Many may not know it but there is once again an angry mob surrounding the home of Justice Kavanaugh. Clearly it is illegal, yet the DOJ has not lifted a finger to enforce the law. If that had been the home of Justice Ginsburg, you could bet your life savings that the law would be enforced.

"It is illegal under federal law to attempt to influence a judge's ruling or interfere with the discharge of their duty. However, the Department of Justice has thus far refused to interfere with demonstrators outside the homes of several Supreme Court justices, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh. While the DOJ has provided security at the justices' homes, they have allowed protests and picketing to continue unimpeded."

foxnews

Clearly it is illegal, yet the DOJ has not lifted a finger to enforce the law.

Of course not. There's only been one assassination attempt of a justice. After two, they'll consider doing their job. 

After two, they'll consider doing their job. 

That may be just what it takes.

After two, they'll consider doing their job.

Are you of the opinion that law enforcement should be able to stop peaceful protests?

Note:

"Angry" is NOT "Violent"

"Mob" = "Group"

"Surrounding" = Remaining on public sidewalk, NOT on private property.

Legal experts generally agree that targeted, stationary protests outside of a justice’s home are prohibited under federal law — an effort to protect judges from undue pressures or influence.

Whether they are illegal is up to a court’s interpretation. Experts also warn that interpreting the law too broadly could infringe upon a person’s First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

The federal law O’Reilly claims these protestors have violated is  Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code , which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."

statesman

As this has not yet been interpreted by a court I would say the jury is still out completely on this.  

Are you of the opinion that law enforcement should be able to stop peaceful protests?

I see you chose to ignore the purpose of those "protests".  Just a hint, the purpose of those "protests" is what makes them illegal and the DOJ sat on their hands.

I see you chose to ignore the purpose of those "protests".

So you feel that law enforcement should be to stop peaceful protests if YOU disagree with those protests.  It may surprise you, but the Constitution is written for ALL Americans, not just the ones YOU approve of.

As this has not yet been interpreted by a court I would say the jury is still out completely on this.

Let me give you a hint...:

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you believe it is OK to dox and threaten public officials, including member of the Court?

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you not of the opinion that there are NO limitations to the Bill of Rights?  The Amendments cannot be lawfully restricted in any fashion? 

As I said, there is statute that says this action is illegal but as the courts have not ruled on it yet it is still an unanswered question.   

Is the home of a member of SCOTUS the government now?

Is a member of SCOTUS a member of the government?  Where in the 1st Amendment do you see it as limited to a location?

Do you believe it is OK to dox and threaten public officials, including member of the Court?

Do you believe in reading what I wrote and addressing what's in the article?  [Deleted]

Are you not of the opinion that there are NO limitations to the Bill of Rights?

Can't argue with what I wrote, so you are trying to divert to an entirely different matter?  

The Amendments cannot be lawfully restricted in any fashion? 

They can and have been restricted within reason, but there is no cause in the discussed situation.  Unless you are going to go along with Sean and only apply the 1st Amendment to people and things you personally agree with.

As I said, there is statute that says this action is illegal but as the courts have not ruled on it yet it is still an unanswered question.

Constitution states they have the legal right to protest peaceably.  Constitution over-rides any statute.

e you of the opinion that law enforcement should be able to stop peaceful protests?

Yes. They can limit it to time and place and the Supreme Court addressed a similar statute years ago. 

oyez

see also

oyez

Are you not of the opinion that there are NO limitations to the Bill of Rights?

Can't argue with what I wrote, so you are trying to divert to an entirely different matter?  

I am exactly on topic with the discussion, it's you that seems to have issues following along.  So let me lay it out for you...  

Your initial comment in 1.1.2  

After two, they'll consider doing their job.

Are you of the opinion that law enforcement should be able to stop peaceful protests?

Note:

"Angry" is   NOT   "Violent"

"Mob" = "Group"

"Surrounding" = Remaining on public sidewalk,   NOT   on private property.

My comment in 1.1.3

Legal experts generally agree that targeted, stationary protests outside of a justice’s home are prohibited under federal law — an effort to protect judges from undue pressures or influence.

Whether they are illegal is up to a court’s interpretation. Experts also warn that interpreting the law too broadly could infringe upon a person’s First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

The federal law O’Reilly claims these protestors have violated is  Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code , which was enacted in 1950. Under this law, it is illegal to picket or parade in front of a courthouse or a judge’s home "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge."

statesman

As this has not yet been interpreted by a court I would say the jury is still out completely on this.  

Your comment in 1.1.6 as a reply to my 1.1.3

As this has not yet been interpreted by a court I would say the jury is still out completely on this.

Let me give you a hint...:

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is quite clear in reading that you are using the First Amendment as a counter to Title 18, Section 1507 of US Code that was mentioned.  I also mentioned that while many legal experts lay out that the protesting / parading in front of the home of a Supreme Court justice has not yet been ruled on by a court so the jury on that is still out.  Your clear implication is that the First Amendment overrules Title 18, Section 1507. 

The Amendments cannot be lawfully restricted in any fashion? 

They can and have been restricted within reason, but there is no cause in the discussed situation.  Unless you are going to go along with Sean and only apply the 1st Amendment to people and things you personally agree with.

Ok, so you do agree that Amendments can be lawfully restricted.  So Title 18, Section 1507 could be applicable here.  Please note, you're the one who brought up the First Amendment, not me.

As I said, there is statute that says this action is illegal but as the courts have not ruled on it yet it is still an unanswered question.

Constitution states they have the legal right to protest peaceably.  Constitution over-rides any statute.

So just above you said that Amendments can be lawfully restricted, yet here you want to state that the Constitution will over-ride any statute.  So which is it?  Can Amendments be restricted or is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights absolute?  You cannot have it both ways.

So you quote me and STILL ignore what you quoted.  

It may surprise you, but the Constitution is written for ALL Americans, not just the ones YOU approve of.

Now actually take a look at the constitution and explain how the HOMES of SCOTUS Justices are covered by the constitution.

So which is it?  Can Amendments be restricted or is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights absolute?

You seem completely unable to read and understand what I wrote.  Suggest you read it again.

Now actually take a look at the constitution and explain how the HOMES of SCOTUS Justices are covered by the constitution.

You win the dumbest claim of the day award.

So which is it?  Can Amendments be restricted or is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights absolute?

You seem completely unable to read and understand what I wrote.  Suggest you read it again.

Looks like  you cannot follow a conversation thread and understand your own words.  Let me lay it out again,...

Title 18, Section 1507 states it is illegal to protest / parade in front of a judges home in an effort to change his ruling/views.  Yet you say those people who were protesting outside of Kavanaugh's home were just exercising their First Amendment rights.  Now this is the telling piece...

The Amendments cannot be lawfully restricted in any fashion? 

They can and have been restricted within reason, but there is no cause in the discussed situation.  Unless you are going to go along with Sean and only apply the 1st Amendment to people and things you personally agree with.

Ok, so you do agree that Amendments can be lawfully restricted.  So Title 18, Section 1507 could be applicable here.  Please note, you're the one who brought up the First Amendment, not me.

As I said, there is statute that says this action is illegal but as the courts have not ruled on it yet it is still an unanswered question.

Constitution states they have the legal right to protest peaceably.  Constitution over-rides any statute.

There it is, clear as fucking day.  You first state that Amendments can be lawfully restricted so Title 18, Section 1507 could be applicable here.  Then you state that Constitution over-rides any statute.  By saying that  you tell me that Amendments cannot be lawfully restricted.

So are you trying to say that ONLY by a Constitutional Amendment that Amendments can be lawfully restricted?  Is this what  you are trying to say?  Or could Title 18, Section 1507 be a lawful restriction of the First Amendment?  Which is it?  

Constitution states they have the legal right to protest peaceably.

Not when "the protester" is armed and standing on a justice's private property. 

Nicholas John Roske , 26, of Simi Valley, California, was carrying a gun, ammunition, a knife, pepper spray, a screwdriver, zip ties, and other gear when he was arrested by Montgomery County Police Department officers in the early morning hours Wednesday, according to a criminal complaint.

foxnews

Of course, left wing media ignored the story.

Not when "the protester" is armed and standing on a justice's private property. 

Which did not occur.  They would then have been arrested for trespassing.  They were on the sidewalk, or on neighbor's properties.

Nicholas John Roske , 26, of Simi Valley, California, was carrying a gun, ammunition, a knife, pepper spray, a screwdriver, zip ties, and other gear when he was arrested by Montgomery County Police Department officers in the early morning hours Wednesday, according to a criminal complaint.

foxnews

Of course, left wing media ignored the story.

Was it illegal to carry a gun in that location and time, or are you (and FoxNews) trying to combine 2 separate issues?  Let's see what he is charged with and found guilty of.

No matter how you try to spin it, Roske didn't travel from CA to Chevy Chase, MD to "peacefully protest", and the facts provided by both left and right media prove it. Look it up for yourself, because I did.

[deleted]

No matter how you try to spin it, Roske didn't travel from CA to Chevy Chase, MD to "peacefully protest"

I await your evidence to that claim.

the facts provided by both left and right media prove it.

They "prove" nothing, the best you could say is that they "imply" that.

The FBI search warrant application said that Roske  googled things such as “assassin skills,” “how to be stealthy,” and “Reagan assassination attempt,” and was allegedly hoping to eliminate two additional justices, as well.  It said the he formulated his plan by surveying users on Reddit.  

Thank you, DotW. As everyone can see, in comment 1.1.25  I suggested to Ozzwald that he do some Internet research ... which obviously ... you and I did.

My pleasurer.  Ozzy is always so sure of himself.  A few days ago he was way wrong on Operation Warp Speed.

Sorry, no one can see my polite suggestion anymore. It was deleted and taunting ticketed. 

I would comment but I am almost at my monthly quota.

The FBI search warrant application said that Roske  googled things such as “assassin skills,” “how to be stealthy,” and “Reagan assassination attempt,” and was allegedly hoping to eliminate two additional justices, as well.  It said the he formulated his plan by surveying users on Reddit. 

Are you at all familiar with how the American justice system works?

Please illuminate for us, Ozzy.

Yes, what is your point?

Please illuminate for us, Ozzy.

I'll try to explain, but 1st need some context.  What country are you from, so I can compare how America differs?

Thanks, I'm from the USA.

Thanks, I'm from the USA.

Then you should be aware of the basic tenants of the American justice system, and not require me to explain them to you.

I hear you.

All they have is PP&D

All they have is PP&D

Let's not forget that in 2022, President Biden (via Psaki) encouraged protests outside SCOTUS homes which resulted in Nicholas Roske's armed assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh.

PSAKI: “And we certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes and that’s the president’s position.”

twitter

foxnews

Yet another right wing op-ed riddled with misinformation and the residue of conspiracy theories. 

Classified documents have been found at the home of Mike Pence, whose spokesman says they were brought there inadvertently. 

So now we have three high officials or ex officials with classified documents at their home. Only one of them however, Donald trump, says he took them on purpose. 

The difference between inadvertent and intentional is a 5000 lb elephant in the room. 

Classified documents have been found at the home of Mike Pence, whose spokesman says they were brought there inadvertently. 

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have an example of a failed distraction.  

Since you failed to provide anything to prove any "misinformation" why not take the time to do it now?  

fuck off  [removed]

[deleted]

[Deleted]

Yet another right wing op-ed riddled with misinformation and the residue of conspiracy theories

It is all they have. They need something to yell and scream about.

Attacking schools and gay people can only take them so far....

I see them being silent about Pence doing the same thing...

The difference between inadvertent and intentional is a 5000 lb elephant in the room.

Sadly you're arguing with folk who will look you straight in the face and claim there is no elephant and their Emperor is adorned in the finest silks and fabrics regardless of their fat orange leader riding around the room naked on a trumpeting pachyderm.

Yet another right wing op-ed riddled with misinformation and the residue of conspiracy theories. 

Please provide links to the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" you claim from moderate sources. Thank you.

So charge Pence as well.

He seems to have Brandon disease when it comes to classified documents.

nowthisnews

Former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday that he didn’t take any classified information with him when he left office. Pence, asked directly if he had retained any classified information upon leaving office, told The Associated Press in an interview, “No, not to my knowledge.”

By the way, WTF is it with paid for hand picked sanitation teams that don't have proper security clearance being allowed to search and handle classified documents? First Brandon and now Pence.

Garland had better get the FBI/DOJ off their damn ass and search the rest of Pence's office(s) and home(s). Same with Brandon's.

No more of this BS. Oooppppsssss, I just found some classified documents! Don't know how they got there!"

Brandon and Pence need to held to the same damn standards as Trump.   

NARA needs to stand for National Archaic Repository of Assholes. Since they can't seem to do their damn jobs in keeping track of documents; and get selective amnesia when any are missing that don't involve someone with the last of Trump.

Cooperating. What garbage. Democrats willing to side with Pence just to protect Brandon the Human Fuck Up Machine; who has been keeping classified documents since he was a Senator!

How did Joe come into  possession of those records if it was not an "intentional" act?

Did they just magically appear in Joe's office, home and garage, like Rose Law Firm records being found on a table in the White House?

mishandling classified info was a policy for Biden 

After my father was out of office he shared with me that Sen Joe Biden confronted him and told him if he disagreed with my father on a Covert action he had planned he would leak it to the media to stop it..

twitter

and Biden, being Biden, bragged publicly about it

Biden says he "twice threatened to go public with covert action
plans by the Reagan administration that were harebrained," and thereby
halted them.

mishandling classified info was a policy for Biden 

That's apparent just looking at the reported age of some of the documents.  

Well, the situation isn't really that puzzling.  Trump was out of office when the scandal erupted while Biden is still in office.  The difference between a former President and a sitting President seems rather conspicuous.  Biden is in a position to manipulate the levers of the bureaucracy while Trump no longer has that ability.  Biden's defense will be subsidized by the public while Trump is pretty much on his own.

The unspoken issue that has more influence concerns the line of succession.  Biden's opponents can't remove him unless they're willing to accept Harris becoming President.  So, the scandal has to simmer to protect everyone's interests.  Harris is providing more protection for Biden than has been recognized.  Maybe that provides some insight into why Biden chose Harris as a running mate.  It seems logical that a weak President would want an even weaker Vice President.

Biden's scandal won't diminish support among the Democrat base.  Democrats don't have anyone else to turn to.  That is very similar to Trump's standing in the Republican Party.  Either party turning the page on their scandal ridden leaders would need someone to fill the vacuum.  The situation only demonstrates that party politics has become a detriment to the country.  Both parties are holding their noses to avoid the stink while just kicking the can.  Since both parties only use their platforms to pander, both parties are dependent upon charismatic individuals who can act as cult leaders.  That may be entertaining but doesn't serve any sort of national interest.

The stage is set for political upheaval.  And the weakness of both parties makes the outcome unpredictable.  Local governments are suffering the consequences of a national political vacuum and are beginning to become more assertive.  At this point the only thing holding everything together are the Federal courts.  The thing to watch is whether or not state courts begin challenging the Federal courts.  We've already seen the first rumblings with various and sundry sanctuary laws that reject Federal authority on a number of issues.  And now state governments are assuming tax authority beyond their jurisdictions.  At this point it doesn't seem likely that the Federal system can reign in states claiming national authority beyond their borders.  Our political system has fallen and can't get up.

This argument is beyond ridiculous. If you don't think that half the government officials in D.C. and elsewhere don't have classified documents where they shouldn't be then you don't know a thing about human nature. I said this from the moment they tried making this an issue when Trump began this whole thing. If you don't think Obama didn't have any then I have some ocean front property in Nevada I'd love to talk to you about. 

The freaking problem isn't who's got them!!! It's that anyone has them at all!!! The actual problem is that no one is taking classified documents seriously. But everyone is so intent on the individual who has them, as if that makes any freaking difference at all! Are you kidding me???

Trump took them intentionally. It is not known whether the others did, and they say they didnt. 

Trump took them intentionally.

As POTUS, Trump had authorization to declassify before removing them. Joe Biden, as Senator and VP, did not.

Biden tried to keep it all secret.

For possibly 50 years.

Trump took them intentionally. It is not known whether the others did, and they say they didnt. 

Okay. Let's look at that. Are you suggesting that the law concerning the handling of classified documents says that it's okay if you have classified documents where they should not be as long as it was an 'accident'? Like the FBI shows up, does a search and discovers that you have classified docs and all you have to say is, "Wow! Really? I didn't know that. Must be an accident." and then they say, "Oh, well, in that case.." and then they just go away? 

That's going to be a hard sell, because even those who don't have access to such documents knows better than that. 

You still don't understand that intentional or not it is still illegal!

Ignorance of the law is no damn excuse for violating it!

Ask anyone in the military that has classified documents clearance what happens to them if they mishandle classified information. It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not!

Ask anyone in the military that has classified documents clearance what happens to them if they mishandle classified information.

Bradley Manning's stupid ass comes to mind.

There are two laws at play here:   the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and the Espionage Act.   Violating the PRA is not criminal, violating the Espionage Act (EA) is.

So we now have three perps regarding classified documents:   Trump, Biden and Pence.    (No doubt more to come.)

All three have violated the PRA and it does not matter if this was done accidentally or intentionally.    It violates the PRA to take ANY document produced during official business while in office.   All such documents immediately fall under the purview of one's successor.   The accidental vs. intentional distinction will be a factor in the court of public opinion, but it makes no difference regarding the PRA.

The EA is different.   Here we are dealing with intent (to harm the USA) and/or gross negligence.   And violating the EA is criminal.   

So it is substantially better for one holding classified documents to be adjudicated as unintentional.   That eliminates the super majority of criminality per the EA.   They are still liable for gross negligence and here the number of documents and the severity of same will come into play.

Both Biden and Pence still could make an argument that they were unaware that they had classified documents in their possession.   Pence is in great shape here, Biden's position has been waning as more documents are discovered.   Trump, however, has no chance to argue that he did not know.   He has already effectively admitted knowledge when he lied about classifying the documents (and declaring personal privilege). 

Worse, for Trump, is his stonewalling (for months).   In contrast, both Biden and Pence notified relevant departments in the government of the discovered documents.   Both are consistently deemed to be cooperating.  Trump's lack of cooperation could be used to argue malicious intent.   Biden and Pence are in way better shape.

That said, because Biden is caught up in classified documents, the entire Trump situation (all the details) will be mashed together into a single concept by much of the public.   They will simplify this down to:  "holding classified documents".   Thus Trump and Biden (and Pence) will all be seen as equivalent circumstances.

In result, Trump has dodged a bullet (thanks to Biden and Pence).   He, Biden and Pence will likely be admonished at worst.   Trump will almost certainly NOT face any EA charges.

Partisan politics will again disrupt the ideal of blind justice.

Are you suggesting that the law concerning the handling of classified documents says that it's okay if you have classified documents where they should not be as long as it was an 'accident'? Like the FBI shows up, does a search and discovers that you have classified docs and all you have to say is, "Wow! Really? I didn't know that. Must be an accident." and then they say, "Oh, well, in that case.." and then they just go away? 

Sounds to be EXACTLY what the left is trying to gaslight everybody into believing.

Sounds to be EXACTLY what the left is trying to gaslight everybody into believing.

In reality, NARA is focused on securing presidential records and especially classified documents (TS/SCI in particular).    They are not focused on the reasons given for why a document was improperly handled.   This was seen clearly with Trump as NARA allowed Trump all sorts of leeway for months and none of it even made it to the media for reporting.

Ignorance of classified documents is irrelevant per the PRA.   But it does matter if one is considering the Espionage Act.   

But nobody is going to get more than a slap on the wrist at this point.   The (practical, valuable) focus needs to be on getting ALL classified documents from EVERYONE into an appropriately secured facility and then working to ensure that this never happens again.   Attempts to pursue punishment / criminality for these offenses would be quite unpopular and would almost certainly fail (because of politics).

 that intentional or not it is still illegal!

Correct!

Ignorance of the law is no damn excuse for violating it!

Correct!

Ask anyone in the military that has classified documents clearance what happens to them if they mishandle classified information. It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not!

Correct, especially, but not limited to active duty.

But there are different standards for civilians and the NARA and DOJ use prosecutorial discretion when deciding to pursue a conviction or not.

Look no further than General Betray-us. That case lowered the bar almost to the floor.

While he was smacked with a 2 year probation and a $100K fine, he still collects a nice $220,000 a year pension as a retired 4 star General.

And he not only knew what was in his black binders, he lent them to his mistress so she could write a best seller.

So all of the self righteous indignation in the world is not going to change anything for

Biden or Pence.

Petraeus remains a partner and Chairmen of the Global Institute Group for an undisclosed income.  He lectures and is on several other Board of Directors.

There are two laws at play here:   the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and the Espionage Act.   Violating the PRA is not criminal, violating the Espionage Act (EA) is.

Thanks for your clear and concise post about the differences. I knew it already but it's nice to have it stated for reference. 

In my opinion, no one, not even Trump, will be prosecuted under the EA at this point. Even allowing that I don't trust the media, no one has posted anything resembling anything close to evidence that Trump intended to commit espionage. 

From my perspective, I could care less about the PRA. In my opinion, anyone who's been elected President of the United States should be able to keep whatever they wish, as long as copies are maintained by the relevant authorities. My opinion is such because, for the rest of their lives, former presidents are some of the most highly guarded people on the planet. Technically, wherever they are is a secure location. 

I said, 'I could care less' about the PRA. Regardless of my personal opinion, it does exist and I do care that it was violated. But my opinion, which I feel as certain of as can be possible without objective evidence, is that mishandling of classified documents is so common that trying to prosecute anyone for it would be ridiculously expensive and time consuming. The answer to the problem, to my mind, is that anyone found guilty of having them, and absent of evidence of espionage, should simply be banned from access to classified documents for life, regardless of one's position. In other words, any government employee, regardless of position, (President or mail room employee) should be removed from their position and banned from any further position that might put them in contact with classified documents. 

This would mean that Trump, Biden, Pence and anyone else you could care to name should never be allowed to run for public office again or hold a position where sensitive information is a factor. It doesn't matter whether it was accidental or not. 

In my opinion, anyone who's been elected President of the United States should be able to keep whatever they wish, as long as copies are maintained by the relevant authorities.

I have a problem with that notion.    During the period where a document is classified, it should always be in a secured location.   A secured location is one that is designed to protect classified documents at a particular level.     So if the government creates a secured facility at the home of a former PotUS and staffs it properly then that would be marginally acceptable.   Even so, I see no reason for our government to do this for former PotUS' or V.P.s.    All classified documents should be in a secured facility at a government location.   That is the best way to manage all these documents and provides an economy of scale (and simplicity) in doing so.   

Now, to take an extreme example, I do not think that a currently TS/SCI document (e.g. one containing information on clandestine operations) should ever be at the home of a former executive.   They no longer have a need to know that type of information and there is no good reason that I can see for them to have it at their homes.

This would mean that Trump, Biden, Pence and anyone else you could care to name should never be allowed to run for public office again or hold a position where sensitive information is a factor. It doesn't matter whether it was accidental or not. 

That might get these boys to take our national security more seriously.   Probably would not matter to a term-limited PotUS.

Thanks for providing an example.

Now you do not even bother reading before commenting??     

Read it.  Saw it for what it is and commented on exactly what it is.  Don't get pissy that I'm not going to follow your deflection.

For novelty, I would like to see you respond thoughtfully to a post.   You know, read it without extreme partisan bias, juvenile snark, etc. and attempt to objectively and honestly respond to the points made and the facts presented.

Here again is what I originally wrote:

TiG @5.2.12 ☞

In reality, NARA is focused on securing presidential records and especially classified documents (TS/SCI in particular).    They are not focused on the reasons given for why a document was improperly handled.   This was seen clearly with Trump as NARA allowed Trump all sorts of leeway for months and none of it even made it to the media for reporting.

Ignorance of classified documents is irrelevant per the PRA.   But it does matter if one is considering the Espionage Act.   

But nobody is going to get more than a slap on the wrist at this point.   The (practical, valuable) focus needs to be on getting ALL classified documents from EVERYONE into an appropriately secured facility and then working to ensure that this never happens again.   Attempts to pursue punishment / criminality for these offenses would be quite unpopular and would almost certainly fail (because of politics).

One gigantic problem with your meme.

Some of Brandon's "overdue books" were from when he was a Senator. No Senator has a right to declassify or possess any classified material. The charge for those "overdue" books should be the same as an military member that mishandles classified documents.

But keep with the dumbass memes coming.

All you are proving is that leftists live in denial.

No Senator has a right to declassify or possess any classified material.

None of the three have any credible claim that the classified documents in their possession were declassified.   Your point is moot.   And your use of "Brandon" is childish.

None of the three should have had classified documents in their possession.

Trump tacitly (through his lies) admitted that he knew he had classified documents.   The jury is out on Biden and Pence.

Try again. Trump can declassify documents. Now as I have repeatedly stated whether or not he did is left up to the Special Prosecutor to decide; and the courts if the Special Prosecutor decides to press charges.

Trump denied having any nuclear classified documents- that was it. He, the FBI, DOJ, and NARA knew he had classified documents when the FBI did their first search of Mar-a-Lago and moved boxes of documents to a shed and had Trump's people put a pad lock on it. Why they didn't seize everything right then, well you will need to ask the dickheads at the DOJ and FBI. It was a great pretext do an all encompassing raid on Mar-a-Lago later and grab shit that had nothing to do with classified documents.

Brandon had no right to have them at all. Period. You want to claim he didn't know he had classified documents from when he was a Senator, really? Trying to pretend he was just that damn stupid, ignorant, or plain uncaring? Brandon is a serial classified document mishandler. At some point in his life he must have had a functioning brain and understood the rules for handling classified documents. 

I already said Pence shouldn't get any damn breaks. In fact I have gone further and blasted him for using hand picked paid for sanitation team that doesn't have proper security clearance to search for the documents (same as Brandon). The damn DOJ and FBI had better get off their asses and take over these searches; and leave the sanitation teams out of it!

As for my use of Brandon. He earned the name; I will use it as long as he deserves it.'

By the way, your "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!" BS is getting really old. You need to come up with some new material to try and defend Brandon.

“As for my use of Brandon.”

Use it as you are obviously obsessed, but know its use diminishes any hope of reasonable conversation. But again, it is obvious that is the very last thing you desire.

Divide and deride away, but never expect to be taken seriously. 

Trump can declassify documents.

Trump could declassify documents while PotUS.   He cannot do so once his term expired.   Surely you can comprehend that.

Brandon had no right to have them at all. Period. 

Biden (your label of "Brandon" is childish) had no right to have classified documents, Trump had no right to have classified documents, Pence had no right to have classified documents.   

You want to claim he didn't know he had classified documents from when he was a Senator, really? 

I did not make that claim.   Biden made the claim.   Learn the difference.

As long as you, et. al. make false claims, I will counter them.   

Forgetting about Hildabeast?

Comey let her off the hook completely. She destroyed classified information (as well as having it on an unsecured server and sending it others from that unsecured device). A device which was hacked by the Russians; and possibly others.

General Betray-us (and some claim I am bad for using Brandon)- at least faced some penalty; though not what nearly he deserved.

So all of the self righteous indignation in the world is not going to change anything for Biden or Pence.

IMO, Brandon and Pence will get a free pass. At most they will be forced to listen to a refresher course from the FBI on how to handle classified information. Brandon will get a pass from Democrats/leftists and may even get the nomination. Pence won't get as lucky. Trump supporters already hate him. Establishment Republicans won't forgive him for giving Brandon an easy out.  He is done politically. 

Trump may be in more trouble. Garland is sweating bullets as he appointed a TDS driven pit bull Special Prosecutor that hates Trump.

Want to see hell freeze over in the US? Trump getting charged and Brandon and Pence being allowed to walk. Think the nation is divided now? You haven't seen anything yet.

Forgetting about Hildabeast?

Her actions are unquestionably the worst of the bunch. That she walked means everyone will walk. 

At this point, Biden could declassify anything in his and Pence's possession

and say fuck it Brandon, lol.

like you dennis?

[deleted]

Forgetting about Hildabeast? Comey let her off the hook completely.

While destroying her chances at being elected POTUS. 

She destroyed classified information

Unproven, no charges were filed.

(as well as having it on an unsecured server and sending it others from that unsecured device).

A bad practice duplicated by the entire State Department also.

A device which was hacked by the Russians; and possibly others.

Unproven, not even a reasonable doubt.

IMO, Brandon and Pence will get a free pass. At most they will be forced to listen to a refresher course from the FBI on how to handle classified information. Brandon will get a pass from Democrats/leftists and may even get the nomination. Pence won't get as lucky. Trump supporters already hate him. Establishment Republicans won't forgive him for giving Brandon an easy out.  He is done politically. 

Pence was never viable but this won't affect him one way or the other

Trump may be in more trouble. Garland is sweating bullets as he appointed a TDS driven pit bull Special Prosecutor that hates Trump.

Are you referring to Jack Smith? Smith may be a pit bull for the US Code or the Haque but I doubt he will let his or his wife's alleged feelings as advertised by Trump interfere with his investigation.

My prediction is that he will be as quite as John Durham and equally ineffective.

Want to see hell freeze over in the US? Trump getting charged and Brandon and Pence being allowed to walk. 

Technically, Biden can declassify everything in his and Pence's possession.  If he does, then he should pardon Trump after the FBI  searches Trump Towers, Bedminster and every Trump property and anywhere else Trump  laid his head as POTUS and finds every illegal document.

Think the nation is divided now? You haven't seen anything yet.

I agree that it is problematic but business as usual in D.C.

The charge for those "overdue" books should be the same as an military member that mishandles classified documents.

Except that it isn't.  Military serve under a contract with the US.  They are subject to the 

UCMJ. 

Politicians are elected and granted unvetted security clearances germane to their committee assignments.

They are subject to other laws covering the handling of certain docs.

Believe me, Trump, Biden and Pence are just the tip of this iceberg.

WE are not the ones living in denial here.

Then we have NARA (the National Archives and Records Administration.) They maintained back in August that every classified document from the Obama administration was accounted for.

That's not really what the statement said.

Records

AUGUST 12, 2022

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration. For more information, please visit  https://www. archives.gov/press/press- releases/2022/nr22-001  

[deleted]

You are reading into that text a stipulation that ALL copies of documents in the Obama administration have been verified to be in the possession of NARA.   That statement stated that NARA assumed exclusive legal control of Obama administration documents, not that they conducted a detailed audit and accounted for every copy of every document.

They should be capable of doing that.   That part I agree.   But that is not what they wrote.    What they wrote was intended to refute Trump's claim that Obama had 33 million documents in his possession.  

In short, they were stating:  "Trump is wrong;  Obama does not have the documents of his administration, we have them."

Objectivity in reading.   Start there.

Thank you.