On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>

Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over
it? From the article:

Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
of the Archives."

Hm, how weird, Biden isn't acting like an asshole in stark contrast to
Trump. That must have been your point.

"trotsky" wrote:
> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:

>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>
> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over it?

That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!

>Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>of the Archives."

Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November, shortly
before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only announced the
"discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't want to affect the
election.

--
"Courage".
https://i.redd.it/qusahot86eez.jpg

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>"trotsky" wrote:
>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>>
>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over it?
>
>That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>
>>Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>of the Archives."
>
>Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November, shortly
>before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only announced the
>"discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't want to affect the
>election.

That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 03:31:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"trotsky" wrote:
>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>>>
>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over it?
>>
>>That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>>
>>>Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>of the Archives."
>>
>>Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November, shortly
>>before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only announced the
>>"discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't want to affect the
>>election.
>
>That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?

What reason is there for releasing the information to the public at
all? They did their due diligence by reporting it to the proper
authorities when it was discovered. While people might like for such
information to become public right away I'm not aware of any such
legal responsibility.

On 1/11/2023 3:31 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "trotsky" wrote:
>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>>>
>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over it?
>>
>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>>
>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>> of the Archives."
>>
>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November, shortly
>> before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only announced the
>> "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't want to affect the
>> election.
>
> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
>
2022's election.

On 1/11/2023 6:31 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 03:31:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "trotsky" wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>>>>
>>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over it?
>>>
>>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>>>
>>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>> of the Archives."
>>>
>>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November, shortly
>>> before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only announced the
>>> "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't want to affect the
>>> election.
>>
>> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
>
> What reason is there for releasing the information to the public at
> all? They did their due diligence by reporting it to the proper
> authorities when it was discovered. While people might like for such
> information to become public right away I'm not aware of any such
> legal responsibility.
>
There isn't. The only reason the dispute over Trump's papers were made
public was because he made it public. Tweeting about how the FBI
'raided' his property.

In article <tpmo5a$v7fg$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> On 1/11/2023 6:31 AM, shawn wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 03:31:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "trotsky" wrote:
> >>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over
> >>>> it?
> >>>
> >>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
> >>>
> >>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
> >>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
> >>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
> >>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
> >>>> of the Archives."
> >>>
> >>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November,
> >>> shortly before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only
> >>> announced the "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't
> >>> want to affect the election.
> >>
> >> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
> >> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
> >> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
> >
> > What reason is there for releasing the information to the public at
> > all? They did their due diligence by reporting it to the proper
> > authorities when it was discovered. While people might like for such
> > information to become public right away I'm not aware of any such
> > legal responsibility.
> >
> There isn't. The only reason the dispute over Trump's papers were made
> public was because he made it public. Tweeting about how the FBI
> 'raided' his property.

Oh, please. The FBI raids the home of a former president-- something
that's never happened in the history of the nation-- and you think that
wouldn't have made the news if he hadn't tweeted about it? Especially a
former president that the media hates with a fiery passion?

On 1/11/2023 8:35 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tpmo5a$v7fg$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2023 6:31 AM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 03:31:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "trotsky" wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>>>> of the Archives."
>>>>>
>>>>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November,
>>>>> shortly before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only
>>>>> announced the "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't
>>>>> want to affect the election.
>>>>
>>>> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>>>> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>>>> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
>>>
>>> What reason is there for releasing the information to the public at
>>> all? They did their due diligence by reporting it to the proper
>>> authorities when it was discovered. While people might like for such
>>> information to become public right away I'm not aware of any such
>>> legal responsibility.
>>>
>> There isn't. The only reason the dispute over Trump's papers were made
>> public was because he made it public. Tweeting about how the FBI
>> 'raided' his property.
>
> Oh, please. The FBI raids the home of a former president-- something
> that's never happened in the history of the nation-- and you think that
> wouldn't have made the news if he hadn't tweeted about it? Especially a
> former president that the media hates with a fiery passion?
>
Except they were executing a search a proper warrant. Which normally
wouldn't have made the news.

In article <tpmrrp$v9rt$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

> On 1/11/2023 8:35 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <tpmo5a$v7fg$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/11/2023 6:31 AM, shawn wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 03:31:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "trotsky" wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over
> >>>>>> it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
> >>>>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
> >>>>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
> >>>>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
> >>>>>> of the Archives."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November,
> >>>>> shortly before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only
> >>>>> announced the "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't
> >>>>> want to affect the election.
> >>>>
> >>>> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
> >>>> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
> >>>> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
> >>>
> >>> What reason is there for releasing the information to the public at
> >>> all? They did their due diligence by reporting it to the proper
> >>> authorities when it was discovered. While people might like for such
> >>> information to become public right away I'm not aware of any such
> >>> legal responsibility.
> >>>
> >> There isn't. The only reason the dispute over Trump's papers were made
> >> public was because he made it public. Tweeting about how the FBI
> >> 'raided' his property.
> >
> > Oh, please. The FBI raids the home of a former president-- something
> > that's never happened in the history of the nation-- and you think that
> > wouldn't have made the news if he hadn't tweeted about it? Especially a
> > former president that the media hates with a fiery passion?
> >
> Except they were executing a search a proper warrant.

I don't have any idea what that means.

> Which normally wouldn't have made the news.

Any law enforcement action against a current or former president would
absolutely make the news, especially Trump.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 03:31:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> >wrote:
>>>"trotsky" wrote:
>>>>On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:

>>>>>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179

>>>>Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole
>>>>over it?

>>>That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!

>>>>Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>>president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>>Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>>Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>>of the Archives."

>>>Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November,
>>>shortly before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only
>>>announced the "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't
>>>want to affect the election.

>>That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>>everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>>legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?

>What reason is there for releasing the information to the public at
>all?

It wasn't released to the public at all. It was leaked to CBS News.

>They did their due diligence by reporting it to the proper authorities
>when it was discovered.

That was Biden's personal attorney, who is subject to legal ethics. The
National Archives didn't perform its due dilligence, but there may be no
due dilligence for them to perform. They couldn't possibly know what
records are in on outgoing public official's executive office without
being given a list.

What does that have to do with whether the National Archives or the
Justice Department should have said something about opening an
investigation as a matter of public concern?

>While people might like for such information to become public right away
>I'm not aware of any such legal responsibility.

Great! Now you are assigning a straw man argument to H.G., who made no
comment about whether there's some legal responsibility to issue an
official statement about opening an investigation.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 1/11/2023 3:31 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>"trotsky" wrote:
>>>>On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:

>>>>>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179

>>>>Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over it?

>>>That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!

>>>>Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>>president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>>Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>>Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>>of the Archives."

>>>Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November, shortly
>>>before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only announced the
>>>"discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't want to affect the
>>>election.

>>That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>>everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>>legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?

>2022's election.

No, I agree with H.G. While government officials might have ethical
concerns about not creating an October Surprise for a candidate in the
weeks before an election, that the 2022 midterms were taking place
should not have entered into the thinking about whether the National
Archives should have made a statement about the need to open an
investigation into the matter. Mr. Biden was not a candidate.

On 1/11/2023 11:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2023 3:31 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> "trotsky" wrote:
>>>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>
>>>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over it?
>
>>>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>
>>>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>>> of the Archives."
>
>>>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November, shortly
>>>> before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only announced the
>>>> "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't want to affect the
>>>> election.
>
>>> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>>> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>>> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
>
>> 2022's election.
>
> No, I agree with H.G.

He stated 'the election is more than two years in the past..' That's not
the election that occurred after the papers were found.

> While government officials might have ethical
> concerns about not creating an October Surprise for a candidate in the
> weeks before an election, that the 2022 midterms were taking place
> should not have entered into the thinking about whether the National
> Archives should have made a statement about the need to open an
> investigation into the matter. Mr. Biden was not a candidate.

Even though he wasn't, the Rs feel like it would have put Dems into a
bad light and they would have lost more seats to R candidates.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 19:45:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>While people might like for such information to become public right away
>>I'm not aware of any such legal responsibility.
>
>Great! Now you are assigning a straw man argument to H.G., who made no
>comment about whether there's some legal responsibility to issue an
>official statement about opening an investigation.

Youre right - I would have expected at some point there would be a FOI
request from some press body but it would be news to me (joke
intended) were there actually a requirement for an official statement.

It was revealed some 10-15 years ago that the Brits had some
information (believed to involve the Duke of Windsor in WW2) that
would not be released during the lifetime of the Queen. Now that she
is gone I would guess that if the documents relate to pro German
political leanings by the Duke during the war or before (or for that
matter connections between him and Sir Oswald Mosley who was leader of
the British Fascist party who was interned 1939-43 allegedly for
national security reasons) that we are likely to hear about it in the
next 2-3 years under the UK national security rules which are said to
be sealed for 75 years. (which I presume is their guess on how
long it would take for all the principals to be deceased)

Obviously anything relating to 2015-2020 is far less than 75 years (so
is Watergate) so who knows what if anything will be released.

On 1/11/23 10:35 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tpmo5a$v7fg$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2023 6:31 AM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 03:31:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "trotsky" wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>>>> of the Archives."
>>>>>
>>>>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November,
>>>>> shortly before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only
>>>>> announced the "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't
>>>>> want to affect the election.
>>>>
>>>> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>>>> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>>>> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
>>>
>>> What reason is there for releasing the information to the public at
>>> all? They did their due diligence by reporting it to the proper
>>> authorities when it was discovered. While people might like for such
>>> information to become public right away I'm not aware of any such
>>> legal responsibility.
>>>
>> There isn't. The only reason the dispute over Trump's papers were made
>> public was because he made it public. Tweeting about how the FBI
>> 'raided' his property.
>
> Oh, please. The FBI raids the home of a former president-- something
> that's never happened in the history of the nation-- and you think that
> wouldn't have made the news if he hadn't tweeted about it? Especially a
> former president that the media hates with a fiery passion?

Wow, you're fully indoctrinated into Oath Keeper lore. I'll bet you're
too much of a eunuch to comment on this:

Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers,
and Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida chapter of the organization,
were found guilty by a jury today of seditious conspiracy and other
charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6,
2021.Nov 29, 2022

Leader of Oath Keepers and Oath Keepers Member Found ...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-oath-keepers-member-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-and-other

I also bet you are unable to comment cogently on Trump's involvement in
the conspiracy to commit insurrection or his involvement of having Top
Secret documents illegally at his house. You know what the fuck Top
Secret means and why this justifies an FBI raid 2000% so you're just
being a stupid fucking shitposter as usual, lying your fucking stupid
ass off. Trying dealing in facts for once in your fucking anonyshit life.

On 1/11/23 11:47 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tpmrrp$v9rt$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2023 8:35 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <tpmo5a$v7fg$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/11/2023 6:31 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 03:31:50 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "trotsky" wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>>>>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>>>>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>>>>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>>>>>> of the Archives."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in November,
>>>>>>> shortly before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only
>>>>>>> announced the "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't
>>>>>>> want to affect the election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>>>>>> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>>>>>> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
>>>>>
>>>>> What reason is there for releasing the information to the public at
>>>>> all? They did their due diligence by reporting it to the proper
>>>>> authorities when it was discovered. While people might like for such
>>>>> information to become public right away I'm not aware of any such
>>>>> legal responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>> There isn't. The only reason the dispute over Trump's papers were made
>>>> public was because he made it public. Tweeting about how the FBI
>>>> 'raided' his property.
>>>
>>> Oh, please. The FBI raids the home of a former president-- something
>>> that's never happened in the history of the nation-- and you think that
>>> wouldn't have made the news if he hadn't tweeted about it? Especially a
>>> former president that the media hates with a fiery passion?
>>>
>> Except they were executing a search a proper warrant.
>
> I don't have any idea what that means.
>
>> Which normally wouldn't have made the news.
>
> Any law enforcement action against a current or former president would
> absolutely make the news, especially Trump.

Yes the fat orange fuck is totally a victim, right?

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 1/11/2023 11:48 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2023 3:31 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:23:40 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> "trotsky" wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/9/23 10:31 PM, RichA wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
>>
>>>>>> Remember how Trump acted like and is still acting like an asshole over it?
>>
>>>>> That's quite an imagination you got there, boyo!
>>
>>>>>> Mr Sauber said: "Since that discovery [of the documents], the
>>>>>> president's personal attorneys have co-operated with the [National]
>>>>>> Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
>>>>>> Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession
>>>>>> of the Archives."
>>
>>>>> Except Biden did no such thing. These papers were found in
>November, shortly
>>>>> before the elections. It's quite logical to deduce they only announced the
>>>>> "discovery" so they cold control the narrative and didn't want to
>affect the
>>>>> election.
>>
>>>> That was a somewhat sensible excuse up to election day but surely
>>>> everybody knows the election is more than two years past so what
>>>> legitimate excuse can there be for withholding the information now?
>>
>>> 2022's election.
>>
>> No, I agree with H.G.
>
>He stated 'the election is more than two years in the past..' That's not
>the election that occurred after the papers were found.
>
>> While government officials might have ethical
>> concerns about not creating an October Surprise for a candidate in the
>> weeks before an election, that the 2022 midterms were taking place
>> should not have entered into the thinking about whether the National
>> Archives should have made a statement about the need to open an
>> investigation into the matter. Mr. Biden was not a candidate.
>
>Even though he wasn't, the Rs feel like it would have put Dems into a
>bad light and they would have lost more seats to R candidates.

That would be their job?