The authoritarians are pulling out every stop. The Trump Terror Syndrome is insane. They're morally scared of their swamp water evaporating. The entire FBI is printing more hoaxes than Janet Yellen prints money.
FBI raids Trump's home
152,091 Views |
2081 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
news articles?!Sam Lowry said:Just don't suggest a news article. Rawhide wants no truck with that ivory tower BS.4th and Inches said:did you put debunked when you posted your response? Sam told me that helps make it more reputable where people pay attention to it..Rawhide said:You're the only one trying to weasel your way out of it, like you always do with everyonea about everything.Sam Lowry said:I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
The fact is... you said cops didn't let people in, you were wrong, I provided a video showing that you were wrong, then you promptely tried to change argument, like you're doing now by trying to interject willingly or authorized or whatever word salad you want to use next.
The fact in the video, the cops stood there, did not try to prevent people from entering the building and told some of the protestors to be respectful while they calmly filed in.
You were wrong then and you still can't admit it (without the scary quotes)
I would suggest a gif but you already included a video so its cool
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
I'm seeing "image unavailable." Are we getting the flip-book version next?4th and Inches said:news articles?!Sam Lowry said:Just don't suggest a news article. Rawhide wants no truck with that ivory tower BS.4th and Inches said:did you put debunked when you posted your response? Sam told me that helps make it more reputable where people pay attention to it..Rawhide said:You're the only one trying to weasel your way out of it, like you always do with everyonea about everything.Sam Lowry said:I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
The fact is... you said cops didn't let people in, you were wrong, I provided a video showing that you were wrong, then you promptely tried to change argument, like you're doing now by trying to interject willingly or authorized or whatever word salad you want to use next.
The fact in the video, the cops stood there, did not try to prevent people from entering the building and told some of the protestors to be respectful while they calmly filed in.
You were wrong then and you still can't admit it (without the scary quotes)
I would suggest a gif but you already included a video so its cool
Are there any specific violations of Trump's rights that you can point out and support with evidence?
it was the aint nobody got time for that meme..Sam Lowry said:I'm seeing "image unavailable." Are we getting the flip-book version next?4th and Inches said:news articles?!Sam Lowry said:Just don't suggest a news article. Rawhide wants no truck with that ivory tower BS.4th and Inches said:did you put debunked when you posted your response? Sam told me that helps make it more reputable where people pay attention to it..Rawhide said:You're the only one trying to weasel your way out of it, like you always do with everyonea about everything.Sam Lowry said:I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
The fact is... you said cops didn't let people in, you were wrong, I provided a video showing that you were wrong, then you promptely tried to change argument, like you're doing now by trying to interject willingly or authorized or whatever word salad you want to use next.
The fact in the video, the cops stood there, did not try to prevent people from entering the building and told some of the protestors to be respectful while they calmly filed in.
You were wrong then and you still can't admit it (without the scary quotes)
I would suggest a gif but you already included a video so its cool
How is that flagged?! Come on site admin!
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
WSJ reporting that an informant said Trump was keeping classified materials he should not have been and he or his staff had not been truthful about it.
What if that is all there is to it? Trump kept stuff that he was not allied to under the law and was hiding that fact. Documents are not relevant to J6 or election- just something he did not want the public to know but that actually belonged to the archive people.
Would the warrant be justified? Or does DJT get to break the law because he was and might be POTUS?
What if that is all there is to it? Trump kept stuff that he was not allied to under the law and was hiding that fact. Documents are not relevant to J6 or election- just something he did not want the public to know but that actually belonged to the archive people.
Would the warrant be justified? Or does DJT get to break the law because he was and might be POTUS?
If that's truly all it is, then it was a colossal blunder by the DOJ/Biden, as it appears to have galvanized support for another Trump presidential run.Booray said:
WSJ reporting that an informant said Trump was keeping classified materials he should not have been and he or his staff had not been truthful about it.
What if that is all there is to it? Trump kept stuff that he was not allied to under the law and was hiding that fact. Documents are not relevant to J6 or election- just something he did not want the public to know but that actually belonged to the archive people.
Would the warrant be justified? Or does DJT get to break the law because he was and might be POTUS?
Damn shame.
Technically justified, yes, but would the politics favor it? I don't think so.Booray said:
WSJ reporting that an informant said Trump was keeping classified materials he should not have been and he or his staff had not been truthful about it.
What if that is all there is to it? Trump kept stuff that he was not allied to under the law and was hiding that fact. Documents are not relevant to J6 or election- just something he did not want the public to know but that actually belonged to the archive people.
Would the warrant be justified? Or does DJT get to break the law because he was and might be POTUS?
Fascist Brownshirts Deployed Across America to Collect Fines on Overdue Library Books! Democracy Restored!
Mothra said:If that's truly all it is, then it was a colossal blunder by the DOJ/Biden, as it appears to have galvanized support for another Trump presidential run.Booray said:
WSJ reporting that an informant said Trump was keeping classified materials he should not have been and he or his staff had not been truthful about it.
What if that is all there is to it? Trump kept stuff that he was not allied to under the law and was hiding that fact. Documents are not relevant to J6 or election- just something he did not want the public to know but that actually belonged to the archive people.
Would the warrant be justified? Or does DJT get to break the law because he was and might be POTUS?
Damn shame.
Saw two Trump flags go up the night of the raid ... from folks that never put a sign in their yard. Maybe Americans can fight authoritarianism after all.
Important 👇
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 11, 2022
“The Nixon Library did not release the final batch of his secret tapes until 2013—39 yrs after Nixon was driven from office. The LBJ Library delayed releasing the final batch of his secret tapes…until 2016—47 yrs after he left office.” https://t.co/F89Z0Fii9D
Obama, Nixon delayed for years in returning Presidential Records Act-covered documentshttps://t.co/Buy1hyOmCx
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 11, 2022
Should they lock Devin up?
In the wake of the Clinton email server controversy, Devin Nunes sponsored a bill that increased the penalty for retaining classified material. Now that bill threatens the president who signed it into law. https://t.co/qdydUXBz81
— Philip Bump (@pbump) August 11, 2022
riflebear said:Important 👇
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 11, 2022
“The Nixon Library did not release the final batch of his secret tapes until 2013—39 yrs after Nixon was driven from office. The LBJ Library delayed releasing the final batch of his secret tapes…until 2016—47 yrs after he left office.” https://t.co/F89Z0Fii9DObama, Nixon delayed for years in returning Presidential Records Act-covered documentshttps://t.co/Buy1hyOmCx
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 11, 2022
This is a witch hunt to disqualify Trump, period. Next they will say he weighs the same as a duck, so burn him.
Any other President and none of this happens. This is an Obama and Dick Cheney inspired witch hunt. Didn't think so until he came out with his message.
There is no other reason to wait 18 months before investigating Jan 6th. Why in 2022? The US doesn't have the investigatory depth to investigate a former President?
yeah, its possible the warrant would be justified but only after checking out what they said to confirm it existed and need specifics other than presidential papers.Booray said:
WSJ reporting that an informant said Trump was keeping classified materials he should not have been and he or his staff had not been truthful about it.
What if that is all there is to it? Trump kept stuff that he was not allied to under the law and was hiding that fact. Documents are not relevant to J6 or election- just something he did not want the public to know but that actually belonged to the archive people.
Would the warrant be justified? Or does DJT get to break the law because he was and might be POTUS?
The informants info was bunk, if they found whatever the informant said was there, it wasnt in the locations the informant said it was..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
only to someone who doesn't believe in equal protection under the law.Sam Lowry said:So it's not really about the law. Just politics as usual.whiterock said:most of the outrage about this raid is rooted in the patent double standard at play, about how jarring it is to see how earnestly establishments exercise leniency against individuals in one party while contriving new levels of exactitude against the other.Sam Lowry said:
Anyone going to tell me whether a politician should ever be subject to a search warrant? Or are they above the law?
THAT dynamic is the imminent danger to the Republic. But it serves the vanity of the neverTrumper. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Focus here: Democrats are using J6 to push a "Reichstag Fire" hoax. Parallels are eerily similar.4th and Inches said:
FBI faking reports on domestic terrorists? I am shocked..
Once again, it happened. You said it didn't.Sam Lowry said:Again, it did not happen in the sense you want to insinuate.Rawhide said:You're the only one trying to weasel your way out of it, like you always do with everyonea about everything.Sam Lowry said:I continue to say what I said in the original conversation, and you continue to weasel and worm your way out of it. It is true that some of the cops "let" rioters into the building. It is not true that their entry was in any way authorized. Unless you want to man up and try to say it was?Rawhide said:Kind of like how when you tried to change the subject from cops let people in to did cops do it unwillingly or willingly?Sam Lowry said:You changed the subject to the FBI's so-called "abusing of rights"Oldbear83 said:The relevant part is whether he. through his lawyers, was presented a copy of the warrant at the time of the search, as required by law.Osodecentx said:It means, contrary to your assertions, that the Trump team has a copy of the warrantOldbear83 said:WaPo sides with Biden and Sam.Osodecentx said:Trump's legal team was given a copy of the warrant. It has declined to release it, one source told NBC News's Vaughn Hillyard, because "the burden of transparency rests with the [Justice Department] to lay out its reasoning." Since the warrant also includes an articulation of the potential legal violations to which the search relates, it may also be the case that Trump's team wants to avoid revealing the scope of the legal threat Trump faces.Oldbear83 said:
"Trump isn't releasing what he was served with."
His lawyers are saying they were not given a copy of the warrant. Said the agents flashed a paper then shoved in.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/
I notice no name for their "source".
Means jack
I wonder if WaPo's "source" will turn out to be the mail room guy or someone from The View.
The fact is... you said cops didn't let people in, you were wrong, I provided a video showing that you were wrong, then you promptely tried to change argument, like you're doing now by trying to interject willingly or authorized or whatever word salad you want to use next.
The fact in the video, the cops stood there, did not try to prevent people from entering the building and told some of the protestors to be respectful while they calmly filed in.
You were wrong then and you still can't admit it (without the scary quotes)
And once again, you're trying to reframe it.
Don't be foolish. I will take the fifth on anything above a traffic stop, because I am a Republican elected official. I might trust the local cop, but I can't control what Feds might do with anything I say. See the Missouri and Roku examples posted here. (insert the proverbial "we are not in Kansas anymore" here.Osodecentx said:
I don't take the Fifth like Dear leaderDear Leader did.Quote:You oppose Americans using their Constitutional rights.Quote:Old Fifth Amendment Leader has your loyalty to the bitter endQuote:Yup, Oso has gone squirmy and sweaty, like Hunter when he first heard about a search warrant.Quote:
You are the weak minded who will get him nominated for 2024, just like Dems want
Noted.
'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?' Trump's position on declining to testify has changed over time.
Over the years, former President Donald J. Trump has generally criticized other politicians for taking the Fifth Amendment. But on Wednesday, he invoked the right himself during a deposition at the office of the New York attorney general, and it wasn't the first time.
Mr. Trump previously contended that invoking one's Fifth Amendment rights was virtually an admission of wrongdoing.
"So there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" Mr. Trump said at a rally in Iowa in 2016, referring to investigations into Hillary Clinton's handling of potentially classified material as secretary of state.
Soon after, at a presidential debate, Mr. Trump doubled down on criticizing Ms. Clinton for using a private email server as secretary of state, again referencing the Fifth Amendment. "When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth, so they're not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it's disgraceful," he said.
Yet in 1998, he suggested that President Bill Clinton should have done just that during the impeachment investigation into Clinton. "It's a terrible thing for a president to take the Fifth Amendment, but he probably should have done it. I don't think he could have done any worse than what's happened," Trump said.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump was singing a different tune, however, when he arrived at the New York attorney general's office in downtown Manhattan to give sworn testimony for a civil inquiry into his business practices.
In a statement emailed just before the questioning started, Mr. Trump acknowledged his shifting positions over the years, but said circumstances had changed. He portrayed himself as the victim of politically motivated investigations, not just by the New York attorney general, but by the Justice Department and other prosecutors who he asserted "have lost all moral and ethical bounds of decency."
"I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?'" he wrote. "Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/nyregion/trump-fifth-amendment-comments.html
After they get thru with Trump, they'll come for his supporters. And after they're done with them, they'll come for you. You've inconveniently spoken & voted & donated too many times over the years to be trusted. And after they're done with you, they'll come after our center-left friends who are uncomfortable with what they're seeing but going along with it because they think Trump is the bigger problem at the moment. And after that, they'll start measuring levels of enthusiasm among true believers.
that's the way these things go.
Until they are stopped.
and they will be.
Everyone will remember who stopped it and who played along with it, too.
They had the pretext, so they acted. It was low-risk. He was cooperating with the investigation and had allowed the material to be inspected. He even locked it up at their request to secure it. Guaranteed win. Which could easily be indicted. Which in a WDC court with a jury drawn from a community that voted 95-5 against the man would almost certainly derive a conviction. And the language of the statue disallowed anyone convicted from ever holding federal office again. Now, SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter and no statute can remove or amend the wording of Constitutional requirements for office, so a conviction would not actually be a legal bar for serving as POTUS again, but what a campaign issue?RMF5630 said:riflebear said:Important 👇
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 11, 2022
“The Nixon Library did not release the final batch of his secret tapes until 2013—39 yrs after Nixon was driven from office. The LBJ Library delayed releasing the final batch of his secret tapes…until 2016—47 yrs after he left office.” https://t.co/F89Z0Fii9DObama, Nixon delayed for years in returning Presidential Records Act-covered documentshttps://t.co/Buy1hyOmCx
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 11, 2022
This is a witch hunt to disqualify Trump, period. Next they will say he weighs the same as a duck, so burn him.
Any other President and none of this happens. This is an Obama and Dick Cheney inspired witch hunt. Didn't think so until he came out with his message.
There is no other reason to wait 18 months before investigating Jan 6th. Why in 2022? The US doesn't have the investigatory depth to investigate a former President?
And that's the floor of the benefits.
What if they found a smoking gun for J6?
And think of all the news content breathlessly waiting for that smoking gun to be displayed?
Best of all, if there was no smoking gun, then there would be no end to that breathless content?
"Will American elect a felon as POTUS?....inquiring minds want to know!"
That the whole thing could be a question of public vs private records, rather than classified materials? immaterial.
That the whole thing could be a question of "where is the declassification order" on these documents? Immaterial.
That POTUS himself didn't box up anything and this could be a matter of a few dozen documents which SHOULD have been left behind got boxed up with thousands of documents were not covered under the PRA? Immaterial.
Not seen a single journalist, anywhere, any network left or right, fleshing out the details on that last point. How many documents were removed in total? How many of those documents are in dispute? Is the dispute over public records, or classified documents? Could this all be a question of verifying that there actually is a declassification order covering every one of the classified documents in question?.....So many details to work thru. BUT THE ORANGE MAN IS EVIL!!!
You are not wrong. We are talking documents that have already been reviewed, they are not secret documents that no one has ever seen before. The Archives know what they are looking for, yet it is shown as a major Federal Crime, yet Obama still has documents out. Crickets...whiterock said:They had the pretext, so they acted. It was low-risk. He was cooperating with the investigation and had allowed the material to be inspected. He even locked it up at their request to secure it. Guaranteed win. Which could easily be indicted. Which in a WDC court with a jury drawn from a community that voted 95-5 against the man would almost certainly derive a conviction. And the language of the statue disallowed anyone convicted from ever holding federal office again. Now, SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter and no statute can remove or amend the wording of Constitutional requirements for office, so a conviction would not actually be a legal bar for serving as POTUS again, but what a campaign issue?RMF5630 said:riflebear said:Important 👇
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 11, 2022
“The Nixon Library did not release the final batch of his secret tapes until 2013—39 yrs after Nixon was driven from office. The LBJ Library delayed releasing the final batch of his secret tapes…until 2016—47 yrs after he left office.” https://t.co/F89Z0Fii9DObama, Nixon delayed for years in returning Presidential Records Act-covered documentshttps://t.co/Buy1hyOmCx
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 11, 2022
This is a witch hunt to disqualify Trump, period. Next they will say he weighs the same as a duck, so burn him.
Any other President and none of this happens. This is an Obama and Dick Cheney inspired witch hunt. Didn't think so until he came out with his message.
There is no other reason to wait 18 months before investigating Jan 6th. Why in 2022? The US doesn't have the investigatory depth to investigate a former President?
And that's the floor of the benefits.
What if they found a smoking gun for J6?
And think of all the news content breathlessly waiting for that smoking gun to be displayed?
Best of all, if there was no smoking gun, then there would be no end to that breathless content?
"Will American elect a felon as POTUS?....inquiring minds want to know!"
That the whole thing could be a question of public vs private records, rather than classified materials? immaterial.
That the whole thing could be a question of "where is the declassification order" on these documents? Immaterial.
That POTUS himself didn't box up anything and this could be a matter of a few dozen documents which SHOULD have been left behind got boxed up with thousands of documents were not covered under the PRA? Immaterial.
Not seen a single journalist, anywhere, any network left or right, fleshing out the details on that last point. How many documents were removed in total? How many of those documents are in dispute? Is the dispute over public records, or classified documents? Could this all be a question of verifying that there actually is a declassification order covering every one of the classified documents in question?.....So many details to work thru. BUT THE ORANGE MAN IS EVIL!!!
...ahhh...but Obama is one of the good guys. and Trump is not. Fortunately, the law is flexible and can be used as needed to protect the good guys and persecute the bad guys. Prosecutorial discretion, the call it publicly. Repressive Tolerance, they call it amongst themselves.RMF5630 said:You are not wrong. We are talking documents that have already been reviewed, they are not secret documents that no one has ever seen before. The Archives know what they are looking for, yet it is shown as a major Federal Crime, yet Obama still has documents out. Crickets...whiterock said:They had the pretext, so they acted. It was low-risk. He was cooperating with the investigation and had allowed the material to be inspected. He even locked it up at their request to secure it. Guaranteed win. Which could easily be indicted. Which in a WDC court with a jury drawn from a community that voted 95-5 against the man would almost certainly derive a conviction. And the language of the statue disallowed anyone convicted from ever holding federal office again. Now, SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter and no statute can remove or amend the wording of Constitutional requirements for office, so a conviction would not actually be a legal bar for serving as POTUS again, but what a campaign issue?RMF5630 said:riflebear said:Important 👇
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 11, 2022
“The Nixon Library did not release the final batch of his secret tapes until 2013—39 yrs after Nixon was driven from office. The LBJ Library delayed releasing the final batch of his secret tapes…until 2016—47 yrs after he left office.” https://t.co/F89Z0Fii9DObama, Nixon delayed for years in returning Presidential Records Act-covered documentshttps://t.co/Buy1hyOmCx
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 11, 2022
This is a witch hunt to disqualify Trump, period. Next they will say he weighs the same as a duck, so burn him.
Any other President and none of this happens. This is an Obama and Dick Cheney inspired witch hunt. Didn't think so until he came out with his message.
There is no other reason to wait 18 months before investigating Jan 6th. Why in 2022? The US doesn't have the investigatory depth to investigate a former President?
And that's the floor of the benefits.
What if they found a smoking gun for J6?
And think of all the news content breathlessly waiting for that smoking gun to be displayed?
Best of all, if there was no smoking gun, then there would be no end to that breathless content?
"Will American elect a felon as POTUS?....inquiring minds want to know!"
That the whole thing could be a question of public vs private records, rather than classified materials? immaterial.
That the whole thing could be a question of "where is the declassification order" on these documents? Immaterial.
That POTUS himself didn't box up anything and this could be a matter of a few dozen documents which SHOULD have been left behind got boxed up with thousands of documents were not covered under the PRA? Immaterial.
Not seen a single journalist, anywhere, any network left or right, fleshing out the details on that last point. How many documents were removed in total? How many of those documents are in dispute? Is the dispute over public records, or classified documents? Could this all be a question of verifying that there actually is a declassification order covering every one of the classified documents in question?.....So many details to work thru. BUT THE ORANGE MAN IS EVIL!!!
Thanks for admitting you weren't paying attention Sam, since ... late 2015.Sam Lowry said:
Are there any specific violations of Trump's rights that you can point out and support with evidence?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Wait a minute! Now, YOU are asking for evidence and specifics for the FBI raid, but the Jan 6th Coalition there is no evidence, but we really know (wink, wink, nod, nod...)Sam Lowry said:
Are there any specific violations of Trump's rights that you can point out and support with evidence?
Come on at least be subtle! This is a blatant 180 from the discussions we have been having!
Thanks for changing the subject again. We're talking about 2022.Oldbear83 said:Thanks for admitting you weren't paying attention Sam, since ... late 2015.Sam Lowry said:
Are there any specific violations of Trump's rights that you can point out and support with evidence?
There's plenty of specific evidence on Jan. 6. You just won't recognize it because it's mostly about attempted crimes.RMF5630 said:Wait a minute! Now, YOU are asking for evidence and specifics for the FBI raid, but the Jan 6th Coalition there is no evidence, but we really know (wink, wink, nod, nod...)Sam Lowry said:
Are there any specific violations of Trump's rights that you can point out and support with evidence?
Come on at least be subtle! This is a blatant 180 from the discussions we have been having!
The issues with Nixon, LBJ, and Obama were all about public release of the documents, not withholding documents from NARA.riflebear said:Important 👇
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 11, 2022
“The Nixon Library did not release the final batch of his secret tapes until 2013—39 yrs after Nixon was driven from office. The LBJ Library delayed releasing the final batch of his secret tapes…until 2016—47 yrs after he left office.” https://t.co/F89Z0Fii9DObama, Nixon delayed for years in returning Presidential Records Act-covered documentshttps://t.co/Buy1hyOmCx
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 11, 2022
Rawhide said:The left did exactly that since Trump accounced in 2015Porteroso said:Married A Horn said:
After raiding President Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago the Stasi-FBI apprehended Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) and seized his phone.
Rep. Scott Perry is a staunch Trump supporter.
It is now open season for conservatives and patriotic Americans.
The government has declared war on the American people.
87,000 IRS agents headed your way.
The sad thing is I've observed radicals like you find out how stupid you were to say these ridiculous things. You will never see it that way though, because you will have moved onto the next conspiracy theory, which will prove all the previous right in your own mind. Sad.
I agree. The left did go bonkers and embarrass themselves.
It seems to be a contest, currently, who can trash America and our system of government the most.
No, it is about speculated connections and intent.Sam Lowry said:There's plenty of specific evidence on Jan. 6. You just won't recognize it because it's mostly about attempted crimes.RMF5630 said:Wait a minute! Now, YOU are asking for evidence and specifics for the FBI raid, but the Jan 6th Coalition there is no evidence, but we really know (wink, wink, nod, nod...)Sam Lowry said:
Are there any specific violations of Trump's rights that you can point out and support with evidence?
Come on at least be subtle! This is a blatant 180 from the discussions we have been having!
For example: Trump wanted to go to the Capital
No one knows his intent or what he wanted to do.
You took it as proof he wanted to lead the insurrection.
Another option is he wanted to tell them to remain peaceful and stand down. When I brought up that option, yours and several others response was that we really know he didn't want to do that.
There is NOTHING that has been said in the January 6th Commission that is not either hearsay, speculation or implied. Yet, that is cool. Asking for why a US Citizen's home was raided by 30 FBI agents with an open ended warrant based on Archive Docs??? That is above board and beyond reproach! Come on. You guys just want to get Trump. The warrant is a fishing expedition.
You say it's about equal protection, but you fail to show any real equal protection issue. All you can do is whine about Hillary while conjuring images of cattle cars and concentrations camps.whiterock said:only to someone who doesn't believe in equal protection under the law.Sam Lowry said:So it's not really about the law. Just politics as usual.whiterock said:most of the outrage about this raid is rooted in the patent double standard at play, about how jarring it is to see how earnestly establishments exercise leniency against individuals in one party while contriving new levels of exactitude against the other.Sam Lowry said:
Anyone going to tell me whether a politician should ever be subject to a search warrant? Or are they above the law?
THAT dynamic is the imminent danger to the Republic. But it serves the vanity of the neverTrumper. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Trump hasn't even been charged with a records violation. The worst you and I are being threatened with is that if we steal government property, especially classified documents, someone might come to retrieve it. The sky isn't falling. This is still America.
since 2015 implies 2022 is includedSam Lowry said:Thanks for changing the subject again. We're talking about 2022.Oldbear83 said:Thanks for admitting you weren't paying attention Sam, since ... late 2015.Sam Lowry said:
Are there any specific violations of Trump's rights that you can point out and support with evidence?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
At the end of his presidency, Barack Obama trucked 30 million pages of his administration's records to Chicago...More than five years after Obama's presidency ended, the National Archives webpage reveals that zero pages have been digitized & disclosed..
Obama is a Dem and aint running for office so nobody cares..
Obama is a Dem and aint running for office so nobody cares..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
They will come for the law breakerswhiterock said:Don't be foolish. I will take the fifth on anything above a traffic stop, because I am a Republican elected official. I might trust the local cop, but I can't control what Feds might do with anything I say. See the Missouri and Roku examples posted here. (insert the proverbial "we are not in Kansas anymore" here.Osodecentx said:
I don't take the Fifth like Dear leaderDear Leader did.Quote:You oppose Americans using their Constitutional rights.Quote:Old Fifth Amendment Leader has your loyalty to the bitter endQuote:Yup, Oso has gone squirmy and sweaty, like Hunter when he first heard about a search warrant.Quote:
You are the weak minded who will get him nominated for 2024, just like Dems want
Noted.
'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?' Trump's position on declining to testify has changed over time.
Over the years, former President Donald J. Trump has generally criticized other politicians for taking the Fifth Amendment. But on Wednesday, he invoked the right himself during a deposition at the office of the New York attorney general, and it wasn't the first time.
Mr. Trump previously contended that invoking one's Fifth Amendment rights was virtually an admission of wrongdoing.
"So there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" Mr. Trump said at a rally in Iowa in 2016, referring to investigations into Hillary Clinton's handling of potentially classified material as secretary of state.
Soon after, at a presidential debate, Mr. Trump doubled down on criticizing Ms. Clinton for using a private email server as secretary of state, again referencing the Fifth Amendment. "When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth, so they're not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it's disgraceful," he said.
Yet in 1998, he suggested that President Bill Clinton should have done just that during the impeachment investigation into Clinton. "It's a terrible thing for a president to take the Fifth Amendment, but he probably should have done it. I don't think he could have done any worse than what's happened," Trump said.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump was singing a different tune, however, when he arrived at the New York attorney general's office in downtown Manhattan to give sworn testimony for a civil inquiry into his business practices.
In a statement emailed just before the questioning started, Mr. Trump acknowledged his shifting positions over the years, but said circumstances had changed. He portrayed himself as the victim of politically motivated investigations, not just by the New York attorney general, but by the Justice Department and other prosecutors who he asserted "have lost all moral and ethical bounds of decency."
"I once asked, 'If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?'" he wrote. "Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/nyregion/trump-fifth-amendment-comments.html
After they get thru with Trump, they'll come for his supporters. And after they're done with them, they'll come for you. You've inconveniently spoken & voted & donated too many times over the years to be trusted. And after they're done with you, they'll come after our center-left friends who are uncomfortable with what they're seeing but going along with it because they think Trump is the bigger problem at the moment. And after that, they'll start measuring levels of enthusiasm among true believers.
that's the way these things go.
Until they are stopped.
and they will be.
Everyone will remember who stopped it and who played along with it, too.
Waco1947 ,la
This doesn't bother you.Sam Lowry said:You say it's about equal protection, but you fail to show any real equal protection issue. All you can do is whine about Hillary while conjuring images of cattle cars and concentrations camps.whiterock said:only to someone who doesn't believe in equal protection under the law.Sam Lowry said:So it's not really about the law. Just politics as usual.whiterock said:most of the outrage about this raid is rooted in the patent double standard at play, about how jarring it is to see how earnestly establishments exercise leniency against individuals in one party while contriving new levels of exactitude against the other.Sam Lowry said:
Anyone going to tell me whether a politician should ever be subject to a search warrant? Or are they above the law?
THAT dynamic is the imminent danger to the Republic. But it serves the vanity of the neverTrumper. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Trump hasn't even been charged with a records violation. The worst you and I are being threatened with is that if we steal government property, especially classified documents, someone might come to retrieve it. The sky isn't falling. This is still America.
Epstein's clients are being covered up. That doesn't bother you.
Hunter Biden is untouchable and that doesn't bother you.
But somehow Trump bothers you and gets 99% of your political attention.
Trump can release the warrant if he wants to so that we can see what it is about.
I'm not going to pretend that this is a good thing. This is VERY bad for the country for the DOJ of the the opposing administration to undertake a raid on the home of a former and possible future opponent.
I'm not going to pretend that this is a good thing. This is VERY bad for the country for the DOJ of the the opposing administration to undertake a raid on the home of a former and possible future opponent.
I didn't 'change the subject' Sam, I answered your question with a relevant observation.Sam Lowry said:Thanks for changing the subject again. We're talking about 2022.Oldbear83 said:Thanks for admitting you weren't paying attention Sam, since ... late 2015.Sam Lowry said:
Are there any specific violations of Trump's rights that you can point out and support with evidence?
You, as is your wont, squirmed.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier