(08-31-2022 11:52 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-31-2022 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I very much note the difference between what Tanq says here (unfit for office) and what MLB and Tom say (shouldn't be able to hold office ever again).

One is a value judgement and reasonable people can disagree on where lines might be drawn.... especially in a binary choice between two sets of qualities, priorities or positions that might make someone find one candidate untenable. The other is a matter of fact and law... being given by two people who don't know either the facts NOR the specific law.... in a system where 'appearances' seem to have much more bearing than facts.

Tanq, you sort of hit on my over-arching point. ALL of us would be convicted for much less. NONE of them have been to date, and barring any actual threat (as rumored) of blackmail or 'selling nuclear secrets' it would seem purely politically motivated to prosecute any one of them, but not all of them. And yes, if I ever were in this situation, I'd have to say... we;re not going to enforce it here because it has never been enforced this way before... BUT... we will begin enforcing it today and going forward without exception or with any regard for 'party'.

None of that has anything to do with any individual deciding that this was a reason 'not to vote' for someone, which is more what I take from your comment.

Have you ever had a clearance? Did you ever take the oath let alone read all the rules? You would know that he broke every rule if you had. I'd be thrown in jail, I'd be barred from running for office, and I'd be shamed in public. I don't care if it is a former president, a politician, or some IT guy in Dayton, Ohio. All should be treated the same.

Perhaps you can answer these:

How does anyone, the president if you know, end up with these types of documents in their possession? Doesn't someone have to "sign it out" for lack of a better term? Isn't there a record kept of when it's pulled, where it goes, and when it's returned?