Even Biden's own DOJ says he's basically a dementia-addled old man
who's not competent enough to stand trial over retaining and
disseminating classified information after he left office as VP.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1200897377/biden-classified-documents-investigation
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:36:04 +0000
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Even Biden's own DOJ says he's basically a dementia-addled old man
who's not competent enough to stand trial over retaining and
disseminating classified information after he left office as VP.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1200897377/biden-classified-documents-investigation
So that means Trump gets a pass when it comes to the same charges,
right? Yeah, sure....
Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:36:04 +0000 BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Even Biden's own DOJ says he's basically a dementia-addled old man
who's not competent enough to stand trial over retaining and
disseminating classified information after he left office as VP.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1200897377/biden-classified-documents-investigation
So that means Trump gets a pass when it comes to the same charges,
right? Yeah, sure....
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:40:12 -0500, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:36:04 +0000
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Even Biden's own DOJ says he's basically a dementia-addled old man
who's not competent enough to stand trial over retaining and
disseminating classified information after he left office as VP.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1200897377/biden-classified-documents-invest
igation
So that means Trump gets a pass when it comes to the same charges,
right? Yeah, sure....
Trump kept the docs in locked rooms with secret service agents around. Biden kept them in his garage, office, another office he hadn't even used in years and often in cardboard boxes on his garage floor.
Yes, by all means, we need to charge Trump but not the brain-addled guy who can't remember that heads of state he recently talked to who died years ago.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:36:04 +0000 BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Even Biden's own DOJ says he's basically a dementia-addled old man
who's not competent enough to stand trial over retaining and >>>disseminating classified information after he left office as VP.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1200897377/biden-classified-documents-investigation
So that means Trump gets a pass when it comes to the same charges,
right? Yeah, sure....
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more >important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special >prosecutor now.
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
. . .
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more >>important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special >>prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal
relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's
nothing untoward there.
If the Georgia Republican legislature members have their way it may
not be able to go forward. I heard a week or so ago they are
attempting to pass legislation that will basically make Rico cases
(which this falls under) legal so Trump would no longer be guilty of a
crime in Georgia. Though it would also apply to anyone else so yea?
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:36:04 +0000 BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Even Biden's own DOJ says he's basically a dementia-addled old man
who's not competent enough to stand trial over retaining and
disseminating classified information after he left office as VP.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1200897377/biden-classified-documents-investigation
So that means Trump gets a pass when it comes to the same charges,
right? Yeah, sure....
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more
important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special
prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal
relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's
nothing untoward there.
If the Georgia Republican legislature members have their way it may
not be able to go forward. I heard a week or so ago they are
attempting to pass legislation that will basically make Rico cases
(which this falls under) legal so Trump would no longer be guilty of a
crime in Georgia. Though it would also apply to anyone else so yea?
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
. . .
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more
important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special
prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal
relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's
nothing untoward there.
She's named as the co-respondent in the fuckhead's divorce. That they
were lovers is the entire reason why she gave him the contract. He
performed no work for the taxpayers.
She's highly unethical. Trump's prosecutor must be pure as the driven
snow. There are plenty of choices of prosecutors elsewhere in Georgia to choose from with excellent reputations.
If the Georgia Republican legislature members have their way it may
not be able to go forward. I heard a week or so ago they are
attempting to pass legislation that will basically make Rico cases
(which this falls under) legal so Trump would no longer be guilty of a
crime in Georgia. Though it would also apply to anyone else so yea?
Can a criminal law be repealed retroactively? I don't see how that's
possible but what do I know.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
. . .
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more >>>important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special >>>prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal
relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's
nothing untoward there.
She's named as the co-respondent in the fuckhead's divorce. That they
were lovers is the entire reason why she gave him the contract. He
performed no work for the taxpayers.
She's highly unethical. Trump's prosecutor must be pure as the driven
snow. There are plenty of choices of prosecutors elsewhere in Georgia to >choose from with excellent reputations.
If the Georgia Republican legislature members have their way it may
not be able to go forward. I heard a week or so ago they are
attempting to pass legislation that will basically make Rico cases
(which this falls under) legal so Trump would no longer be guilty of a >>crime in Georgia. Though it would also apply to anyone else so yea?
Can a criminal law be repealed retroactively? I don't see how that's
possible but what do I know.
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:17:10 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
. . .
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more >>>>important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special >>>>prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal >>>relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's
nothing untoward there.
She's named as the co-respondent in the fuckhead's divorce. That they
were lovers is the entire reason why she gave him the contract. He >>performed no work for the taxpayers.
I hadn't heard that.
Last I had heard was that they knew each other
and had had a relationship but that didn't suggest there was a clear
conflict of interest.
Given she's involved in his divorce I agree that
she shouldn't have been given the case even though that case has
nothing to do with Trump's case.
. . .
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:17:10 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
. . .
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more >>>>>important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special >>>>>prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal >>>>relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's >>>>nothing untoward there.
She's named as the co-respondent in the fuckhead's divorce. That they >>>were lovers is the entire reason why she gave him the contract. He >>>performed no work for the taxpayers.
I hadn't heard that.
That's how it all became public knowledge. The wife filed that he had
taken Willis on vacation, paying her expenses. Yes yes, I'm sure it's a >no-fault divorce but it's clear she did that to point out which of the
two of them had the affair and which of the two of them was spending
money on a third party.
Last I had heard was that they knew each other
and had had a relationship but that didn't suggest there was a clear >>conflict of interest.
If they weren't lovers, there's no explanation as to how he got hired.
Given she's involved in his divorce I agree that
she shouldn't have been given the case even though that case has
nothing to do with Trump's case.
No. She hired him to prosecute Trump for unethical reasons. If she had >prepared the case herself or had an assistant prepare the case, she
wouldn't have violated legal ethics not to mention state purchasing
laws.
On 2/8/24 4:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Even Biden's own DOJ says he's basically a dementia-addled old man who's not
competent enough to stand trial over retaining and disseminating classified >> information after he left office as VP.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1200897377/biden-classified-documents-investigation
Wow! Are you saying a REPUBLICAN prosecutor gave an opinion that he has
ZERO expertise or business giving?
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 00:35:12 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:17:10 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
. . .
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more >>>>>>important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special >>>>>>prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal >>>>>relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's >>>>>nothing untoward there.
She's named as the co-respondent in the fuckhead's divorce. That they >>>>were lovers is the entire reason why she gave him the contract. He >>>>performed no work for the taxpayers.
I hadn't heard that.
That's how it all became public knowledge. The wife filed that he had
taken Willis on vacation, paying her expenses. Yes yes, I'm sure it's a >>no-fault divorce but it's clear she did that to point out which of the
two of them had the affair and which of the two of them was spending
money on a third party.
Last I had heard was that they knew each other
and had had a relationship but that didn't suggest there was a clear >>>conflict of interest.
If they weren't lovers, there's no explanation as to how he got hired.
Given she's involved in his divorce I agree that
she shouldn't have been given the case even though that case has
nothing to do with Trump's case.
No. She hired him to prosecute Trump for unethical reasons. If she had >>prepared the case herself or had an assistant prepare the case, she >>wouldn't have violated legal ethics not to mention state purchasing
laws.
If that's the case then she should be removed and likely fired for
stupidity. I mean who wouldn't know that anyone on this case against
Trump was going to have their lives gone over with a fine tooth comb
looking for anything that could be used against them?
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 00:35:12 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:17:10 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>
. . .
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more >>>>>>> important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special >>>>>>> prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal
relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's
nothing untoward there.
She's named as the co-respondent in the fuckhead's divorce. That they >>>>> were lovers is the entire reason why she gave him the contract. He
performed no work for the taxpayers.
I hadn't heard that.
That's how it all became public knowledge. The wife filed that he had
taken Willis on vacation, paying her expenses. Yes yes, I'm sure it's a
no-fault divorce but it's clear she did that to point out which of the
two of them had the affair and which of the two of them was spending
money on a third party.
Last I had heard was that they knew each other
and had had a relationship but that didn't suggest there was a clear
conflict of interest.
If they weren't lovers, there's no explanation as to how he got hired.
Given she's involved in his divorce I agree that
she shouldn't have been given the case even though that case has
nothing to do with Trump's case.
No. She hired him to prosecute Trump for unethical reasons. If she had
prepared the case herself or had an assistant prepare the case, she
wouldn't have violated legal ethics not to mention state purchasing
laws.
If that's the case then she should be removed and likely fired for
stupidity. I mean who wouldn't know that anyone on this case against
Trump was going to have their lives gone over with a fine tooth comb
looking for anything that could be used against them?
She's an elected official; I have no idea how she'd be removed.
In Cali, the attorney general can remove a district attorney from office. In some states, it's the governor. No idea what Georgia does.
In article <ZNGcnTbzFOt3OVj4nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In Cali, the attorney general can remove a district attorney from office. In >> some states, it's the governor. No idea what Georgia does.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/05/georgia-brian-kemp-bill- remove-local-prosecutors
Georgiaıs governor, Brian Kemp, signed a bill on Friday (May 5 2023)
that makes it possible to oust elected district attorneys from office
if they are believed to not be adequately enforcing the law. Itıs a
move that is seen a thinly veiled power grab to push out Democratic prosecutors, include some who said they would not prosecute
abortion-related crimes.
The new law sets up a statewide Prosecuting Attorneys Statewide Qualifications Commission with the power to investigate complaints
against district attorneys and remove them if they have sufficient
cause. The law outlines a series of offenses for which a prosecutor can
be removed, including ³willful and persistent failure² to carry out
their duties and categorically refusing to prosecute crimes they are
required by law to pursue.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/05/georgia-brian-kemp-bill-remove-local-prosecutors
Georgia's governor, Brian Kemp, signed a bill on Friday (May 5 2023)
that makes it possible to oust elected district attorneys from office
if they are believed to not be adequately enforcing the law. It's a
move that is seen a thinly veiled power grab to push out Democratic >prosecutors, include some who said they would not prosecute
abortion-related crimes.
The new law sets up a statewide Prosecuting Attorneys Statewide >Qualifications Commission with the power to investigate complaints
against district attorneys and remove them if they have sufficient
cause. The law outlines a series of offenses for which a prosecutor can
be removed, including willful and persistent failure to carry out
their duties and categorically refusing to prosecute crimes they are
required by law to pursue.
(more at the link)
On 2/8/24 6:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 8, 2024 at 3:17:10 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Thu, 8 Feb 2024 23:02:29 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
. . .
I don't want this case against Trump pursued. The others are far more >>>>> important especially the Georgia case, but that one requires a special >>>>> prosecutor now.
Why do you think that is necessary? If it's over the personal
relationship that Fanni Willis had it's my understanding there's
nothing untoward there.
She's named as the co-respondent in the fuckhead's divorce. That they
were lovers is the entire reason why she gave him the contract. He
performed no work for the taxpayers.
She's highly unethical. Trump's prosecutor must be pure as the driven
snow. There are plenty of choices of prosecutors elsewhere in Georgia to >>> choose from with excellent reputations.
If the Georgia Republican legislature members have their way it may
not be able to go forward. I heard a week or so ago they are
attempting to pass legislation that will basically make Rico cases
(which this falls under) legal so Trump would no longer be guilty of a >>>> crime in Georgia. Though it would also apply to anyone else so yea?
Can a criminal law be repealed retroactively? I don't see how that's
possible but what do I know.
If they can tax you retroactively, as California frequently does, why
not?
You're supposed to be a lawyer. You're supposed to know that's bullshit.
Missed that class too, did we?
On 2/8/24 5:47 PM, EGK wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:40:12 -0500, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:36:04 +0000
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Even Biden's own DOJ says he's basically a dementia-addled old man
who's not competent enough to stand trial over retaining and
disseminating classified information after he left office as VP.
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1200897377/biden-classified-documents-investigation
So that means Trump gets a pass when it comes to the same charges,
right? Yeah, sure....
Trump kept the docs in locked rooms with secret service agents around.
Biden
kept them in his garage, office, another office he hadn't even used in
years
and often in cardboard boxes on his garage floor.
 Yes, by all means, we need to charge Trump but not the brain-addled
guy who
can't remember that heads of state he recently talked to who died
years ago.
He kept them in the shitter at Mar a Lardo.
He showed them around in Bedminister NJ.
Fuck off. At least Biden doesn't think Nikki Haley was running Congress
on January 6th.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 71:50:16 |
| Calls: | 6,713 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,246 |
| Messages: | 5,356,983 |