Refresher on Facts of the Hur report

@no1marauder said
Gee siccing a mob on the Congress to disrupt the Electoral College count (which the President has no lawful role in) isn't "undermining democracy" but calling someone to account for it is?

@philokalia said
where's the legal logic here?

If your bogus interpretation of the events were to be in place, the government would have the power to treat all manner of activity as grossly illegal and undermining the government, and everyone who ever spoke at any kind of event that can be linked to a protest turned violent could be held to account...

This is such a bogus, antidemocratic, and indefensible position...

You can't be serious.

@Philokalia said -
the government would have the power to treat all manner of activity as grossly illegal and undermining the government, "

Gee, I wonder if Biden's treatment of America on the Southern border is in America's
best interest, or is illegally undermining the government??

@philokalia said
where's the legal logic here?

If your bogus interpretation of the events were to be in place, the government would have the power to treat all manner of activity as grossly illegal and undermining the government, and everyone who ever spoke at any kind of event that can be linked to a protest turned violent could be held to account...

This is such a bogus, antidemocratic, and indefensible position...

You can't be serious.

@earl-of-trumps said
@Philokalia said -
the government would have the power to treat all manner of activity as grossly illegal and undermining the government, "

Gee, I wonder if Biden's treatment of America on the Southern border is in America's
best interest, or is illegally undermining the government??

@no1marauder said
That's such obvious BS that I don't think I need to respond further. The indictment has been discussed adequately in numerous threads already.

Trump will get the same chances anyone else indicted for criminal activity does in the United States; in front of a jury of his peers cloaked at trial with a presumption of innocence. That's all he deserves, not a "get out of jail free card" because he's a candidate for a public office.

@Earl-of-Trumps
2nd Thumb up is from me. We can also use your argument for letting people, some of whom are terrorists and killers, fentanylians, traffickers, etc walk into our country, They don't have PASSPORTS, for god sakes. Marauder sells himself as upper crust, but for some reason the crust of these people are no problem. He has never told us why.

@averagejoe1 said
@Earl-of-Trumps
2nd Thumb up is from me. We can also use your argument for letting people, some of whom are terrorists and killers, fentanylians, traffickers, etc walk into our country, They don't have PASSPORTS, for god sakes. Marauder sells himself as upper crust, but for some reason the crust of these people are no problem. He has never told us why.

@philokalia said
And they are silly - the 41charges against him in Georgia for the election are not substantiated in any significant way other than him making statements being misconstrued as him wanting to defraud the vote.

He is being charged with a conspiracy to overturn the election when the actual intention of what he was doing was getting to the bottom of suspicious swings in the ...[text shortened]... bat dorks are pretending that there is a crime in that.

How does it feel to undermine democracy?

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
Did you actually find out what the docs BIden had? If you actually cared and looked you would have found the docs were his personal hand written notes in his diary about his time as VP. And a lot of presidents and VP's did the same which is why he was pronounced innocent.
But of course that means nothing to you, you will continue to make it look like the docs ...[text shortened]... paid for by billionaires who just happened to have cases adjudicated by SCOTUS.
No big deal, right?

@no1marauder said
Actually it was and is.

As the Hur report points out, members of Congress are exempt from the general requirements restricting access to classified materials.

@no1marauder said
In the US, the way you determine if someone committed crimes is through the legal process.

To my knowledge, HRC has never been convicted of a crime, nor has she even been charged.

So no it is not a "fact" I would agree to i.e. that she "committed crimes".

@AverageJoe1 TO Marauder, who sees no crime by Hillary:
So destroying government property is not a crime? What, then, is this? (From Investor's Business Daily)

""What we have, then, is Clinton admitting that she destroyed federal records. She deleted 30,000 emails from a server that had become government property and wiped it clean.

The U.S. criminal resource manual says anyone guilty of destruction of government property "is subject to a fine of up to $250,000, 10 years imprisonment, or both."

Use your wordsmithing on this.

@no1marauder said
In the US, the way you determine if someone committed crimes is through the legal process.

To my knowledge, HRC has never been convicted of a crime, nor has she even been charged.

So no it is not a "fact" I would agree to i.e. that she "committed crimes".

@no1marauder said
The Report on page 15 makes the following statement:

The 1994 statute-and, by implication, the current executive order governing
classified information-do not apply to a sitting president or vice president, members of Congress, justices of the Supreme Court, and federal judges.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-februa ...[text shortened]... h statutes are in Title 50, Chapter 44, Subchapter VI of the United States Code.

Hope that helps.