New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

FBI Raids Biden Rehoboth home!!!

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
YAWN

Odd.... why didn't he get a nice letter?

The Obama documents — both classified and unclassified —
remained in Hoffman Estates well into 2018, as evidenced by a letter of intent executed between Ferriero on behalf of the National Archives Trust Fund and the Obama Foundation. Among other things, the letter of intent memorialized the Obama Foundation’s agreement to “transfer up to three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000) to the National Archives Trust Fund (NATF) to support the move of classified and unclassified Obama Presidential records and artifacts from Hoffman Estates to NARA-controlled facilities that conform to the agency’s archival storage standards for such records and artifacts.”


Gosh..........Membership really does have it's benefits.........

Don't worry your double standard and utter hypocrisy is duly noted...... it's like the sun coming up......
Ouch. Good catch.

Beep boop bop - beep beep boop- bop bop beep bop

Hello FBI....
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
1. Hi. Where do I say I don't like it? Please produce a link to my statement saying so
2. Cuz there have been multiple analyzes of it. By what date was Trump to have released the monies to avoid clashing with the end of the fiscal year? When were the monies released? Congressional approval is not required, just a notice. Where in the law is it noted when that notice is required?

Now twice I've asked you when the end of the fiscal year was and when the monies were released, and you have yet to answer. Why are you avoiding the answer to that?

Lastly, has a court decided what was violated or not?

1. In the absence of any credible source saying Trump did not violate the law, I can only assume you dismiss the facts precisely because you don't like them.
2. The law states that the president must inform Congress two weeks prior to implementing a hold on congressional appropriations. The law was passed because Nixon tried to use holds on appropriations to enact revenge on congressmen who favored hearings and impeachment for Watergate.
3. Your references to the fiscal year and when the hold was released is irrelevant when talking about the actual act in violation of the law.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
1. In the absence of any credible source saying Trump did not violate the law, I can only assume you dismiss the facts precisely because you don't like them.
2. The law states that the president must inform Congress two weeks prior to implementing a hold on congressional appropriations. The law was passed because Nixon tried to use holds on appropriations to enact revenge on congressmen who favored hearings and impeachment for Watergate.
3. Your references to the fiscal year and when the hold was released is irrelevant when talking about the actual act in violation of the law.
The law is violated before or after the fiscal year expires?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Irrelevant when the conversation is about a hold on an appropriation without notifying congress.
And again was that notice required and when was it required. And for the third time, and as cited in the article that I referenced, a judge would have to decide whether there was any violation given that the monies were released well before the end of the fiscal year. That renders the gaos opinion precisely as I noted, and opinion that the law was violated. There has been no ruling on whether the law in fact was or adjudicated in a court of law.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
And again was that notice required and when was it required. And for the third time, and as cited in the article that I referenced, a judge would have to decide whether there was any violation given that the monies were released well before the end of the fiscal year. That renders the gaos opinion precisely as I noted, and opinion that the law was violated. There has been no ruling on whether the law in fact was or adjudicated in a court of law.
The impeachment process was the indictment and trial. Trump was let off the hook by the republican majority in the Senate, not by an impartial jury.

The law says a congressional appropriation can not be held without notifying congress two weeks in advance. Did Trump do that? If not, then he broke the law. It is as simple as that. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fiscal year or anything else.

Do you have some credible source to explain how Trump didn't break the law?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
The impeachment process was the indictment and trial. Trump was let off the hook by the republican majority in the Senate, not by an impartial jury.

The law says a congressional appropriation can not be held without notifying congress two weeks in advance. Did Trump do that? If not, then he broke the law. It is as simple as that. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fiscal year or anything else.

Do you have some credible source to explain how Trump didn't break the law?
That's fine. And impeachment is a judicial proceeding and verdict or is it a political process?

It's clear you're unwilling to answer my questions as you continue to dance on to the next. One by one I'll provide you with fact, and one by one you can ignore the facts and move on to your next topic.

I'm sorry sure I would provide the trial for it but there hasn't been one. If I could I would provide a judge's ruling, but there has not been one.

If you have one that asserts by rule or by ruling that he has broken the law then please cite it

What you were dependent on is an opinion written by the GAO.

Give me another haha face so I know that you're acknowledging both your dodging and your infantile jump to the next subject.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well at least you're making an attempt to approach a level of honesty. So 184 documents amongst some thousand documents, those thousand documents not being described as to what they are. But those 184 being clearly delineated. So some 40 boxes within which 184 sheets of paper were placed. Do you possess some delineation of what those 40 boxes were, and have they been determined to be whose property?

Anyway, back to reality, 184 sheets of paper so less than a third of a standard rim of 500 sheets of paper that one might purchase at a Staples, co-mingled amongst 40 boxes of materials of indeterminate origin or disposition, potentially belonging to the United States government or perhaps not.

So a couple folders worth of stuff. And honest person would surmise that some staff instructed to pack things up, into what appear to amount to be 40 boxes, could have placed these items in there inadvertently. Or at least an honest person might surmise that they could do so, especially where affording someone the same latitude as you're affording Biden. That latitude being complete and utter ignorance because staff does it and not him.

We can keep going around and around if you'd like.
Really? 184 sheets of paper?

"over 100 documents with classified markings, comprising 700 pages."

That was in the first 15 boxes.It wasn't a "couple of folders".
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Really? 184 sheets of paper?

"over 100 documents with classified markings, comprising 700 pages."

That was in the first 15 boxes.It wasn't a "couple of folders".
I'm sorry was there nothing more written after that comprising 700 pages? You know what the FBI actually assessed?
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Brings up an interesting point. Biden bought the Delaware home in 2017. You wonder why he would let somebody just plop a bunch of boxes next to his prized car.
Thx for helping answer MV's question
 
Top