ewsieg

because of my previous job, i've taking tons of training regarding documentation. I've never heard anything talk about how it's alright to be more lax with the rules the higher up you are. Instead it's drilled into our head that if any point we're not sure if/how to share information, the support process which will get the right people involved that can confirm how you should handle it.

Pence didn't even know he had them, he agreed to have the government come in and review and obtain anything they found. Biden had those in his home after he was no longer VP and the report shows he knew about it and even on some he wasn't sure about, instead of confirming first, he shared them with his ghost writer. Many years later, after someone noticed them at his home, his administration/team did the right thing, made it public, and worked with the government just like Pence did to review and obtain. He eventually did the right thing, but stop saying he immediately turned them in once he knew about them. At best, which Hur stated, he's so old he forgot about them but when reminded, remembered that he did have them after he was no longer VP and did not contact anyone to take care of them.

Your partisanship is blinding you from what I actually said. Go back and pretend 1984 wrote my second paragraph and read it again. If you convince yourself 1984 wrote it, you'd love the response.

Feel free to add the confusing face to this, but deep down you all know that if the only one having document issues was Trump, and that investigation found that he told a ghost writer he had classified documents, said he thought some documents might be classified (which they were) and read them to his ghost writer, this forum would have lost it just as much over Trump using classified documents to make money. But yeah, i'm both sidesing I guess.

Weird huh, almost like the summary didn't match the report. I mean, no way politics could have gotten in the way and the reason it wasn't pursued.

I just pointed out my issues with Hurr's summary and boy did all the democratic talking heads do the same, in fact Biden rushed out to have a press conference to defend himself. The report itself is damning, including the real reason he chose not to pursue charges. Trump was not the first to claim an election was stolen, but you obviously don't pay attention to anything I write here if you think i'm fine with Trump. As i've stated multiple times, I just want the J6 trial, I want Trump found guilty, and I would have no problem if he was hung for what he's done.

Do other people have to get to his level on crimes in order to be charged with them then? If that's the new standard, then I'll stop complaining about Biden because he hasn't risen to that standard, but what he did, would have landed me in a ton of trouble as a low level employee government contractor in my previous job.

You mean the source that your side attacked immediately upon the release of the report? For this type of stuff which you obviously didn't get to in the article you linked "Mr. Biden's decision to read notes nearly verbatim to [ghostwriter Mark] Zwonitzer that Mr. Biden had just identified as potentially classified cannot be justified. But the evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to share classified information. Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer he was 'not sure' the notebook passage he read was classified. That is enough to create reasonable doubt about whether Mr. Biden acted willfully." Hur outlines the ways in which a jury may side with Biden and not ultimately convict him for the missteps that the special counsel found.The report says that to a jury, Biden would likely "present himself ... as he did during his interview with our office, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Hey Mr Ghost Writer, I think these are classified, let me read them to you verbatim. Once caught, 'well, I wasn't sure they were classified'. Laughable, no way would you guys defend a republican that did the same thing.

I'm assuming this is directed at me. Is there anything specific I should be looking for? In looking at the charges, many are related to the coverup/obstruction which I've said is why Biden and Trump are not the same thing in regards to this issue, but willful retention is something both are guilty of.

Absolutely true, but again, you guys are so full of hate on Trump you refuse to criticize any enemy of his. The Hur investigation found that Biden was aware he had these documents after he had left as VP. They found that he shared these with his ghost rider for a book he planned to sell to make money. They even found the ghost rider attempted to delete all of his notes regarding it. In the end they said he was too old and forgetful and as a result, didn't think they would be able to convict him. I'm not saying Trump and Biden in regards to classified docs is exactly the same scenario and one isn't worse than the other, but equally so, you bringing up Pence and comparing that with Biden is equally absurd as there is zero proof or allegations Pence knew about it or used it. That's quite some both sides-ing right there.

5-6 years after he took them is immediately? Also his own Ghost writer testified that Biden read aloud some of the classified documents to him and we know the ghost writer tried to delete all of his notes regarding it after the government started investigating. Is it illegal to retain classified documents, yes. Were both Biden and Trump aware they had classified documents and never returned them....yes. Did Biden eventually forget about them because he's old...appears so. Did Trump continue to try and keep some...yes, which could result in additional charges, but wouldn't change the same initial charge that both Biden and Trump appear to both be guilty of. I absolutely think that matters when it comes to sentencing. Both were going 100 mph over, Biden pulled over, was polite, invited the cop to investigate anything they wish and the cop gave him a break. Trump was going 100 mph, pulled over, told the cop off, then started a car chase until he was finally caught and the cop is throwing the book at him, as they should. But again, make no mistake both were driving 100 mph and if you believe 100mph should be punished, then both should at least face charges on that 100 mph over.

By this logic, moderates/independents that are currently undecided despite knowing what Trump is, obviously are going to vote for Trump anyway so what's the point debating what if he becomes president again because he's got it in the bag then. The judge basically grabbed a number out of the air. Despite what 1984 says, he wasn't convicted on 20 years worth of loans although I do believe they tried (and maybe succeeded) in showing he had done it as a pattern. IIRC, they focused on several more recent transactions which he could still be pursued against. You're right, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that it's the right thing to do. Speaking of crimes, Biden committed the same crime as Trump in regards to documents, but just like you say, Dems make excuses and the same republicans that made excuses for Trump, want to see Biden prosecuted.

I'm not, he was guilty and he should be punished, I've said that multiple times. Just admit he's guilty of something no one else would have charged with and the penalty for that specific crime was exorbitant. I get it 'couldn't have happened to a nicer guy', so i'm not expecting sympathy, nor am I giving him any. As Romad pointed out though, i'd much prefer if undecided folks, in the little news they take in, were getting news on the documents case, j6, or his GA case (and not the side show with Willis), and not this which I fear could make undecided voters apothetic.

When you're on a road by yourself driving 15 mph over the speed limit and no cop sees you, but years later someone shows up because they decided to check every traffic cam and look specifically for you and found you driving 15mph over the speed limit, yes you're still guilty, but you were also targeted. And again, what is a penalty for parking in the fire lane? Is it twice the value of the car you parked in that fire lane? 400 million is 'ill-gotten' gains, laughable. Again, 232 million dollar loan and there is no evidence that he ended up with a better interest rate as a result as Deutsche Bank said they questioned/pushed back, and negotiated an interest rate that both agreed too.

Absolutely it does and that's why i'm not saying trump isn't guilty and shouldn't be punished, just 400 million...c'mon. Again to my concerns about undecided folks getting apathetic, should billionaires legally get hundreds of millions from the public which just inflates their net worth? If you could choose scenario 1 or 2 for your city, which one would you choose? 1) Tom Gores over inflates his net worth in the hopes of securing the best possible interest rate on 200 million he plans on investing into projects in Detroit. Citibank, where he got the loan, pushed back on his claims but eventually came to an agreement with him on the loan figures. Gores pays his loan back per the terms of the loan and uses that money on his investments. 2) Tom Gores decides the Pistons should have their own arena and after threating to leave Detroit, Detroit gives them 500 million towards it. The Pistons stay and Gores now has an additional revenue stream in a new arena and doesn't have to share revenue with the Illitches.

C'mon, i'm asking you to look at this specific thing he was found guilty of, not him as a person overall. https://fortune.com/2023/10/12/trump-disputed-financial-statements-key-approval-232m-loans-lender-haircuts-deutsche-bank-official/ 232 million in loans, which he paid back, but oh no, Deutsche Bank (with their knowledge about over valuation and consent) gave them lower rates. And the penalty for that....400 million!?!?! If you believe this case would have been pursued if their wasn't a political reason, you're simply wrong. Meanwhile, independents or rather undecideds, who don't consume nearly the same amount of news as everyone here, could look at that as political corruption and my concern is some may get sympathetic to Trump over it. The Illitches got the DDA to 'own' LCA and use over 300m in public subsidies which also gives them tax benefits on their District Detroit businesses/properties along with a free 35 year lease for the arena, which just means they use it for free and when it's time to replace, it's the DDA's issue to deal with. But democrats worked with Illitch to do it, so while you hear a little bit of grumbling about it from democrats, no one pushes it. Crazy thing is that is actually legal. My concern is undecided folks will see Trump getting fined 400 million because Deutsche Bank (with their consent) lowered their ROI to give Trump a loan at a slightly lower rate and think of ways billionaires get public money legally and be sympathetic or possibly just as worse, apathetic.

This goes back to what I said to Sue, while you're right he has scammed people his entire life, do you believe our government should be able to railroad someone because they either haven't tried to convict them in the past or haven't been able to convict them?

Your not wrong Chuck, but again, we're talking 1/2 billion dollar fine over something that was politically motivated. And calling Deutsce Bank a victim here, haha. Again, I do find it funny because I despise Trump, but it was an over the top settlement for this specific case. (Mind you I'd be perfectly all right with him being hung if he's found guilty of insurrection).

I'm not defending Trump in any way and I've heard and believe many of these stories like you have. Unfortunately democrats and republicans at local/state/fed level ensure that people with wealth and power can get away with this type of stuff. In fact i'd prefer that independents hear those stories which caused real loss for real people. All i'm saying is my fear is that they hear about no real loss for a big bank and question it.

You are absolutely correct, but did you ever imagine a world where big banks that weren't even bringing a case against a client, would be 100% democratically supported by the government going after their clients on their behalf? Heck even Elizabeth Warren is on board with the government working proactively for Deutsche Bank.

In terms of this case, I suspect and hope you're right. But again, no one actually lost money here. If you sued someone because you were defrauded out of money, I certainly hope you would get the money if it was awarded to you. But if you sued on a technicality and never experienced any loss and then were gloating daily and pointing out how much interest you're making from the delay, I don't think you'd have 100% independent support.

It certainly doesn't look good on his 'i'm so rich' persona he plays out to his supporters, but that's a cult and when it suits them, they'll be able to buy into more nuanced thinking (nice to know it's possible still) and understand only a dumb billionaire would have 400-500 million available on a quick notice. I can't see this playing out with independents either, but you have government backing up the banks (which didn't even ask for it) on one side. Not the easiest side to defend for most independents i'd gather.

It is fun, but I just don't hope this doesn't backfire. 1/2 billion dollars when he technically defrauded a bank but never actually went into default. I get it's Trump and **** him, but I just hope independents don't look at it as government overreach and sympathize.

We're going to survive regardless, but your point stands in terms of getting back towards a normal. If Trump was 10 years younger and not looking stupid old himself, i'd be more concerned, but he won't be around long, rather he wins or not. The republican party is already destroying themselves. A Trump win only temporarily delays it.

I was looking at expected contracts for several players yesterday and swore I saw Fuller at around 14 million per year for 2-3 years. Just went back and confirmed that was correct, but it noted only about 17 million guaranteed. He could potentially be getting close to the same in guaranteed money and still have a chance at another decent contract at age 32.