whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

Golem said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What if it is?

---

Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.

---

And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.

Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff

---

If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.

The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.

---

When states change rules to allow election fraud, when major media outlets are monolithically leftist, when social media/big tech censor speech on behalf of politicians, there are no consequences for the left. There is no oversight.

It's just about time to break out the guillotines and dispense with the leftist thieves and the RINO collaborators.

---

Yawn. You're not getting a civil war no matter how badly you want one.

---

wait. didn't we just raid the home of a former POTUS on a pretext because he incited an insurrection?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.

---

that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.

---

Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.

---

must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..

It was a cover. %A0They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. %A0They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.

---

The law requires different things of the archivist and the president.

---

According to you Sam, Trump has no rights. They can do what they want and it is all ok. Every t crossed and i dotted, very authoritarian. %A0I hesitate to go to the Nazi Party route because it will be considered sensationalizing, but they did the same and we have excellent records of it because the crossed the t's and dotted the i's. %A0Kept immaculate records of stuff they considered legal and done by the book. %A0

That is the problem with the Espionage Act that people have been screaming about, some conservatives and some liberals, since 1917. %A0It gives the Government almost unlimited power and is almost indefensible if the spot light is on you, if politicized it is quite the weapon.

---

Yeah, T has rights but he abused them and broke the law.

---

What charges? %A0Come on, what has he been convicted of? %A0What trial has Trump had that he was guilty? %A0You just saying that does not make it real.

---

No charges and maybe none ever.

---

So, how can anyone in America say he broke and abused the law? %A0You can not like him, you can say he is an opportunist or that he is an *******, but not what is being a felon or guilty. %A0If he is convicted, I will be the first to say he should never %A0be allowed to hold office again.

---

I believe Trump has committed crimes. %A0Given what we know now, I don't believe he should be prosecuted.
He should not be president again.

---

So, back to what happened to innocent until proven guilty? %A0I guess that doesn't exist for Trump.

---

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean immune from investigation until proven guilty. That would be a self-defeating principle.

---

Investigation is one thing, publicly televised investigations is another. Having Federal Agencies target you is another. %A0That is weaponizing. %A0The Liz Show was weaponizing on National TV against a future candidate.

---

If they were investigating in secret, you'd call it police state tactics and demand they televise the evidence. And who do you expect to investigate violations of federal law if not federal agencies? Let's face it, there's no scenario where Trump is accountable and his fans are happy with the process.

---

So, you find the Liz Show perfectly fine? Yeah, nothing politically motivated there. We can speculate that Trump is guilty, but the Jan 6th Commission is above board!

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "your blind allegiance to the Dear Leader is just your opinion."


Serious question, Oso.

Who on this board has defended Trump on principle, that you do not consider them some kind of cultist?

Just wondering if you can consider a Trump defender a reasonable person at all.

---

Yes

---

I asked who, please. I honestly don't see you giving anyone that courtesy.

---

Oso?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "your blind allegiance to the Dear Leader is just your opinion."


Serious question, Oso.

Who on this board has defended Trump on principle, that you do not consider them some kind of cultist?

Just wondering if you can consider a Trump defender a reasonable person at all.

---

Yes

---

I asked who, please. I honestly don't see you giving anyone that courtesy.

---

Oso?

---

I gave 4th the courtesy

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "your blind allegiance to the Dear Leader is just your opinion."


Serious question, Oso.

Who on this board has defended Trump on principle, that you do not consider them some kind of cultist?

Just wondering if you can consider a Trump defender a reasonable person at all.

---

Yes

---

I asked who, please. I honestly don't see you giving anyone that courtesy.

---

Oso?

---

I gave 4th the courtesy

---

Nobody asked me and I didn't see the answer but Sam comes to mind with a couole of others, you included.

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "your blind allegiance to the Dear Leader is just your opinion."


Serious question, Oso.

Who on this board has defended Trump on principle, that you do not consider them some kind of cultist?

Just wondering if you can consider a Trump defender a reasonable person at all.

---

Yes

---

I asked who, please. I honestly don't see you giving anyone that courtesy.

---

Oso?

---

I gave 4th the courtesy

---

Nobody asked me and I didn't see the answer but Sam comes to mind with a couole of others, you included.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "your blind allegiance to the Dear Leader is just your opinion."


Serious question, Oso.

Who on this board has defended Trump on principle, that you do not consider them some kind of cultist?

Just wondering if you can consider a Trump defender a reasonable person at all.

---

Yes

---

I asked who, please. I honestly don't see you giving anyone that courtesy.

---

Oso?

---

I gave 4th the courtesy

---

Nobody asked me and I didn't see the answer but Sam comes to mind with a couole of others, you included.

---

As do you

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "your blind allegiance to the Dear Leader is just your opinion."


Serious question, Oso.

Who on this board has defended Trump on principle, that you do not consider them some kind of cultist?

Just wondering if you can consider a Trump defender a reasonable person at all.

---

Yes

---

I asked who, please. I honestly don't see you giving anyone that courtesy.

---

Oso?

---

I gave 4th the courtesy

---

Nobody asked me and I didn't see the answer but Sam comes to mind with a couole of others, you included.

---

As do you

---

Quash is not a Trump defender either. No, but he is an honest poster

Seems to be some really bad evasion going on here. You were the original

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "your blind allegiance to the Dear Leader is just your opinion."


Serious question, Oso.

Who on this board has defended Trump on principle, that you do not consider them some kind of cultist?

Just wondering if you can consider a Trump defender a reasonable person at all.

---

Yes

---

I asked who, please. I honestly don't see you giving anyone that courtesy.

---

Oso?

---

I gave 4th the courtesy

---

Osodecentx said:

---

While there are some out there that might fit this label, i highly doubt I do.. Maybe. You defend your Leader at every opportunity regardless

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "your blind allegiance to the Dear Leader is just your opinion."


Serious question, Oso.

Who on this board has defended Trump on principle, that you do not consider them some kind of cultist?

Just wondering if you can consider a Trump defender a reasonable person at all.

---

Yes

---

I asked who, please. I honestly don't see you giving anyone that courtesy.

---

Oso?

---

I gave 4th the courtesy

---

Nobody asked me and I didn't see the answer but Sam comes to mind with a couole of others, you included.

---

As do you

---

Quash is not a Trump defender either. No, but he is an honest poster

Seems to be some really bad evasion going on here. You were the original

---

Quash may agree or disagree, but he doesn't evade. Take a lesson & maybe some day some courtesy

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.

---

that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.

---

Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.

---

must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..

It was a cover. %A0They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. %A0They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.

---

The law requires different things of the archivist and the president.

---

According to you Sam, Trump has no rights. They can do what they want and it is all ok. Every t crossed and i dotted, very authoritarian. %A0I hesitate to go to the Nazi Party route because it will be considered sensationalizing, but they did the same and we have excellent records of it because the crossed the t's and dotted the i's. %A0Kept immaculate records of stuff they considered legal and done by the book. %A0

That is the problem with the Espionage Act that people have been screaming about, some conservatives and some liberals, since 1917. %A0It gives the Government almost unlimited power and is almost indefensible if the spot light is on you, if politicized it is quite the weapon.

---

Yeah, T has rights but he abused them and broke the law.

---

What charges? %A0Come on, what has he been convicted of? %A0What trial has Trump had that he was guilty? %A0You just saying that does not make it real.

---

No charges and maybe none ever.

---

So, how can anyone in America say he broke and abused the law? %A0You can not like him, you can say he is an opportunist or that he is an *******, but not what is being a felon or guilty. %A0If he is convicted, I will be the first to say he should never %A0be allowed to hold office again.

---

I believe Trump has committed crimes. %A0Given what we know now, I don't believe he should be prosecuted.
He should not be president again.

---

So, back to what happened to innocent until proven guilty? %A0I guess that doesn't exist for Trump.

---

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean immune from investigation until proven guilty. That would be a self-defeating principle.

---

Investigation is one thing, publicly televised investigations is another. Having Federal Agencies target you is another. %A0That is weaponizing. %A0The Liz Show was weaponizing on National TV against a future candidate.

---

If they were investigating in secret, you'd call it police state tactics and demand they televise the evidence. And who do you expect to investigate violations of federal law if not federal agencies? Let's face it, there's no scenario where Trump is accountable and his fans are happy with the process.

---

So, you find the Liz Show perfectly fine? Yeah, nothing politically motivated there. We can speculate that Trump is guilty, but the Jan 6th Commission is above board!

---

You completely ignored the thrust of Sam's point. The Jan 6 committee investigation was on TV so it's the Liz Show and apparently unfounded. But had it been done in secret and a damning report released it would have been void for lack of transparency at best and accused of star chamber tactics at worst.

Y'all are going to have to make up your mind: do you want the transparency provided by due process or do you want people attacking FBI offices?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I've got a grudging respect for REMF5630, 4th and Pinche, a few others. I'd never accuse S***erock of being a cultist, if only because he's too cynical. Canada claims he won't vote for Trump, and he probably believes it. It isn't true, obviously. But he means well.

You, Golem, Florda, Rawhide? Total cultists.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I've got a grudging respect for REMF5630, 4th and Pinche, a few others. I'd never accuse S***erock of being a cultist, if only because he's too cynical. Canada claims he won't vote for Trump, and he probably believes it. It isn't true, obviously. But he means well.

You, Golem, Florda, Rawhide? Total cultists.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I've got a grudging respect for REMF5630, 4th and Pinche, a few others. I'd never accuse S***erock of being a cultist, if only because he's too cynical. Canada claims he won't vote for Trump, and he probably believes it. It isn't true, obviously. But he means well.

You, Golem, Florda, Rawhide? Total cultists.

---

Nice Sam. A cutdown shot in a backhanded compliment. I have the same grudging respect for your misguided ways...

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I've got a grudging respect for REMF5630, 4th and Pinche, a few others. I'd never accuse S***erock of being a cultist, if only because he's too cynical. Canada claims he won't vote for Trump, and he probably believes it. It isn't true, obviously. But he means well.

You, Golem, Florda, Rawhide? Total cultists.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I've got a grudging respect for REMF5630, 4th and Pinche, a few others. I'd never accuse S***erock of being a cultist, if only because he's too cynical. Canada claims he won't vote for Trump, and he probably believes it. It isn't true, obviously. But he means well.

You, Golem, Florda, Rawhide? Total cultists.

---

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I've got a grudging respect for REMF5630, 4th and Pinche, a few others. I'd never accuse S***erock of being a cultist, if only because he's too cynical. Canada claims he won't vote for Trump, and he probably believes it. It isn't true, obviously. But he means well.

You, Golem, Florda, Rawhide? Total cultists.

---

Nice Sam. A cutdown shot in a backhanded compliment. I have the same grudging respect for your misguided ways...

---

Just playin.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I've got a grudging respect for REMF5630, 4th and Pinche, a few others. I'd never accuse S***erock of being a cultist, if only because he's too cynical. Canada claims he won't vote for Trump, and he probably believes it. It isn't true, obviously. But he means well.

You, Golem, Florda, Rawhide? Total cultists.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I've got a grudging respect for REMF5630, 4th and Pinche, a few others. I'd never accuse S***erock of being a cultist, if only because he's too cynical. Canada claims he won't vote for Trump, and he probably believes it. It isn't true, obviously. But he means well.

You, Golem, Florda, Rawhide? Total cultists.

---

S***erock?

I'm offended. Surely you can come up with a better epithet than that.

---

whiterock said:

---

https://fb.watch/f3rEn1S9Py/

"Number one story is, the hard left will do anything to get Trump. They will trash the Constitution. They will trash civil liberties. They will contradict things they've said for a hundred years…."
-Alan Dershowitz

Exactly. McCarthyism of the left.

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.

.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.

.

---

For several years Sam was one of the best contributors on this site .

When we disagreed it was still a reasonable , often humorous , exchange of ideas .

But a little over 2 years ago Sam switched into an obvious troll mode.

Finally put the attorney on 'ignore'.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.

.

---

For several years Sam was one of the best contributors on this site .

When we disagreed it was still a reasonable , often humorous , exchange of ideas .

But a little over 2 years ago Sam switched into an obvious troll mode.

Finally put the attorney on 'ignore'.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.

.

---

For several years Sam was one of the best contributors on this site .

When we disagreed it was still a reasonable , often humorous , exchange of ideas .

But a little over 2 years ago Sam switched into an obvious troll mode.

Finally put the attorney on 'ignore'.

---

Maybe you changed

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.

.

---

For several years Sam was one of the best contributors on this site .

When we disagreed it was still a reasonable , often humorous , exchange of ideas .

But a little over 2 years ago Sam switched into an obvious troll mode.

Finally put the attorney on 'ignore'.

---

Maybe you changed

---

Wrong pronoun.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.

.

---

For several years Sam was one of the best contributors on this site .

When we disagreed it was still a reasonable , often humorous , exchange of ideas .

But a little over 2 years ago Sam switched into an obvious troll mode.

Finally put the attorney on 'ignore'.

---

Maybe you changed

---

Wrong pronoun.

---

Sorry. What is your pronoun this week?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.

.

---

For several years Sam was one of the best contributors on this site .

When we disagreed it was still a reasonable , often humorous , exchange of ideas .

But a little over 2 years ago Sam switched into an obvious troll mode.

Finally put the attorney on 'ignore'.

---

Maybe you changed

---

Wrong pronoun.

---

Sorry. What is your pronoun this week?

---

Don't quit your day job.

I miss Rational Oso, too.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Sam is an elitist troll. Why anyone on this board ever engages him is beyond me.

.

---

For several years Sam was one of the best contributors on this site .

When we disagreed it was still a reasonable , often humorous , exchange of ideas .

But a little over 2 years ago Sam switched into an obvious troll mode.

Finally put the attorney on 'ignore'.

---

Maybe you changed

---

Wrong pronoun.

---

Sorry. What is your pronoun this week?

---

Don't quit your day job.

I miss Rational Oso, too.

---

I don't need a day job.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, you had great cred for several years, just as Horn said.

But you turned so hard to the Left in 2020, it's as if Governor Newsome hijacked your account, dude.

Zero cred for the stuff you posts now.

You never admit when you are wrong.

You never admit when an opponent makes a valid point.

You apply double standards with a straight face.

But because your new Alt-Dem friends like your attack posts, you imagine you are still the same Sam.

I miss Rational Sam, and I'm not the only one.

---