placeholder

Not nearly so delicious as the ignorance in conflating the two.

Well, "a lot" is one of those terms that can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. People who use it are generally trying to avoid facing the hard evidence of actual figures.

What don't you understand about the fact that the new Republican party was specifically abolitionist. The South understood the threat it posed as the newspapers show in their pre civil war reporting.

Even if your comment about legality of the withdrawal from the Union is valid, that doesn't change the fact that 7 Southern states had already withdrawn before Lincoln took office.

The Southern States knew it was about abolition. Not only did they specifically and repeatedly say so, but they vociferously opposed Lincoln on the grounds that he was an abolitionist at the head of an abolitionist political party. It was only after the war that Southerners came up with a different narrative.

First off, not everywhere. The USA for example: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi Or Germany: https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/inflation-cpi or France where inflation has declined to 5.9%. Even Russia's inflation rate is declining. In December it was only 12%. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/inflation-cpi Anyway, what's your point?

No, it's not. It's about willfully retaining documents Trump wasn't entitled to have and lying about it.

This is irrelevant as the 11th circuit court panel, the one with 2 Trump appointees out of 3 noted. What is relevant is that Trump refused to turn over documents when asked to and lied about them being in his possession. That latter act constitutes prima facie obstruction of justice.

No, he didn't. The Secret Service was not guarding those boxes containing the documents. Not their job to do that. They protect persons, not property.

More. B.S.

It turns out that the informaton I got from my relatives was somewhat garbled. The TM30 has nothing to do with the vaccination. They do need it to get an extension of stay. I am still clueless about what my wife, who is a thai citizen and owner of our home, needs to do.

Not going to go down this road any further. This divagation began with the rather silly observation questioning the effectiveness of the price cap because so many Russians were in Phuket.

Could be. I don't know if draft age Russians are still allowed to leave the country.

My relatives who live in China have arrived in Thailand and want to get vaccinated. The govt hospital advised us that they need to show a TM.30 to be eligible for vaccination. I'm guessing that what the hospital wants is to see the receipt. At any rate, what do we need to do to get the TM30s for them? I haven't a clue how to go about this and the govt instructions are unclear. Also, they arrived a few weeks ago. Should we already have submitted the form? If so, what's the penalty for late submission?

Really? They've been taking documents without National Archives approval and then refusing to return them when asked to? And then lying about it? What don't you understand about the fact that this only became a criminal investigation after Trump refused to return documents and apparently lied about it? What other Presidents have done that? All he had to do was say "Oops. sorry" when asked to return the documents and this would never have been an issue.

In other words a drop in the bucket of Russia's total population.

The price cap was imposed very recently. And even if it weren't, what percentage of Russians can afford to vacation in Phuket? So far, you've got nothing.

Once again, from the landing page of this forum: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." Either put up or froth elsewhere.

Again, the law stipulates willful violation. You seem unable to absorb that fact. You also don't seem to understand the gravity of obstruction of justice.

Your claim that a separate bill would would have to be enacted for each of the 2400 items is utter nonsense.

The prosecutor assigned to the case has just returned from Europe. In a case like this, they are going to be very punctilious. One thing I know: when someone makes on argument based on predictions, that means they've got nothing. First off, we don't know if Biden even had them in his possession. Someone else may have been looking at them. And once again, and you seem utterly deaf to this, it goes to intent. The law specifically states that the offender has to "willfully and unlawfully remove documents..." With Trump the evidence is clear. And you think it's relevant that that Trump declassified the documents. It's not. It would be a crime to "willfully and unlawfully remove" them regardless of their alleged status. https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-presidential-records-act-violations-short-and-long-term-solutions

First off, what jury is going to believe that Trump declassified these documents? During months of discussions with the Federal govt, that issue was never raised. Only in the wake of the FBI search of the property did this line of defense emerge. But even if Trump did declassify the documents, possession of them would still be a crime. And as has been pointed out before, criminal liability in such a case goes to the issue of intent. Trump was warned by lawyers that taking documents from the White House without National Archives approval was illegal. His legal representative wrote that all documents had been returned. She was careful to note that she had merely been told this, but had not personally examined the containers holding them. Of course, that turned out to be false. When representatives from the Justice Dept showed up in June at Mar a Lago, they were refused permission to examine the containers holding the documents. This is all very strong evidence supporting the case that Trump obstructed justice. Whereas when Biden's lawyers found the documents, they immediately reported this to the proper authorities. Unless it can be shown that Biden was purposely sequestering these materials at his office to keep them hidden, there is no case against him.

Let's keep in mind that Jordan worked hard to protect a sex offender.

Share with us the evidence that Biden was keeping documents in his residence. He definitely wasn't keeping some in his bedroom, unlike a certain other party.

Are you making an argument the the president is a monarch?