DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus FBI Raid pt. 2

Biden took top secret documents. Period. That he knows about it, but can claim he doesn't, speaks to his mentality.

Regardless - biden had top secret documents, some relating to Ukraine (I wonder what that could be about), and now there are more in a different location.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The FBI ought to be raiding his homes soon.

Is that a good thing?

And it was known a week before the election, but is just now coming out? https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-irresponsible-stashing-secret-documents-185037501.html

Great, except we already have laws for these docs, and in both cases, they may have been broken. You don't get punished with future laws, Fate; you get punished with the ones on the books when you broke the law. Trump should go to jail, Biden should be investigated, and if guilty, charged,

No crap. Doesn't mean you don't correct stupid before it has the chance to be stupid again. Top Secret = off limits for anyone's leisure reading or for those who may "mistakenly place" them.

Not a good thing. It's very concerning. It's very serious and needs to investigated and light shined on it. It needs to be addressed fully. But the implication by some that this is the same as what trump did - no.

Obviously in your blindness you don't see the difference between the two situations. It was Biden's own people who found them. They voluntarily turned them over immediately. No subpoena was needed. No search warrant was needed because he lied about having hundreds more.

In your wanna be gotchya moment, at the time I posted that there was no evidence that any other president had secret documents after leaving office. Now there is . Investigate it just like they did trump. And BTW- so far even after lying to the FBI and hiding hundreds of documents trump hasn't been charged with a crime. Even after refusing to comply with a subpoena trump hasn't been charged with a crime.

Those who refused to bitch about trump better not bitch about Biden. But naturally that ship has already sailed.

What? That thinking is insane. The goal post is exactly where it’s always been. (R) beside your name, FG GOOD. (D) beside your name, FG BAD.

You didn’t even post in this thread until now Proving that you’re ignorant here or you didn’t give the trump case any credibility to begin with. But now Biden is guilty as sin. We get it.

I think that's pretty much in place already.

yes and signed into law by trump. You cant make this stuff up

My goal posts haven't moved. You are comparing them to other people's.

I think trump having classified stuff is wrong but not egregious. He was president and had unfettered access to them. End of term gets chaotic (especially his) and things happen. I think Biden having those classified items where they were is wrong but not egregious. He was vice president and had unfettered access to them. End of term gets chaotic and things happen.

The difference is biden found then and said oops my bad, here you go. Trump denied having them tried to hide the fact that he had them, refused to return them even with a subpeona and he sat there say my precious.

The part that was egregious was lying that he turned them all over. Defying a subpoena and after months still refusing to turn them over to the point that a search warrant was needed to get them. But they never allow facts to get in the way.

It wasn't just confidential. It was Secret and top secret.. See below

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1120...p-secret-documents-held-by-trump-matters

Just Clicking..

Trump had documents he shouldn't have.. It appears that he had them against the law.

Biden had documents he shouldn't have.. It appears that he had them against the law.

One doing it doesn't relieve the other from punishment.

It's idiotic to think otherwise.

Hang them both on equally strong rope!

Republican's are asking for Bidens visitor logs. They should also be asking for trumps visitor logs.

I think the bigger questions.

How did either end up with documents?
How many other former Presidents have some?
Who keeps track of this stuff to begin with?

Trump having them is a bad thing, Biden also having some leads to a lack of proper tracking of such documents.

Hell, they know when you check out a book at the library, but classified documents are just handed out without any sort of sign out or tracking system?

I think you have nailed the biggest issue in the entire debacle.

Agreed... would also add, what exactly were the documents? I understand that they are 'top secret' and 'classified'... but feel we overly classify things in this country.. I'm curious how critical the documents are to our national security...

also, asking for Biden's home visitor logs is ridiculous... I understand he's the president but who keeps a visitor log for their personal home?

Those were my questions as well when it came out that Biden also had documents. I mean, Trump is your basic petulant child, so that was no surprise; and it seemed his biggest undoing was refusing to give them back. But Biden was VP, and his trail of docs appears to be anything but secure.

We probably won't be privy to the content of these docs, which just serves to power the rumor mill. But what constitutes "classified" and "top secret", and why can anyone remove them from their place?? Absurd.

Then I read of some underling that took home some docs, for work, during COVID lockdown -- and is now in prison.

Hopefully this prompts some strict rules that are actually enforced from top to bottom, this has been a joke. And while we argue about Trump and Biden, the rest of the world laughs.

The rules are always different for the wealthy criminal..

The rules change because we allow them to be changed. We deserve the leaders we get. Vote responsibly.

Actually it hinges on whether it was with the intent to retain those documents. I mean I don't make the laws and I won't venture a guess either way whether it was or was not with the intent to keep them in this case, but the way the law is worded is that it's criminal of you tried to keep them.

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

In this case "retain" would mean to hold or possess. So taking them to an unauthorized location and keeping them there.

You forgot this part.....

with the intent to retain such documents or materials

re·tain
/rəˈtān/

1.
continue to have (something); keep possession of.
"built in 1830, the house retains many of its original features"

2.
absorb and continue to hold

hang onto
cling to
cleave to
maintain
continue
preserve
reserve
conserve
perpetuate
cherish

I literally defined the word "retain" how did I forget that part when I literally defined it.

No, no you didn't. I posted the very definitions of the word and nothing you post will change that. Thinking you are being sly my using some far fetched semantics that simply do not apply won't work.

There is nothing far fetched about the definition.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/retain/ see number 2.

You have, yet again, assumed your skewed Merriam Webster definition of a word holds in a legal discussion, especially because it doesn't support your blind rage.

I really pity people who have to be around you on a daily basis. It has to be a miserable existence. Go get help.

You do understand that when you turn something over voluntarily your intent is not to hold and keep it, right?

You do understand that was not the original discussion and you are now moving the goal posts.



That's the part you bolded. That is the part I responded to.

is no where to be found in that.

I'll allow you to bask in you honesty believing that you have some clue to what a legal definition means with your extensive legal background Attorney Frank. Oh, that's right. Never mind. People can clearly understand what "intent to retain" means.

Two of your tropes in one.

Just because it is inconvenient to you doesn't mean it is wrong.

What's your credentials again?

Try using some context. Bask Attorney Frank, bask.

Try using some understanding.

Your contention seems to boil down to this. If you take classified documents someplace that you are not authorized to take them it is only a crime if you don't give them back when asked. That is idiotic. One of the issues raised with the Mar-a-largo bit wa shaving FBI agents that were not authorized to even look at what they were seizing. But it is only a crime to not give them back?

I gave you an accepted definition of "retain" that was "To keep in possession or use" which fits in this case. If you take them you have retained them. This is not even complicated.

Your ego does not allow you to be wrong. You really need to seek help with that.

Well, since we know Biden got them no later than 2016 (he got them as vice president under Obama) I would say their was intent to keep the classified documents, wouldn't you? I mean, he had them for 6 years.

Sounds like he "retained" them.

Do you have forensic evidence? Dental records?? Then it doesn't count here at Dawgtalkers.

If Biden knew they were there, yes. But if his intention was to retain them, why did he voluntarily turn them over? No subpoena was needed. No search warrant was needed because he refused to turn them over.

He retained them until he gave them back. Retention is not a forever thing nor does it need to be forceful. Retain = possession. He possessed until he didn't.

If you steal a car it isn't forgiven just because you give it back. The theft is the first crime. In this case the documents were stored (retained) which is the alleged crime. Refusing return could be additional crimes, but that was not what your original comment showed.

Sadly you seem to ignore the word intent. Secondly you must prove who actually stole the car. Personally I think it sucks the way some of these laws are written. They protect politicians and that works the same way for both parties. I'm not an attorney, I do however think it would be very hard to convince a jury that someone who handed these documents over voluntarily had the intent of keeping them. Who knows. But since no charges were ever brought in the case of trump, what do you actually expect the results of this will be?

I think everyone will walk away without any actual legal penalty.