite and in the particular instance of the JW case, don't understand the citations you do make. And most hilariously, you lot don't even seem to understand the indictment - which I have cited.
How many times have you posted claims concerning Crotchfire Hooligan? And how many times were those claims supported by legitimate references?
Though you and JesseAZ do understand just enough not to want answer my simple question on the JW case.
"You’re lying. I have indeed quoted from the decision, pointed out what you’re missing, and just because you’ve posted quotations doesn’t mean you understand the relevance."
So where are they, you dishonest fuck, where are they? Link to it. It's only been three days since I first posted on this.
I haven't seen you give one single comprehensive counterargument, and I think everyone else here will agree with me. Nor have we seen you provide any argument against the other points you claimed were "No true".
If you say you have, then post links to those arguments. Prove me wrong.
"Nah. Most of you provide no citations for most of your shite"
I see you've sneakily slipped an "Most of you" in there, because you know that I cite my claims every fucking time. But so does everyone else.
You know who never has given cites?
You.
You continue to lie. Show one time you quoted from the decision. Here is my cite. From the JW lawyer himself.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28
In defending NARA, the Justice Department argued that NARA doesn’t have “a duty to engage in a never-ending search for potential presidential records” that weren’t provided to NARA by the president at the end of his term. Nor, the department asserted, does the Presidential Records Act require NARA to appropriate potential presidential records forcibly. The government’s position was that Congress had decided that the president and the president alone decides what is a presidential record and what isn’t. He may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed:
“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office,” she held, “it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”
Judge Jackson added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.’ . . . PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.”
I lost because Judge Jackson concluded the government’s hands were tied.
Yeah, but the Wall Street Journal is just some alt-right blog, and the Justice Department and Judge Jackson don't know what they're talking about, so it doesn't count.
It is just amazing how dumb him, jeff, and sarc are. At this point the ignorance is intentional. Jeff in his last post went full retard.
Another "boxes" meme
They practically write themselves.
Another proof pf "the Left can't meme"
Wow. They really can't.
Someone photoshopped a Saudi, a skinny Kim Jong Un and Putin sitting and reading them... that's it.
I think that they're trying to say storing boxes in a president's residence is somehow less secure than a Chicago strip mall or a vice-president's garage.
But yeah, they really can't meme.
Or an email server located in a bathroom not even using encryption or TLS.
Or rather, the (Trumpist) right wing have no sense of humour - which we already know to be true. By definition, any anti-Trump meme is offensive to you, and in strange concordance with the far left, that which is offensive to you cannot be funny.
"Or rather, the (Trumpist) right wing have no sense of humour"
I'll bite.
You saw my description and interpretation of your little may-may. Was it wrong?
Where was the joke?
And some think the Left cannot meme for shit.
Yes he should but for a term in proportion to the term served by Obama for the documents he took.
"5. Obstructing the return of the documents is no different from not obstructing the return."
Shrike, do you understand returning documents is not relevant to the laws used against Trump? Even after this has been explained to you dozens of times at this point.
The law is triggered as soon as Joe took the documents out of a SCIF to his home. “Return” is not present in the law used at all.
Are you seriously this stupid?
Obstruction is a secondary process charge. The primary charges still exist and you keep ignoring all the others accused are guilty of the same crime. Again. Are you really this stupid? Why are you ignoring 37 of the 38 charges?
What else can we expect from SRG?
That you have explained something that isn't true more than once doesn't make it true by repetition.
How is it "Not true"?
Not fucking once have you explained your assertion. Spamming "Not true" and "You're lying" means fuck all if you can't or won't say why.
What did I say that was false shrike? Do you ever make a counter argument?
Obstructing the return of documents requested by NARA still isn't criminal, shreek. But you knew that.
(Hint: Obama told NARA to go fuck itself, too)
“I know he’s rough around the edges, but I guarantee you, had he gotten elected– if he had gotten in there and through mere naiveté of the corrupt political system that exists at the core of life in Washington, DC you know he would have clumsily stumbled around and inadvertently thrown a klieg light on what has become an incestuous little pool of self-interest.”
Who said that, when was it said, and who was it said about?
Hint: I voted for him.
Hitler, obviously.
/sarc for the impaired
Michael Corleone.
Well, that’s what Google came up with. I’m pretty sure he was a fictional character and even in his fictional universe never ran for anything.
Why would you submit that then?
It's amazing that you couldn't locate an easy quotation like that using basic search parameters considering your PhD in computer science, Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq. Maybe that part of your training got crowded out by your law and engineering degrees you picked up during your down time from commercial and residential property development, before you were an executive, but after your stint as a special ops commando.
Dennis Miller on Ross Perot, 1992.
Yada Yada Yada. Problem solved. - Ross Perot
Verified account, 81,000 followers
https://twitter.com/Terror_Alarm/status/1668573487605207040?t=xb5bmBffKL7uyy5NTZ4D0Q&s=19
New: #Nashville trans shooter Audrey "Aiden" Hale's autopsy report shows that the transphobic Police officers used nearly 30 bullets to kill 28-year-old trans accused of the mass shooting in a Christian school. #AudreyHale
Vampire: Stake through the heart
Werewolf: Silver
Tranny school shooter: One bullet for every additional non-binary gender
Makes sense to me.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1668965891235520512?t=xNEV2FQm4hdDDmudD1znKA&s=19
You probably heard stories from totalitarian states about people earnestly thanking the the ruling party, sycophants who would tearfully praise their captors and you wondered how that could possibly happen
Now you know
[Link]
https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1669018750870339584?t=I7t7d8lnmFJeSqphXxMmHw&s=19
The Biden family has been caught dead to rights in a multi million dollar multinational bribery scandal, and yet, we all know there will be zero accountability. As Hunter's leaked texts have confirmed, this scandal certainly implicates the current president in the scheme.
Most of them are on the same team, happy to support the Uniparty to facilitate their ambitions
If I recall, Trump called Zelenskyy tyo take a second look at the circumstance of the firing of the prosecutor investigating Burisma.
What happened with that?
Assuming hanging isn't on the table, yes. it's a proper punishment for traitors.
Sad to see but not surprised at all the cultists defending their dear leader here. He could fuck your children and you'd ask him if you could do the honor of making a meal for him after. Bunch of pathetic people here.
TDS activated!!!
Yeah, it is pretty deranged to blindly support Trump's cult of personality, to defend policies because of the man not the policies themselves, to accuse anyone who disagrees with fully supporting the other team, and to do it all with a straight face. Definitely some serious mental illness going on.
We all know about raspberrydinners.
Now Sarckles is white knighting for Tony.
Didn't see sarc defending Raspberry on my bingo card. Added to bookmarks.
Why would drunky defending Tony's sock possibly surprise you? He's become shreek's personal white knight. Say what you want about Tony at least he never posted fucking kiddie porn.
Tony may have sucked a lot of dick but he's at least kept it 18+.
Quite literally no one besides you, cytotoxic and Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq. do that, drunky.
Reads raspberry’s post , thinks everyone else is deranged
“ to accuse anyone who disagrees with fully supporting the other team, and to do it all with a straight face. Definitely some serious mental illness going on.”
Physician, heal thyself.
It's ok to accuse people with TDS for criticizing Trump, but totally not fair to say people who make excuses for literally everything he does of being deranged. Not fair not fair not fair not fair.
Now now, that's not fair.
The rule is, you are only allowed to criticize Trump on pure policy decisions alone.
Trump increased spending a lot, and that's bad, and that's worthy of criticism. That is "legitimate" criticism.
But you are not allowed to criticize Trump the man. That is off-limits. Why? Who knows.
You aren't allowed to say that Trump is a garbage human being.
You aren't allowed to say that Trump is an inveterate liar.
You aren't allowed to say that Trump is an irresponsible egotistical untrustworthy asshole.
Can't say any of that. That only proves you have TDS.
Apparently, we are all supposed to ignore character flaws of politicians, even very serious character flaws. If Zombie Jeffrey Dahmer were resurrected and promoted Milton Friedman's preferred policy positions, all of us libertarians are supposed to vote for him no matter what. So what if he snacks on human flesh in between meals. At least he cut taxes, right?
Does that mean the "Go Brandon" crowd has BDS?
the postrace interviewer was a babe I like to keep the memory fresh.
Did you guys run out of straw? Coming from the two leftists who attack any criticism of Biden and called people for not buying false narratives cultists you sure do love strawman and projections.
Here are some of your cries about FJB.
sarcasmic
September.15.2021 at 5:51 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
He’s a bird, singing to his potential conservative mates. Give him a break. Saying “Fuck Joe Biden” on these comments is his only chance of getting laid.
sarcasmic 7 months ago
Flag Comment Mute User
What about the blind hatred for Biden in these comments? Seems like a majority of the people here start the day with the “Fuck Joe Biden” prayer. Why is that warranted while anyone who says “Boo” about Trump is accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome?
But we all know you never defend Biden and always criticize him despite never being able to show an example.
Is there anything he could do that would cause his followers to stop supporting him?
Now do Biden.
It's a serious question. At this point his followers have no respect for elections, courts or the law. So I'm wondering if anything could get them to stop following the guy.
As far as Biden goes, he never had a cult following to lose.
Respect for a court if law like the more than a dozen who issued rulings on illegal election changes?
And no I don't have respect for a political legal system. No libertarian does. Hence why you aren't one.
Biden no cult? Is your argument the left isnt cult like. You can argue they idolize party but then you'd have to ignore Obama. Despite all his failures and evidence of corruption Biden still polls in the mid 80s. Despite democrats also largely staying the economy sucks abd us is headed in the wrong direction, polling still shows support for Biden.
Do you just bleed ignorance at this point?
a dozen who issued rulings on illegal election changes?
And how about the 60 or so who issued rulings on the actual election? How many cases on the actual election - not on prior unlawful changes - did Trump win?
Those 60 cases you've been citing since February of 2020 were nearly all dismissed on procedural grounds, shreek, but you knew that.
Which ones shrike? Do you have specific ones that made it past standing?
Drunky's respect for the legal system is quite selective. When there's a possibility it might "get Trump" he has unending respect. When Reason tells him that he should be upset about a sadistic serial killer on death row being executed after 35 years of appeals then the whole damn system should be burnt to the ground. Drunky's real principled like that. And if you disagree with any legal analysis put forth by Reason writers with no legal training you're a Trump cultist.
if anything could get them to stop following the guy.
No, because even if there were in principle, they’d say, “But Biden/Hunter/Obama/Hillary/Bill/Uncle Tom Cobleigh”, etc.
It's almost like you can not support somebody as a candidate but still be upset about the legal system being used as a selective political weapon, shreek.
I'm pretty sure he thinks weaponization of the justice system is a feature, not a bug.
Yes yes, let your racism consume you.
As far as Biden goes, he never had a cult following to lose.
True. Biden is just the figurehead of the Democratic Party, the real cult in America. I mean, what other group would jiggle man tits on the Whitehouse lawn?
Pretty sure the prankster got banned for life.
Prankster??? What the fuck. Seriously. Are you stupid or what? It wasn't a prankster.
America is a big place. It can’t sustain more than one political cult?
The answer is nothing. They will follow Trump until the bitter end. And when Trump does eventually die, they will suspect foul play regardless of the circumstances of death.
This is another thing that demagogues are particularly good at. They can convince people that they do not merely represent their views, but that the demagogue *IS* the people. The demagogue is the vessel that contains the pure essence of the people. Look at how often Trump uses phrases like “they are only going after me because they are really going after you”. He wants his followers to think of him not just as a politician who represents them, but as a leader who EMBODIES them. So an attack on him is an attack on the people. That way he can justify his own bad behavior in the face of his own followers.
So when a demagogue has that level of sway over people, to ask the people to stop following the demagogue is like asking them to divorce their spouses or disown their parents/children. Because the demagogue and the people have combined in such a union as to be on par with marriage or family. It really is a type of love.
Smartest thing you ever said.
You still are trying this argument from the morning thread? Lol. God damn jeff.
Can I hear MORE about how 1/6 was an insurrection trying to overthrow the government?
Never voted for him, not sure I would bother to in Texas in 24. All of the accusations over the last, checks calendar, 7+ years have been weak tea, at best. Yes, even this one.
More to your question: actually being caught doing something illegal that other rich and powerful people have been caught on and actually faced consequences? I mean, at this point it’s pretty obvious that we have a multi tiered justice system…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but other rich and powerful people haven't had boxes of classified documents laying around. There really isn't anything to compare to this. I think what people are missing here is that the government takes secrecy very seriously, and he flagrantly ignored the rules. Hokey Pokey.
Biden literally had boxes lying around retard. In a fucking garage.
And I still believe, although it's a counterfactual that can not be proven, that not much would have happened if he'd have just given the stuff back the first time he was asked.
Pence, Obama, Both Clinton’s, and Joe Biden (hell, probably Jr. too) all had classified documents. I’m pretty sure Obama was allowed to keep his in an abandoned building somewhere in Chicago.
But I took your question as meaning ANYTHING, so I was thinking outside the box, pun totally intended.
Also, As I understand it, the law he is charged with violating has no provision that would allow him to have said “Oopsies, here you go.” The best case scenario is that they would have pivoted to try and get him another way.
Cite the part of the law regarding returning of the documents. Why do you CNN assholes keep repeating this as if it means something?
And for which country do you allege Trump betrayed the U.S.?
Israel?
Libertarians for the killing of people.
Seriously, watch the video.
They're telling you this is exactly what they intend to do.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1669027609764667418?t=pMTWWoRLozD_scqeLqxfvQ&s=19
The US government will use civil rights law to take your children and criminalize political opposition
[Video]
Joe did say for the second time that children belong to the government.
Chemjeff and White Mike: "It's a c0nsPiRaCy tHeorY"
Everyone else: "It's the fucking White House saying it!"
Chemjeff and White Mike: "c0nsPiRaCy tHeorY"
From the replies.
https://twitter.com/iluminatibot/status/1668865586233851904?t=s_qT8-PowsDcM5rTDcd5xCrack?
Burisma Energy Accountant, Who Blew Whistle on Biden Bribery Scheme, Found Dead:
[Link]
https://twitter.com/loganclarkhall/status/1669025174878928898?t=m6Bx-xl1ornbuGixKXTznQ&s=19
with a state-run media, the government directly controls which opinions are allowed to be heard. with a media-run state, the government launders talking points through their partners at news organizations and indirectly controls which opinions are allowed to be heard.
[Link]
Should he go to prison? Yes, but only if its to visit the Biden family while they do their time.
I am making $98/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $20 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. ——>>> salerybitecoin.com
How do I know if he’s guilty, or if the prosecutor’s theory holds up. The prosecutor was smacked down by a unanimous Supreme Court for securing the conviction of another Republican politician under legal theories which could have criminalized lawful acts. Even after that rebuke, he could have had a retrial but chose not to do one.
And here is more.
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1668818427539075075
He should be sharing a cell with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
That would be both Clinton's plus Obama and Bush plus a whole host of others if this were anything but banana republic level corruption of the legal system.
So let's review, the story of three people
Biden:
- Improperly took classified documents home
- When they were discovered, the FBI came and took them back, without issue or resistance
Clinton:
- Improperly stored classified documents on her private email server
- When they were discovered, some were returned, but then she erased the contents of the server
In each of these two cases, it is not definitively known if any classified material was shown or leaked to unauthorized individuals. It may have happened, but there is no proof (as far as I can see) that it happened.
Trump:
- Improperly took classified documents home
- When they were discovered, he lied about it, returned only some of them, tried to hide the rest, and told his lawyers to lie about it
- We definitely know that some of the classified material was shown to unauthorized people, because he is on tape bragging about it
So:
Are the facts of these three cases largely correct as presented here?
If so, why should the three cases be considered on an equivalent footing?
[music notes emoji] one of these things is not like the other [music notes emoji]
What, no mention of Obama storing them in a strip mall warehouse and negotiating with NARA for four fucking years (not one and a half) over what they could have?
I can't imagine why you forgot to mention that.
You also mysteriously forgot to mention that Trump was president as well as being covered by the Presidential Records Act, but Joe and Hillary weren't. Under the PRA Trump and Obama could determine what were presidential records. Hillary and Joe could not.
Funny how you didn't note that. Almost like you were being purposefully dishonest.
So, this is a case where my browser logged me out and I inadvertently read your comment. So, since I read it anyway, I thought I might respond.
I'll just note that in your response, you chose to try to question my motives rather than to address the substance of my argument. Because that is what losers do. If I were to argue "the moon is made of green cheese", to respond, there would be no need to try to question my motives or smear me as a bad person. It would be enough to simply say "you're wrong, because here's the objective empirical evidence that the moon is, in fact, made of various types of rock". I submit that it is when you DON'T have the facts on your side, that is when you decide to go with the accusations of bad motives.
So, you decided to bring up Obama, which is irrelevant to the discussion that I raised - a red herring - and you brought up the PRA, which was also irrelevant to the discussion - I discussed classified material, not presidential documents. Then you tried to smear me.
That's because, I submit, you know my characterization is largely accurate, and your team's constant comparison of Trump's situation, to that of Biden or Hillary, is superficial and careless, meant only to distract rather than to inform.
I will amend my initial description in the case of Hillary:
Initially she did lie and deny that she had a private email server, but eventually, she did fess up and come clean about it. She even, begrudgingly, admitted that she made a mistake.
Which is still far more than Trump has done to admit his faults, i.e., "I did everything right".
So, I'll give you another chance. Considering these three cases, why should we consider the cases of Trump, Hillary, and Biden on an equal footing, with regards to their handling of classified material?
Everything you just wrote is again wrong.
"So, this is a case where my browser logged me out and I inadvertently read your comment."
Lol.
"you chose to try to question my motives rather than to address the substance of my argument."
Actually I did both. The latter was what the whole "Trump and Obama did the same thing, and Joe and Hill-dog weren't president at the time" was about.
Everyone can still read my post, I don't know who you think you're tricking.
"So, you decided to bring up Obama, which is irrelevant to the discussion that I raised"
Obama was negotiating with NARA over whether the records were personal or not for FIVE YEARS. It was exactly the same thing that Trump was doing with NARA that you criticized him for. Except you flat out lied and said "When they were discovered, he lied about it, returned only some of them, tried to hide the rest, and told his lawyers to lie about it". NARA never claimed this. Legally those documents are his. I can't think of a more germane example than the Obama documents.
"I discussed classified material, not presidential documents."
Classified material that becomes presidential business are presidential documents, you fucking buffoon. As the courts and justice department have already established, whether or not something is a presidential document or even a personal document, is determined by the actions of a president.
"Then you tried to smear me."
I didn't "try". I did smear you and you absolutely deserved it.
You are changing my argument into a different argument because you cannot address MY argument on the merits. You can only move the goalposts and fling poo.
Obama was negotiating with NARA over whether the records were personal or not for FIVE YEARS. It was exactly the same thing that Trump was doing with NARA that you criticized him for.
But in this discussion I didn't. I didn't mention NARA or 'personal documents'. That was you.
Trump's indictment had nothing to do with whether or not the documents were 'personal' or 'presidential' as far as the PRA is concerned. It was about his mishandling of classified documents. Do you understand this?
So, one more time. Without mentioning Obama or NARA or 'personal' vs. 'presidential' documents, why should we consider the cases of Trump, Hillary, and Biden on an equal footing, with regards to their handling of classified material?
The. President. Cannot. Mishandle. Classified. Documents.
It is literally impossible according to the constitution.
Trump. Is. No. Longer. The. President.
He. Was. When. He. Took. Them. As. His. Own.
He. Was. Still. President. When. They. Were. Placed. In. Mar-A-Lago.
Did you read the indictment?
He shows the classified documents to reporters and PAC fundraisers, while admitting and acknowledging that it is classified.
They weren't classified, Jeff. If any weren't related to the Crossfire Hurricane memo (and it's looking like they all are), as per JW v. NARA they were declassified by his action of taking them to Mar-A-Lago while still president.
He didn't sneak into the Whitehouse months after Biden was sworn in and take them.
That's why this prosecution you're so hot for is so extraordinarily fascist.
JW v. NARA says absolutely nothing about the security classification of presidential records. Nothing. Where you got that idea I have no clue.
And, read the Espionage Act above. It actually doesn't say anything about whether the material was classified or not. So even if you're right that the documents were magically declassified - it doesn't matter!
So if you want to argue that the Espionage Act is bullshit and shouldn't exist, then by all means make that argument.
But if you want to make the argument that Trump didn't violate it, then that is looking to be less likely.
If any weren’t related to the Crossfire Hurricane memo (and it’s looking like they all are)
You clearly didn't even read the indictment.
In the indictment, the two explicit examples of Trump showing off documents to unauthorized people that *he knew* had classified information in them, were about military matters. Not about Crossfire Hurricane.
35. In August or September 2021, when he was no longer president, TRUMP met in his office at The Bedminster Club with a representative of his political action committee (the "PAC Representative"). During the meeting, TRUMP commented that an ongoing military operation in Country B was not going well. TRUMP showed the PAC representative a classified map of Country B and told the PAC Representative that he should not be showing the map to the PAC Representative and to not get too close. The PAC Representative did not have a security clearance or any need-to-know classified information about the military operation.
That document wasn't classified by Trump's action of taking it for his own. The fact that he still thought that the information was sensitive and shouldn't get around is immaterial to the classification.
My bank account information isn't classified but I don't think it's a good idea for other people to see more than I'm willing to show them.
Here is the section of the Espionage Act that Trump is charged with:
It doesn't have to be classified. Just has to be information that is potentially injurious to the national security of the US.
"Trump’s indictment had nothing to do with whether or not the documents were ‘personal’ or ‘presidential’ as far as the PRA is concerned. It was about his mishandling of classified documents. Do you understand this?"
Any documents taken by a sitting president become personal and declassified whether a memo was given or not and are covered by the PRA. This was the ruling of Judicial Watch v. NARA in 2012, and the binding guidance given by the Justice Department.
Do you understand this?
Actually I know you do, but you've been in favor of political prosecutions for years.
Any documents taken by a sitting president become personal and declassified whether a memo was given or not and are covered by the PRA.
That is not what the ruling says and that is not what the PRA says. Have you even read the original source material yourself?
The PRA mandates that the documents defined by that act are classified as either “presidential” or “personal” at that time. The president can decide however he wishes, but he can’t change his mind retroactively without going through a process.
The PRA only also covers documents that are created by the president or the president’s immediate staff. It doesn’t cover documents created by other agencies. So for example it wouldn’t cover a CIA memo. So Trump would have absolutely zero authority to declare that to be “personal record” and to take them even if he wanted to. And those are some of the documents he stored at his home.
Furthermore neither the PRA nor the Judicial Watch ruling says absolutely nothing about the security classification of documents.
Read the citation for the PRA yourself:
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html
And you still have not answered the question.
Why should we regard the cases of Biden, Hillary, and Trump as equivalent when it comes to their handling of classified material?
So let's review this entire conversation that I had with ML.
I made a comment and asked a question.
ML couldn't answer it, tried to change the subject, and insulted me.
I called him on it, noted he tried to change the subject, noted that he couldn't answer the question, then challenged him to answer the question again.
And again ML tries to change the subject and shift the goalposts. Still doesn't answer the question.
So I address his argument anyway. And even with his argument, he is still wrong.
And he still doesn't answer the question that I posed.
Because he can't. He knows he's wrong, but he is committed to defending Trump. Because his identity is now based on it. He's joined the tribe, he can't back out now. To back out - i.e., to tell the truth - is to be cast out as a heretic.
So he has to go searching the right-wing sites to find the arguments and narratives that they are using to defend Trump and just repeat those here. He doesn't bother to critically understand them or actually evaluate them to see if they are correct or not. That's not his job. His job is just to defend Trump.
Biden: – Improperly took classified documents home
This is the crime retard.
In each of these two cases, it is not definitively known if any classified material was shown or leaked to unauthorized individuals. It may have happened, but there is no proof (as far as I can see) that it happened.
False. They found deleted emails she didn’t hand over on Anthony Weiner laptop retard. She also intentionally removed classification markings on multiple emails. Her emails were sent to aides without clearances and her IT tech didn't have a clearance.
Leftist shit weasel.
Sorry not sorry Jesse, but you're still muted.
Die, tumor.
Because you dont know what the fuck you're talking about lol.
Thats the only way you "win" an argument of facts is to mute all the facts.
I’m confused. Why aren’t you responding to basic corrections to your post. He pointed out a lot of things you were wrong on.
JesseAz 3 hours ago (edited) Flag Comment Mute User Biden: – Improperly took classified documents home
This is the crime retard.
In each of these two cases, it is not definitively known if any classified material was shown or leaked to unauthorized individuals. It may have happened, but there is no proof (as far as I can see) that it happened.
False. They found deleted emails she didn’t hand over on Anthony Weiner laptop retard. She also intentionally removed classification markings on multiple emails. Her emails were sent to aides without clearances and her IT tech didn’t have a clearance.
Leftist shit weasel.
I bolded the part he highlighted as your quote that I agree you were wrong about.
I have JesseAz muted so I'm not tempted to respond to the master baiter.
Is that so. Well I don't take Jesse at face value. If he wants me to believe he is citing 'facts' then he needs to cite a reliable source. Not federalist.com or breitbart.com.
That is not the crime that Trump is charged with.
He is charged with violating 18 USC 793(e) (Espionage Act):
So simply improperly taking the documents home is not the crime that is relevant here. What is relevant is transmitting the documents to another person.
So, here is my source on the matter. Jesse is free to provide his own source.
https://apnews.com/article/anthony-weiner-ap-top-news-politics-north-america-classified-information-45bf7232374f43cab835145e5deabace
So based on this source, we don't know if there were classified emails on Weiner's laptop that were marked classified at the time that they were sent.
Also:
So backing up emails from another device is not the same as transmitting the email to another person. It's still careless and wrong to handle classified information this way, but it is qualitatively different.
Also, if Jesse wants to be fair to Hillary (ha!), he should acknowledge that many of the emails were classified retroactively, so it is entirely possible that many of the emails were sent to her aides (without security clearances) and then later were deemed classified by the CIA or NSA or whomever. Hillary can't really be blamed for the decisions of others in that regard. Again she shouldn't have been doing any of this on her personal server in the first place.
I couldn't find any information readily available about Hillary intentionally removing classification markings. Maybe Jesse can provide one of his objective well-sourced references for that claim.
So if Jesse thinks any of this qualifies as violating 18 USC 793(e) above, which is what Trump is actually being charged with, then he is free to make that case. I think it is a big stretch to think that Hillary violated the Espionage Act. Did she violate some other law? Probably. But not the Espionage Act in my opinion.
And my larger point here, is that in these three cases, the details are very different, even though they are sloppily and carelessly compared to each other as if they were equivalent. When Biden's documents were found, he acknowledged the error and returned them. When Hillary's documents were found, she first tried to hide it and lie about it, she deleted some of them, but eventually she did acknowledge the error. Trump on the other hand has done nothing but give a giant fuck you to the law.
Interesting. Mute that guy and it doesn’t mute me.
Hey Reason, you're letting impersonators in again.
"HAIRSPACES!!!"
sarcasmic
September.13.2021 at 6:23 pm
Do you see any spaces? No? Then it is me.
The fact that you must, I mean involuntarily, believe that I was spoofing and impersonating myself shows that you are a retard or a liar.
Oh good heavens. Why can't Reason get a functional comment board system.
i>Are the facts of these three cases largely correct as presented here?
No.
Trump took documents properly, by virtue of his position as both Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.
And that's it.
Everything after that fact--and it is a fact-- is persecution by the Biden administration.
The only laws being broken are the ones the left is shattering in the vain attempt to retain power in perpetuity.
No, and he should stop being lied about, treated differently than any other politician and harassed legally. Whether you love or hate Trump makes no difference.
Lies: Russia collusion, pee tape, Bountygate, find the fraud, Trump supports white supremacist, Trump got rich off of being president, Trump incited a riot (see the J6 tapes Carlson exposed), Trump caused the Capitol policeman to die. All lies, all retracted or proven false, all purposely told to discredit Trump.
Trump treated differently: All you have to do is look at how Trump has been treated on the documents. Hillary Clinton’s violations were much worse, yet she was never raided or charged. Technically Biden and Pence are bigger violations, and Trump as an ex president had the right to declassify and take documents, they never had those rights. Trump has an argument they do not. Trump was not charged under the documents act because then all of them would have to be charged to, so they charged Trump under the espionage act which is a total joke, what ever he had was in a locked closet with secret service protection 24/7. No honest person in their right mind thinks Trump was committing espionage, if he was, it would have happened long before the raid. And don’t forget that Trump is the only president since the espionage act was passed that the Nation archives did not help go through and pack the documents. Why would that be, another setup?
Legal harassment: The indictments and never ending lawsuits, multiple indictments for the same charge, many that the statue of limitations has expired on, trying to make local misdemeanors into federal crimes, frivolous lawsuits not designed to be won to cost Trump time and money and in NYC actually changing the law on lawsuits to “get Trump”. Understand if the do “get Trump” this sets a precedent, and every former president will now be legally threatened, charged and maybe even convicted and imprisoned by the next president of the opposition party. American politics will devolve even further into the cesspool, a banana republic, unstable governments and even more corrupt dictatorial presidents. They have been out to “get Trump” from the day he announced for office, If you can’t see that you are either totally stupid, ignorant or so partisan you can’t see the damage this is doing to the country.
Imagine the hue and cry by the Democrats and liberal media if any Democrat was ever treated in a like manner.
The Democrats even admit they are worried about a “retribution presidency", and they damn well should be, it also shows they know what they are doing is wrong.
I did not vote for Trump in either election, I did not vote for Clinton or Biden, I voted third party independent both times. But it is easy so see what is going on here, and the corruption of the government under Obama and Biden.
The Trump Organization appears to have overcharged the Secret Service for stays at Trump-owned properties by agents protecting the then-president. The charges exceeded the government's approved rate, according to the House Oversight Committee, which says Secret Service records show payments totaling over $1.4 million.
According to the documents, the Secret Service was charged as much as $1,185 per room per night, nearly five times the government rate, which is set by the General Services Administration.
This is a far cry from what Trump Organization Executive Vice President Eric Trump claimed in 2020 — that rooms were provided "at cost" to the Secret Service.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/17/1129491352/trump-hotels-overcharged-secret-service-agents
When the first three words are 'The Trump Organization ', you know 'objectivity' was not going to be a consideration, in what follows.
This isn't a question of "should", its really becomming a question of when. I mean, the left is throwing as many darts at the board as they can, surely one of them will land.