ewsieg

I guess maybe we need to define 'recreational' first. I was thinking of a recreational user as maybe someone that uses once a week or less. Maybe I am wrong, but the biggest issue with Opioids is that taking them a little to long is what leads to dependency, hence someone doing it 'recreationally' a couple times a week is soon not doing it 'recreationally', but is now addicted and needing it on a more consistent basis.

No one is using Opioids for an occasional good time like folks do with other recreational drugs. The medical world has recognized the error of its ways and shut off easy access, which for folks dealing with medical issues now, is a great thing as Opioids are great for short term use and shown not to be an issue if only used for short term use. For folks already addicted to them, that's where the rise of heroin use came into play as well as counterfeit drugs. Kind of a tangent, but related, I have wondered in areas that have approved marijuana sales, will that help fight the opioid addiction. Granted in my older years I didn't use drugs, but out of high school, yeah I 'knew a guy' that myself and a few buddies would get some weed off of. If anyone wanted to try something different, that would be the logical guy to go to. For Michigan, I definitely wonder/hope, that legalizing weed will simply put folks out of touch with someone that can easily score an opioid for them, pushing them to 'settle' for weed.

i'd vote for him.

Well if it's not fair to a President to subject them to the rules and regulations of classified docs, then NARA should have never bothered him in the first place and ignored it. My "if" was stating that "if" that scenario happened, I still think he should be held accountable, but apparently I should just understand that our leaders don't have to be subject to the same laws as us low level citizens.

yeah, you clearly have no background on my political thoughts. I never voted for Trump. Since he was elected I have only voted for one local republican who has a history of working with both sides of the aisle and was encouraged to run for the position by a democrat. IIRC, I only voted for one democrat prior to that. He's a horrible person, he deserves to, at minimum, die in jail. But I refuse to not try and keep others held accountable for their actions, even if they only robbed 1 bank compared to Trumps 3 banks.

If Trump knowingly took them and kept them, but once it was discovered fully cooperated, IMO, he should still face the same consequences I would have surely dealt with if I had done the same.

No, you keep adding all the additional stuff that Trump is guilty off and saying Trump, and all his baggage, don't equate to Biden. I agree with that. Always have. -Biden told his ghost writer he had classified documents in his home. -Biden read notes he took of classified documents to his ghost writer and even admitted that it's probably classified. He can claim he thought he could do that, but I can assure you ignorance is not a defense. -The ghost writer attempted to delete those notes prior to being investigated. Circumstantial, but still evidence that even the ghost writer realized he probably shouldn't have them. If you replace Biden with Trump in this scenario and j'm prosecuting with a jury of 12 motownforum politic thread members, you guys probably wouldn't need to be excused to the jury room to hand down a guilty verdict. -

You should stop both sides-ing and just let me take the heat. 🙂

Literally no one is arguing that the obstruction that accompanied the initial thing Trump and Biden were guilty of is equivalent. There is a reason why the Trump indictment has a ton of additional charges related to the obstruction he did.

Still not sure why you keep bringing up Clinton and clearly you didn't read my second paragraph again. I am focusing on one specific issue, the willful retention of classified documents. I'm not talking J6, Georgia, Trump U, 2 billion Saudi fund, or the obstruction that accompanied the willful retention with Trump only, because Biden didn't obstruct. The investigation proves Biden willfully kept them and regardless if he forgot about them after or not, it doesn't matter. If he knew he had them, he should have been working with the appropriate folks to return them. Instead he waited to 'immediately' turn them in 5-6 years later. I've watched so many of you mock Trump about classified documents sitting in some bathroom in Mar-a-lago and how insane it is to think someone could be so careless. Yet Biden has them in the garage of a house he doesn't always even stay in and no one blinks an eye, no issue here, carry on or it's both sides-ing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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