- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
05 Sep 22
@shavixmir saidThe ''FUN,' in dysfunctional.
I certainly wouldn’t turn a blind eye.
One must take the moral highground.
And besides, 4 more years of trump will be hilarious.
The man and his supporters put the fun in fundamentalist and the trash in trailer.
06 Sep 22
@techsouth saidYou are assuming though, your assuming because it involves your guy trump there’s a reasonable chance that the DOJ and FBI have gone rogue and are carrying out this investigation as an arm of the Biden re-election committee without one shred of evidence, even now that we know FOR A FACT that trump held onto classified documents after claiming to have returned them your still assuming he may be the victim of democratic deep state conspiracy. Yes your definitely making assumptions, unreasonable ones at that.
I'm not the one assuming.
I have stated many times here that I don't know what is in the documents.
It is a possibility that this is an honest investigation.
It is also a possibility that this is political (after nearly 6 years of watching things play out, unfortunately we cannot dismiss this possibility).
I am saying that my level of anger (or lack thereof), wo ...[text shortened]... the fact that Mar-Largo is guarded by secret service and so is not just any old "unsecure" location.
06 Sep 22
@kevcvs57 saidWe watched with our own eyes as 50 current and former intelligence worked, just a week or two before an election, signed a document saying that Hunter's laptop looks like "Russian Disinformation".
You are assuming though, your assuming because it involves your guy trump there’s a reasonable chance that the DOJ and FBI have gone rogue and are carrying out this investigation as an arm of the Biden re-election committee without one shred of evidence, even now that we know FOR A FACT that trump held onto classified documents after claiming to have returned them your still ...[text shortened]... democratic deep state conspiracy. Yes your definitely making assumptions, unreasonable ones at that.
We also have at least one guilty plea from someone altering emails to try to gain more probable cause to pursue this Russian Collison hoax.
They lied then for political reasons, why would we rule out the possibility of political motivation now?
I don't have subpoena power. I will never likely see the documents in question. It is clear that the media is not going to do their job. But as a person who watches what is going on, I think it is reasonable to "suspect" that the FBI might mislead in this case too.
Call it unreasonable, that won't change my opinion.
Also, considering the possibility that something may be true is NOT making an assumption. Determining that DOJ nor FBI couldn't have gone rogue stems from lots of assumptions.
Definition of assumption: "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."
Since I have accepted nothing as true (nor false), I have not made an assumption. You have determined that the FBI is definitely innocent. THAT is an assumption. If the roles were reversed, you'd very likely be quick to assume that Trump's DOJ had gone rogue even if you had no proof.
06 Sep 22
@techsouth
Don't worry your zombie head over it, Trump has already won with his judge saying SURE, it's FINE to appoint a 'master' to look over the docs. So where are they going to get a 'master' with ABOVE TS clearance to read those TS/CSI docs, that I could not even though I HAD a Top Secret clearance.
The legal community has condemned this action by this total Trumpite Judge which will sully any indictment going forth, now a car thief or murder and say I need a master to go over that prosecution BS.
So the cancer of Trump goes deeper and deeper, metastasizing as we speak corrupting everything in its ugly path.
06 Sep 22
@sonhouse saidI'm sure a spy could waltz right past the Secret Service into Trump's office. Or a "friend" would be left alone so that when Trump goes to the bathroom they'd be free to rifle through his desk. The SS would be totally cool with that.
@techsouth
The only hitch is the fact Trump had those docs all over his residence, in his bedroom in his '45' office and in the basement.
You tell me just how secure that would have been and how hard it would have been for a spy to have access.
I guess that doesn't matter either since you THINK Trump 'declassified' those docs so that MUST make it SO much safer and no spy would bother using cell phone to copy them, right?
I've said this numerous times. Agree or disagree, but it would be nice if I saw some evidence in what is being written that this distinction is understood and either agreed with or disagreed with.
All "secrets" are not the same. In some agencies, nearly every document produced is tagged "secret" or "top-secret".
If Trump is found to be selling damaging information to enemies, I will join you in your contempt for Trump. If on the other hand it turns out that what Trump has is dirt on Democrats, he may be in technical violation of the law, but I won't hate him for keeping something. And if what he has turns out to be something that could cause no serious damage, I won't share any contempt at all.
I'm surprised how few people seem to realize that if Trump wanted to sell secrets to our enemies, he would have a lot to sell without having to retain or transfer a single document.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@techsouth saidYeah, WHATABOUT HUNTER?.
We watched with our own eyes as 50 current and former intelligence worked, just a week or two before an election, signed a document saying that Hunter's laptop looks like "Russian Disinformation".
We also have at least one guilty plea from someone altering emails to try to gain more probable cause to pursue this Russian Collison hoax.
They lied then for political ...[text shortened]... rsed, you'd very likely be quick to assume that Trump's DOJ had gone rogue even if you had no proof.
............WHATABOUT CLINTON?;
...........WHATABOUT OBAMA?
............WHATABOUT CARTER?
AND...WHATABOUT TRUMAN?
........Let's not talk about TRUMP
06 Sep 22
@sonhouse saidWhen the judge granted the search warrant for Mar-Largo, you were certain that it was above reproach.
@techsouth
Don't worry your zombie head over it, Trump has already won with his judge saying SURE, it's FINE to appoint a 'master' to look over the docs. So where are they going to get a 'master' with ABOVE TS clearance to read those TS/CSI docs, that I could not even though I HAD a Top Secret clearance.
The legal community has condemned this action by this total Trumpite ...[text shortened]... r of Trump goes deeper and deeper, metastasizing as we speak corrupting everything in its ugly path.
Now a judge has taken a step to help ensure at least the appearance of fairness and you are certain it is totally contemptable.
What is your method for deciding when judges are above reproach and when they are acting in bad faith? I'll have to admit than from my perspective it appears that anything that you see it as helping Trump is being done in bad faith, but anything that hurts Trump is above reproach? If that's not it, what is your method?
Personally, I accept that I don't really know how to read minds. And I know that there are bad-faith actors from all political circles.
06 Sep 22
@jimm619 saidAt the most superficial possible level of reading, my post may have sounded like "what about Hunter".
Yeah, WHATABOUT HUNTER?.
............WHATABOUT CLINTON?
...........WHATABOUT OBAMA?
............WHATABOUT CARTER?
AND...WHATABOUT TRUMAN?
But I was talking about the FBI, not Hunter.
Do you accept the premise that intelligence officers have already been seen lying to hurt Trump?
06 Sep 22
@techsouth
What that judge has actually done in unprecedented so now it is a NEW precedence that WILL be used by every criminal from here on out, lets legally delay the proceedings so I can get my secret cayman Island bank account safe and my ride out of the country to a non reciprocal country is complete.
You don't have the slightest clue as to just how bad this move by an obvious Trumpite judge is in reality.
Where was your question about what is IN those docs, maybe dirt on Biden or whatever, where was this line of attack when it was Hillary under attack by Trump?
The cover says in large print and clear words, TOP SECRET/CSI.
Why is it only NOW that such words mean nothing? It doesn't matter to you HOW damning the evidence is, it is against my GOD KING TRUMP so it HAS to by DEFINITION be BS since my blessed GOD KING is above the law and always will be.
@sonhouse saidWhen this turns out to have almost no impact on any other criminal proceeding in the future, are you going to think back to this time and reevaluate how much of your own opinion was swayed by politics?
@techsouth
What that judge has actually done in unprecedented so now it is a NEW precedence that WILL be used by every criminal from here on out, lets legally delay the proceedings so I can get my secret cayman Island bank account safe and my ride out of the country to a non reciprocal country is complete.
You don't have the slightest clue as to just how bad this move by ...[text shortened]... RUMP so it HAS to by DEFINITION be BS since my blessed GOD KING is above the law and always will be.
They have used special prosecutors in the past against presidents in an attempt to reassure everyone that the effort is not political. Would you not agree that it is in all of our best interests for the government to bend over backwards in this case to demonstrate they are not acting political? What is going to happen if Trump is convicted and half the country think the DOJ was operating illegitimately? There is rarely any such concern for ordinary murder charges.
Many people say that Jesus has never sinned. I don't recall anyone saying Trump has never sinned. I have written numerous times in this thread that it is possible that this is not political and that Trump is in the wrong. Have you considered the possibility that Trump is not guilty of literally everything his detractors accuse him of?
My position is that this might be political and Trump is guilty of nothing more than some technicality. Or this might not be political and Trump is guilty of something more serious.
Your position, and correct me if I am wrong, is as follows: Trump is guilty of all evil that anyone, anywhere, at any time has ever accused him of. He is the first politician in US history and only the second in world history for which this is true.
So these three stand alone according to you:
Trump, Hitler, Satan.
Did I miss any?
Are there any other historical figures who have never done anything innocently, and hence never garnered a false accusation against them?
Can you name even one false accusation against Trump that you think is false or done in bad faith? Can you name even one accusation he has made against Democrats that you believe is true, or done in good faith? Do you believe he is the only politician in world history who is so guilty of evil that literally nothing he has been accused of is false (other than Hitler of course)?
If you can't think of anything Trump has done right or anything his detractors have done wrong, which of us sounds more like we are blinded by our emotions?
06 Sep 22
@techsouth saidYour version of probable persecution of Trump runs into the inconvenient fact that for over a year he simply refused to turn over presidential records to the National Archives as he was required to by law. When he finally did turn over a few boxes in early February, the folks at the Archives were shocked to find both classified materials and torn up documents. Only then did they alert the DOJ and even after that Trump did not fully comply with a Grand Jury subpoena issued in May and his attorney filed a document falsely claiming that all classified materials had been turned over in response to the subpoena. Only after the FBI received further information that more materials remained at Margo Largo even though Trump had no possessory right to them did they go to a judge and obtain a search warrant.
When this turns out to have almost no impact on any other criminal proceeding in the future, are you going to think back to this time and reevaluate how much of your own opinion was swayed by politics?
They have used special prosecutors in the past against presidents in an attempt to reassure everyone that the effort is not political. Would you not agree that it is in a ...[text shortened]... nything his detractors have done wrong, which of us sounds more like we are blinded by our emotions?
Perhaps you could explain what exactly the National Archives, DOJ and FBI did wrong in those circumstances, stressing the actions that you consider "persecution" of Donald Trump, who is apparently blameless in your view.
@jimm619 saidTell me, Jimm,...
Yeah, WHATABOUT HUNTER?.
............WHATABOUT CLINTON?;
...........WHATABOUT OBAMA?
............WHATABOUT CARTER?
AND...WHATABOUT TRUMAN?
........Let's not talk about TRUMP
If Trump gets indicted, can you understand Republicans for saying - "What about Hillary"? Just asking.
06 Sep 22
@earl-of-trumps saidIF he gets indicted because of this, it will be because he wasn't merely careless as HRC was.
Tell me, Jimm,...
If Trump gets indicted, can you understand Republicans for saying - "What about Hillary"? Just asking.
06 Sep 22
@earl-of-trumps saidFrom FBI Director Comey's statement of July 5, 2016 recommending no charges be filed against HRC:
Tell me, Jimm,...
If Trump gets indicted, can you understand Republicans for saying - "What about Hillary"? Just asking.
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
I would point out that there already is strong evidence of the factors in bold in Trump's case that was lacking in Hillary's.
06 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidYour version of probable persecution...
Your version of probable persecution of Trump runs into the inconvenient fact that for over a year he simply refused to turn over presidential records to the National Archives as he was required to by law. When he finally did turn over a few boxes in early February, the folks at the Archives were shocked to find both classified materials and torn up documents. Only then d ...[text shortened]... e actions that you consider "persecution" of Donald Trump, who is apparently blameless in your view.
I've given no odds. You're choice of words is your own misreading.
But I will say that the media is clearly not interested in objective reporting concerning politics these days. I am old enough and experienced to know that narratives can be spun that frame minor offenses with bureaucracy and miscommunications into evil incarnate. If the media and the government hadn't already proved to be so dishonest, perhaps I'd take everything we're told at face value. Not now.
For now, I will reserve judgement.
Let me present a scenario where a law was broken. An elderly neighbor (in her 80s) gave us a birthday card by leaving it in our mailbox and calling us to tell us she had done so. She did this to avoid walking up our steep driveway. This is a violation of the law. What should I have done? Report her to the postmaster General?
Obviously not. But I also don't expect the postmaster general to change the law to allow for "elderly neighbors to leave parcels in mailboxes". Rather we all have to be adult enough to recognize all violations are not equal.
Whatever my opinion I'll take concerning Trump will be based on the nature of the stuff he still had and the sequence of events that might have resulted in them in the wrong place. In light of the fact that there are so many liars in politics and media, I'd rather be too slow to form judgement than too fast.
Don't worry, if I don't already hate Trump enough to satisfy you, I can always decide to hate him more in the future.