So you'd say the blm protesters who set the fires and did 5 billion in damages were all insurrectionists and not protesters? Lets remember that this person didn't actually do anything but show up and they're saying it's the same thing because they 'aided' the 'insurrectionists'. Careful with throwing around those definitions now ;')Oh, nonsense! Those fine young Saudi fellows were just "airplane protesting!" Totally protected by the First Amendment.
Nobody commented on whether or not something was a crime. The question is whether they did it in protest.It's only crime when Black people break windows and steal things!
Sure kiddo, whatever you say. I guess lying is your coping mechanismNow you are really off the rails , because obviously it isn’t me getting e-mails from any party as I have never belonged to a party and have never suggested I had .
And never did I suggest they don’t get tangled in lines , even the one who swallowed my bait got tangled in the line . You read lots that isn’t there maybe a class in comprehension is in order .
Oh, nonsense! Those fine young Saudi fellows were just "airplane protesting!" Totally protected by the First Amendment.
It's only crime when Black people break windows and steal things!
I still don't get why he hasn't been arrested if they know this.Nothing burger though, I'm sure. /s
So is this double super bad, like the Clintons having a server in the closet so they could bypass political oversite?I still don't get why he hasn't been arrested if they know this.
But an even bigger question in my mind would be - How can ANYONE, even the US president, be allowed to remove copies of this from a secure location like the white house? Like - why is it ok for him to take this home in the first place? Why would there not be systems in place expressly to prevent that? Even if it's for the most innocent of reasons as soon as it leaves a secure location something can happen to it. Never mind if a bat-crap-crazy becomes president and deliberately keeps it.
It just seems to me like there should be some provision that the president is physically prevented from removing documents, that they have to be reviewed on site and checked out and checked in or something.
Well it depends a little but hoenstly if the documents contain nuclear secrets about an allied country it could be far worse than that. It would depend on what they mean by nuclear secrets.So is this double super bad, like the Clintons having a server in the closet so they could bypass political oversite?