Trump indicted over classified documents

214,462 Views | 3469 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by aggiehawg
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:27p, 6/19/23
Just more context on how "reckless" Trump and his team were. NARA was busy looking for mementos to EMBARRASS Trump and Trump's team was concerned about aides and others without clearance accidentally going through boxes that may contain classified materials.

And this is from CNN in February 2022. Now, is that how MSM has been presenting this information since August 2022? Is that how our resident libs and CMs talk about the Trump documents? That Biden's NARA was being petty, that WH counsel told them to go to DOJ over sharpie altered NOAA maps, that the DOJ took that PRA dispute and some legal diparse pulled out the Espionage Act, and now here we are where current POTUS has his #1 political rival jailed?

But its all right there in front of you.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/politics/trump-mar-a-lago-documents-archives/index.html

Quote:
Worried that a trove of White House records that had been brought to Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate contained classified material, a top official in the former President's orbit warned his aides last fall: Do not touch those boxes.

The senior official in Trump's inner circle did not want to risk exposing sensitive materials to aides who may have lacked the appropriate security clearances, according to a person familiar with the matter. The boxes, which were being stored at the time in Trump's Florida club, had landed on the National Archives and Records Administration's radar after officials there noticed that several items were missing from their catalog of Trump White House records.

In May 2021, the realization that important items from Trump's time in office including some of his correspondence with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and infamous Sharpie-altered map of Hurricane Dorian were not transferred to the Archives at the end of his presidency prompted NARA officials to contact Trump's team.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Whistle Pig
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 5:21p, 6/19/23
NARA discovered presidential records were missing while doing their job cataloging presidential records. Clearly this exonerates Trump because he cooperated fully after the mistake was discovered and all his lawyers didn't quit.
Reply Quote
5
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Whistle Pig • 5:22p, 6/19/23
Whistle Pig said:
NARA discovered presidential records were missing while doing their job cataloging presidential records. Clearly this exonerates Trump because he cooperated fully after the mistake was discovered and all his lawyers didn't quit.
For once, I think you understand the issue at hand. Congrats Pig, making progress.
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:26p, 6/19/23
AG
There is a White House Records Management Office, staffed by longtime bureaucrats, not appointed by Trump.

Were they doing their jobs?
Reply Quote
5
HammerHeadAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:54p, 6/19/23
AG
Because nothing is every trumps fault. Let's blame someone else
Reply Quote
15
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HammerHeadAg • 6:54p, 6/19/23
HammerHeadAg said:
Because nothing is every trumps fault. Let's blame someone else


Trump packs boxes of golf hats and hides nuclear codes in those boxes to sell later to Putin and Lil Kim. Is that the story you are going with?
Reply Quote
6
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:55p, 6/19/23



Will a criminal trial be conducted on the basis of secreted evidence?
Reply Quote
2
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 10:06p, 6/19/23
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Will a criminal trial be conducted on the basis of secreted evidence?
Why would it be necessary for the jury to read the classified documents? Would reading the actual doccuments somehow give them greater insight into the charges?
Reply Quote
1
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 10:14p, 6/19/23
Stat Monitor Repairman said:



Will a criminal trial be conducted on the basis of secreted evidence?
I think the question would be how will they address the leaks of docs on the floor, tape recording evidence to CNN, and tons of misleading, inaccurate pictures from the indictment.
Reply Quote
1
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 10:34p, 6/19/23
eric76 said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Will a criminal trial be conducted on the basis of secreted evidence?
Why would it be necessary for the jury to read the classified documents? Would reading the actual doccuments somehow give them greater insight into the charges?
Reply Quote
3
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 10:52p, 6/19/23
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
eric76 said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Will a criminal trial be conducted on the basis of secreted evidence?
Why would it be necessary for the jury to read the classified documents? Would reading the actual doccuments somehow give them greater insight into the charges?
You're really puzzled, huh? You should be if you can't figure that out.
Reply Quote
1
DukeMu
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:09p, 6/19/23
Going as expected.

Attorneys, jurors will be reading the docs in SCIFs.

More shoes to fall as well.
Reply Quote
1
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22p, 6/19/23
Is it constitutional for the DOJ to limit the pool of prospective jurors to only those persons who are eligible for a TS/SCIF security clearance?
Reply Quote
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DukeMu • 11:27p, 6/19/23
AG
DukeMu said:
Going as expected.

Attorneys, jurors will be reading the docs in SCIFs.

More shoes to fall as well.
Should they select a large jury panel now and start getting security clearances for them all so that the jurors will have the necessary security clearances? How large should this panel be?

Should they select a jury now and start getting security clearances for the jurors?

Should it be required that every potential juror already have a security clearance?

Or is it sufficient for testimony from cleared witnesses that the documents in question are necessary for the national defense?
Reply Quote
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 11:31p, 6/19/23
eric76 said:
DukeMu said:
Going as expected.

Attorneys, jurors will be reading the docs in SCIFs.

More shoes to fall as well.
Should they select a large jury panel now and start getting security clearances for them all so that the jurors will have the necessary security clearances? How large should this panel be?

Should they select a jury now and start getting security clearances for the jurors?

Should it be required that every potential juror already have a security clearance?

Or is it sufficient for testimony from cleared witnesses that the documents in question are necessary for the national defense?
If jurors can see the bullet riddled bodies of children or the grotesque nature of violent sexual crimes of all ages, I think they can handle some Obama drivel, a Hurricane Dorian Sharpie Enhanced Map, and Lil Kim love letters.
Reply Quote
2
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:37p, 6/19/23
Is it a violation of due process to present a single district court judge with the number of unprecedented constitutional issues already present in this case?
Reply Quote
1
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 11:46p, 6/19/23
AG
fka ftc said:
eric76 said:
DukeMu said:
Going as expected.

Attorneys, jurors will be reading the docs in SCIFs.

More shoes to fall as well.
Should they select a large jury panel now and start getting security clearances for them all so that the jurors will have the necessary security clearances? How large should this panel be?

Should they select a jury now and start getting security clearances for the jurors?

Should it be required that every potential juror already have a security clearance?

Or is it sufficient for testimony from cleared witnesses that the documents in question are necessary for the national defense?
If jurors can see the bullet riddled bodies of children or the grotesque nature of violent sexual crimes of all ages, I think they can handle some Obama drivel, a Hurricane Dorian Sharpie Enhanced Map, and Lil Kim love letters.
Which counts were those in the indictment?
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:52p, 6/19/23
Is it a violation of due process for the DOJ to prosecute a criminal case with this many prima facie constitutional issues already baked in?
Reply Quote
4
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:08a, 6/20/23
Is the targeted criminal prosecution of a former president under the Espionage Act considered a bill of attainder within the meaning of Article 1, section 9 when the underlying crime is arises from an alleged act or omission related to the defendant's service as president?
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:14a, 6/20/23
Mary wore three links of chain
Every link was Jesus' name
Keep your hand on that plow, hold on
Oh Lord, oh Lord, keep your hand on that plow, hold on
Reply Quote
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 2:22a, 6/20/23
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is it a violation of due process for the DOJ to prosecute a criminal case with this many prima facie constitutional issues already baked in?
That seems to me to be a patently absurd question.

Just what Constitutional issues does it have? Whether or not a former President is above the law?

And why would due process be an issue if there were Constitutional issues?

Precisely which due process issues are you so actively scratching to create out of thin air?

If there were any actual issues of due process, it would be for the attorneys to bring up in trial.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 2:27a, 6/20/23
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the targeted criminal prosecution of a former president under the Espionage Act considered a bill of attainder within the meaning of Article 1, section 9 when the underlying crime is arises from an alleged act or omission related to the defendant's service as president?
This is not about Trump's Presidency. It is about his actions after his Presidency ended.

And for what possible reasons do you think that this would be a bill of attainder? Does the Espionage Act single out Trump somehow for prosecution?
Reply Quote
2
LMCane
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:38a, 6/20/23
so looks like all you Trump legal experts need some new talking points after Trump HIMSELF stated he was pretty much guilty of obstruction.

And that there was no PRA for the Iran War Plans, but instead he claimed the document WAS PLANTED BY THE FBI or NEVER EXISTED.

Quote:
TRUMP: [crosstalk] They have no no
BAIER: And they said, 'could you give us the documents back?' [crosstalk] And then they said went to DoJ to subpoena you to get them back.
TRUMP: Which they've never done before.
BAIER: Right.
TRUMP: And in all fairness
BAIER: Why not just hand them over then?
TRUMP: Because I had boxes I wanted to go through the boxes and get all my personal things out. I don't want to hand that over to NARA yet. And I was very busy, as you've sort of seen.
BAIER: Yeah. [crosstalk] But according to the indictment, you then tell this aide to move to other locations after telling your lawyers to say you'd fully complied with the subpoena, when you hadn't.
TRUMP: But before I send boxes over, I have to take all my things out of them. These boxes were interspersed with all sorts of things
Say what? That may not be quite the full Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men, but it certainly sounds like a tacit admission of deliberate obstruction in regard to the subpoena.

Skip over the first 31 counts regarding the documents themselves in the indictment and go to counts 32 and 33, conspiracy to obstruct justice and withholding a record from a federal grand jury. Pay attention to the wording, emphasis:
Quote:
79. From on or about May 11, 2022, through in or around August 2022, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, DONALD J. TRUMP and WALTINE NAUTA, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and with others known and unknown to the grand jury, to engage in misleading conduct toward another person and corruptly persuade another person to withhold a record, document, and other object from an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(2)(A), and to corruptly conceal a record, document, and other object from an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1). …
Did Trump just Admit to Obstruction on National Television?
Reply Quote
4
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:05a, 6/20/23
Trial is set for August.








(Trial is not going to be in August)

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 9:07a, 6/20/23
AG
Im Gipper said:
Trial is set for August.








(Trial is not going to be in August)
I doubt they can even get through the pretrial motions before then.
Reply Quote
1
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 9:40a, 6/20/23
LMCane said:
so looks like all you Trump legal experts need some new talking points after Trump HIMSELF stated he was pretty much guilty of obstruction.

And that there was no PRA for the Iran War Plans, but instead he claimed the document WAS PLANTED BY THE FBI or NEVER EXISTED.

Imagine being a person who cheers on persecution of FPOTUS for procedural "crimes" related to a document dispute over laws with only non-criminal consequences.

Imagine cheering this on whilst the same corrupt DOJ hands a traffic ticket to the son of POTUS for neglecting to pay taxes on influence peddling and potential bribery involving POTUS.

Imagine, if I am not mistaken, this cheering is done by someone who took an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution, which forbids unequal treatment under the law.

Imagine that this person, so consumed with distaste for Trump, comes to a message board to brag giddily and say "nanner nanner in your face Trump lovers" at the first chance.

When you go through all that imagining, I imagine you will feel just pity as I do for a person with such sad sense of morals and such low expectations for justice in our Country.
Reply Quote
5
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 9:41a, 6/20/23
eric76 said:
fka ftc said:
eric76 said:
DukeMu said:
Going as expected.

Attorneys, jurors will be reading the docs in SCIFs.

More shoes to fall as well.
Should they select a large jury panel now and start getting security clearances for them all so that the jurors will have the necessary security clearances? How large should this panel be?

Should they select a jury now and start getting security clearances for the jurors?

Should it be required that every potential juror already have a security clearance?

Or is it sufficient for testimony from cleared witnesses that the documents in question are necessary for the national defense?
If jurors can see the bullet riddled bodies of children or the grotesque nature of violent sexual crimes of all ages, I think they can handle some Obama drivel, a Hurricane Dorian Sharpie Enhanced Map, and Lil Kim love letters.
Which counts were those in the indictment?
No one is actually this obtuse in their thinking. I used to find your trolling humorous, but now its just blatant.
Reply Quote
5
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 10:38a, 6/20/23
AG
fka ftc said:
eric76 said:
fka ftc said:
eric76 said:
DukeMu said:
Going as expected.

Attorneys, jurors will be reading the docs in SCIFs.

More shoes to fall as well.
Should they select a large jury panel now and start getting security clearances for them all so that the jurors will have the necessary security clearances? How large should this panel be?

Should they select a jury now and start getting security clearances for the jurors?

Should it be required that every potential juror already have a security clearance?

Or is it sufficient for testimony from cleared witnesses that the documents in question are necessary for the national defense?
If jurors can see the bullet riddled bodies of children or the grotesque nature of violent sexual crimes of all ages, I think they can handle some Obama drivel, a Hurricane Dorian Sharpie Enhanced Map, and Lil Kim love letters.
Which counts were those in the indictment?
No one is actually this obtuse in their thinking. I used to find your trolling humorous, but now its just blatant.
If those were actually in the indictment, this would be a real soft ball question that you could easily answer. Those were documents that were obviously missing and that they early asked for, but it quickly became clear that there were far more serious documents than those. After the first 31 counts referring to particular documents about national defense, the rest are the result of Trump and Nauta's illegal efforts to keep from turning over documents and records subject to the subpoena.

But since they aren't in the indictment, you just post a bunch of crap instead.
Reply Quote
3
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 10:45a, 6/20/23
eric76 said:


If those were actually in the indictment, this would be a real soft ball question that you could easily answer. Those were documents that were obviously missing and that they early asked for, but it quickly became clear that there were far more serious documents than those. After the first 31 counts referring to particular documents about national defense, the rest are the result of Trump and Nauta's illegal efforts to keep from turning over documents and records subject to the subpoena.

But since they aren't in the indictment, you just post a bunch of crap instead.
Stop. I posted the documents NARA was originally looking for that started this whole thing, before they broke all sorts of protocols by coordinating with WH counsel and DOJ to "trump up" accusations of all sorts of nefarious accusations of "documents with classified markings" that may contain "national defense information". And they knew damn good and well that there would be such documents in any FPOTUS's records and voluminous boxes sent to MAL.

But as always, you missed the point. The point was the jury should be able to see the contents of the documents in order to form their own determination of Trump's guilt. It would not be a fair trial to say "he had document X which... trust us on this jury... contained really bad information that would result in the instant death of every American including those in this courtroom".
Reply Quote
4
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 10:53a, 6/20/23
AG
fka ftc said:
eric76 said:


If those were actually in the indictment, this would be a real soft ball question that you could easily answer. Those were documents that were obviously missing and that they early asked for, but it quickly became clear that there were far more serious documents than those. After the first 31 counts referring to particular documents about national defense, the rest are the result of Trump and Nauta's illegal efforts to keep from turning over documents and records subject to the subpoena.

But since they aren't in the indictment, you just post a bunch of crap instead.
Stop. I posted the documents NARA was originally looking for that started this whole thing, before they broke all sorts of protocols by coordinating with WH counsel and DOJ to "trump up" accusations of all sorts of nefarious accusations of "documents with classified markings" that may contain "national defense information". And they knew damn good and well that there would be such documents in any FPOTUS's records and voluminous boxes sent to MAL.

But as always, you missed the point. The point was the jury should be able to see the contents of the documents in order to form their own determination of Trump's guilt. It would not be a fair trial to say "he had document X which... trust us on this jury... contained really bad information that would result in the instant death of every American including those in this courtroom".
The documents that they were originally looking for are not the documents in the indictment.

As for the jury, perhaps they can redact enough of the document to remove the secret information. If they do, then the jury still doesn't know what was redacted. It would be little different than it being sufficient to be told that the documents contain information necessary for our national security and wouldn't put the jurors in danger of violating those laws and being prosecuted as a result.
Reply Quote
3
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 11:04a, 6/20/23
eric76 said:


The documents that they were originally looking for are not the documents in the indictment.

As for the jury, perhaps they can redact enough of the document to remove the secret information. If they do, then the jury still doesn't know what was redacted. It would be little different than it being sufficient to be told that the documents contain information necessary for our national security and wouldn't put the jurors in danger of violating those laws and being prosecuted as a result.
And somehow people don't see a problem with this...
Reply Quote
4
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 11:14a, 6/20/23
AG
eric76 said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Will a criminal trial be conducted on the basis of secreted evidence?
Why would it be necessary for the jury to read the classified documents? Would reading the actual doccuments somehow give them greater insight into the charges?
ABSOLUTELY! The entire case hinges upon an accusation that Trump withheld sensitive DNI documents.

This DOJ & FBI, as well as many Democrat leaders in Congress during impeachment hearings, have demstrated a repeated penchant for exaggeration and redefinition on vague items - ie. LYING - in order to "get him".

Contents of the documents, as well as the time sensitivity of the information all come into play if you're going to attempt to criminalize actions of a former POTUS. For example, I could easily see where a document that updates on status of pipeline construction in a foreign country could have been classified and considered DNI information regarding their military readiness. But if that information is 4 years old, is it still relevant?

I think I saw earlier on this thread a comment made about the lunch menu for a presidential briefing could be marked classified. And if it's a military readiness briefing, it might be marked DNI related. Are you willing to criminally convict a former POTUS for retaining a menu in that instance?

Bottom line, FBI and DOJ have shown thier hand. They want Trump, and will go to any lengths to get him. As such, if I was on the jury, I would be unable to take their word for the seriousness of the offense. "This was really bad. Criminally bad. He had information that was so bad, we can't tell you what it is. But trust us, it's bad. Hang him!" Yeah, but no.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 11:18a, 6/20/23
AG
fka ftc said:
eric76 said:


The documents that they were originally looking for are not the documents in the indictment.

As for the jury, perhaps they can redact enough of the document to remove the secret information. If they do, then the jury still doesn't know what was redacted. It would be little different than it being sufficient to be told that the documents contain information necessary for our national security and wouldn't put the jurors in danger of violating those laws and being prosecuted as a result.
And somehow people don't see a problem with this...
For what it's worth, it seems likely that the documents listed in the indictment were carefully chosen as documents that the DOJ think they can redact but still leave sufficient detail to convince the jury of the serious nature of the documents. There could be other documents that are far more serious but which they wouldn't feel comfortable even divulging a brief description.
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 11:22a, 6/20/23
So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?
Reply Quote
4
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 11:28a, 6/20/23
AG
eric76 said:
fka ftc said:
eric76 said:


The documents that they were originally looking for are not the documents in the indictment.

As for the jury, perhaps they can redact enough of the document to remove the secret information. If they do, then the jury still doesn't know what was redacted. It would be little different than it being sufficient to be told that the documents contain information necessary for our national security and wouldn't put the jurors in danger of violating those laws and being prosecuted as a result.
And somehow people don't see a problem with this...
For what it's worth, it seems likely that the documents listed in the indictment were carefully chosen as documents that the DOJ think they can redact but still leave sufficient detail to convince the jury of the serious nature of the documents. There could be other documents that are far more serious but which they wouldn't feel comfortable even divulging a brief description.
Or, it could be that the documents listed in the indictment don't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scope of US national security, but without specific information, they assist in creating a very damaging narrative.

Eric, you have to look at the motivations here. If DOJ wanted the documents, which they got, then it's over. They protected the information they wanted to protect. But that's not how this is playing out. Imo, the documents are simply a means to an end - which is what this has always been about.

As a self-professed conservative you should be able to look at the big picture and see what's going on here. But you're so willfully blinded by your hatred for one man, you're willing to look past egregious misuse of procedure and equal protections, and abandon priniciples that for virtually anyone else would be important to you. That's sad.
Reply Quote
4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.