"If you have information to the contrary, please share."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pence-se...

"Yes, I am sure."
Not that I doubt your assurances, but how do you reconcile them with this:
"On August 1, 1946, President Truman signed the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 which established the category of classified information known as "Restricted Data" (RD). This Act gave the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Department of Energy (DOE)) unilateral authority over this information."
.https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/rdfrdhtm.html

Protecting the Nation's Nuclear Information
https://sgp.fas.org › othergov › doe › rdfrdhtm
On August 1, 1946, President Truman signed the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 which established the category of classified information known as "Restricted Data" (RD). This Act gave the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Department of Energy (DOE)) unilateral authority over this information.

Protecting the Nation's Nuclear Information
https://sgp.fas.org › othergov › doe › rdfrdhtm

I see your point, but people use hypothetical standards all the time without falling into fallacies.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, he was NOT in the building at the time of the disturbances and was kept away until the Capitol had been evacuated. If you have information to the contrary, please share.

That's why Pence's presence is so important. Average citizens can and must have direct access to their respective Elected Officials, i.e. Senators and Congressmen. They do not have direct access, however, to elected members of the Executive Branch or confirmed members of the Judiciary. Pence's presence - if confirmed - gives them the pretense of "security" on which they can base the trespassing charges. If he wasn't there, however, all of the trespassing charges are invalid ipso post facto.

Yes, I am sure. Even leftist pundits have acknowledged that the President of the United States holds a singular position with respect to classified documents in that any document - any at all - can be declassified at the whim or direction of the dually-elected President.

You'll also note the dramatic backpedaling of the National Archives regarding the >30 MILLION documents Obama took when he left office. Trumps 20 boxes (if you accept the FBI's count) amounts to only a few dozen in comparison.

So why compare Trump - or any real person - with a fictional character? The analogy doesn't work. If you want to objectively compare something, cite a standard and then cite the behavior you see (as exhibited by a specific person) which doesn't meet that standard. This stays away from the logical fallacies such as ad hominem, No True Scotsman, etc. and allows the debate to focus on 1) whether or not the standard itself is morally/logically sound, and 2) whether or not the behavior in question violates the acceptable moral/logical standard.

"Why would the Russians want Trump in the White House rather than Hillary Clinton? Isn't it obvious that her political attitudes are more in accord with those of the Russians than Trumps' are?!"
Yes, her domestic policy is closer to Russia's than Trumps is. But Russia is more concerned with U,S. foreign policy. Clinton favored a strong NATO, while Trump tried to undermine it. Also Trump could be manipulated by the promise of a hotel in Moscow.

I love America! I am anti Deep state.

And by the way---isn't the Capitol Building the property of the taxpayers? So why would the taxpayers not have a right to go into it (absent a war battle, or hostage standoff, of something like that)?

Oh, really? Then just who is he?

Well, that law appears to somewhat restrict the meaning of "classified". If it's the A-bomb, that's one thing. If it's somebody's social life, that's different.

No. I can't prove that he didn't, but it hasn't been proven to me that he did. (Onus of proof is on him who makes the positive assertion.) As to a Russian "collusion", what about the question of motivation?
Why would the Russians want Trump in the White House rather than Hillary Clinton? Isn't it obvious that her political attitudes are more in accord with those of the Russians than Trumps'
are?!

"A better Q uestion is what are you doing on this forum?"
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
We should not give this forum over to anti-American
pro-Russian trolls.

Nope, not a Crybaby, just don't like wasting my time.

"you are muted"
Crybaby.

No I was not wrong. I was 100% correct. You just changed your story because some people called you on it.

You are an embarrassment to this group. AND Ayn Rand. AND, BTW, you are muted, so I won't see any more of your ridiculous drivel.

"The only VIP alluded to have been there on that day was Mike Pence, the sitting Vice President, but no one has been able to confirm if he was actually there or not."
There is plenty of such confirmation.

Check YOURs. He does deny any and all allegations, which he has every right to do. You are saying he doesn't? And while YOU want to make pleading the fifth an indicator of guilt - I don't blame him one bit. If he has any sense at all, he'll plead the fifth over whether he drank water this morning or not.

All because of people like you who will take any "fact," no matter how fanciful, and run with it.

And since when did YOU become arbiter of "innocent in fact?"

"No, I am not wrong. I was responding to what you SAID. The fact that you were shamed into finally checking out the name has no bearing on what I said."
Of course you were responding to what I said and you were wrong. The shame is on you.

'There is nothing I can say that will convince anyone who is a Trump fan that he has done anything wrong, let alone that he has done anything criminal, so why bother?"
Here's why to bother:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
We should not give this forum over to anti-American
pro-Russian trolls.

Pleading the 5th, 400 times is not the same as
"denying any and all allegations".
Also innocent before the law is not the same as innocent in fact.
Check your premises.

No, I am not wrong. I was responding to what you SAID. The fact that you were shamed into finally checking out the name has no bearing on what I said.

Wrong--I investigated (see below): Epps denies the allegations--innocent until proven guilty.