ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

If by "trivial process irregularities" you mean intentionally lying to investigators, hiding documents from subpoena, asking to have someone hide and/or destroy documents, and actively showing unauthorized people classified documents that weren't declassified (Trump's on tape with that), then we have different interpretations of that phrase.

Trump was in full rogue mode after he left office, and this is one action he took where it's likely going to bite him.

---

Everything he's done is covered by powers stated in NARA and by Federal Court ruling. His retention while still in office deemed the documents as personal rather than official records.

you neverTrumpers are getting way out over your skis on this one. USG does not have an open/shut case here. The standard I cite is the baseline of precedence, the predicate for his actions. USG will be arguing to narrow that precedence. It is hardly a slam dunk they will succeed.

---

I don't think you've read the indictment. Trump hid boxes from his own attorney tasked with pulling out documents marked classified, secret, confidential, etc. under federal subpoena, asked him to remove ("pluck") some of those documents he found in what he searched, then had his attorneys sign a subpoena certification that it's all been reviewed and turned over only for the FBI to find out a month or so later about those other boxes leading to the search warrant where they find dozens more.

And you of all people should know that battle plan outlines and intelligence briefings and reports are not "personal" documents.

---

You are ignoring the recent precedence of the SockDrawer case, where the Obama DOJ literally argued that a federal record became a presidential record the moment it came into possession of POTUS, that POTUS had sole discretion over whether than presidential record was personal or official, and most significantly, POTUS's determinations on such issues were final, not even subject to review.

The courts will have to curtail that standing precedent.

Of course, a criminal trial leaves such questions to a jury (which of course why this issue when to criminal cort rather than civil court). But that jury determination will be subject to appeal. SCOTUS is not going to view this issue early as narrowly as you are. They are going to recognize it for what it is....an effort to subject Presidential power to review by subordinate officers. Such a writhing pile of knotted snakes that will make government unfunctionable. SCOTUS will not allow it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass. %A0

---

Weak argument. %A0

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter. %A0

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. %A0 That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. %A0 %A0A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. %A0 At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

All of that is well and good, problem is that Trump is ex-POTUS. %A0None of this occurred before Jan 20, 2020. %A0If Trump had done what he was supposed to do and turn over all Presidential files to NARA before leaving office, then maybe an argument can be made. %A0Once Biden was inaugurated, Trump no longer had the power flowing through him, it transferred to Biden. Biden probably has more of a leg to stand on that he can't have a security violation as POTUS.

You also seem to be overlooking that none of the charges involve classification of docs. %A0

As well as he was not supposed to have them because they were not his to keep. %A0They are not Personal docs. %A0POTUS can't take a NSC report and make it personal, that doc belongs to NARA when he leaves, not Trump.

Also, this idea that POTUS can just think about a document being declassified is BS. %A0

Trump is screwed several ways. He is going to lose and should cut a deal like Hunter, but I do not think Trump is that clever.

---

He deemed the documents personal records while he was still in office, so your argument that he no longer retained the powers of office is moot.

You also forget statute and court ruling - documents which come into the possession are no longer agency records. %A0They are presidential records. %A0 And the designation of those records as personal are not a "loss of documentation" as the agencies retain the permanent copies (as Sam has alluded to the documents on the Clinton server).

Don't let the MSM lead you down the trail of breadcrumbs.....

And, yes, a POTUS can just "think about" declassifying a record and do so. %A0 He can hand a classified document to a member of the press on a whim, and it's considered declassified, because the declass decision is an inherent power of the CEO of the Executive Branch. %A0POTUS needs no prior approval. %A0He IS the prior approval from which all executive power is delegated.

---

So, so wrong...

---

Except for the minor inconvenience that what I described is exactly how the system works every day and always has. A POTUS does not need to get an approval from anyone to do anything with classified information. Disposal of it is at his discretion, due to inherent powers of office.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

If by "trivial process irregularities" you mean intentionally lying to investigators, hiding documents from subpoena, asking to have someone hide and/or destroy documents, and actively showing unauthorized people classified documents that weren't declassified (Trump's on tape with that), then we have different interpretations of that phrase.

Trump was in full rogue mode after he left office, and this is one action he took where it's likely going to bite him.

---

Everything he's done is covered by powers stated in NARA and by Federal Court ruling. His retention while still in office deemed the documents as personal rather than official records.

you neverTrumpers are getting way out over your skis on this one. USG does not have an open/shut case here. The standard I cite is the baseline of precedence, the predicate for his actions. USG will be arguing to narrow that precedence. It is hardly a slam dunk they will succeed.

---

I don't think you've read the indictment. Trump hid boxes from his own attorney tasked with pulling out documents marked classified, secret, confidential, etc. under federal subpoena, asked him to remove ("pluck") some of those documents he found in what he searched, then had his attorneys sign a subpoena certification that it's all been reviewed and turned over only for the FBI to find out a month or so later about those other boxes leading to the search warrant where they find dozens more.

And you of all people should know that battle plan outlines and intelligence briefings and reports are not "personal" documents.

---

You are ignoring the recent precedence of the SockDrawer case, where the Obama DOJ literally argued that a federal record became a presidential record the moment it came into possession of POTUS, that POTUS had sole discretion over whether than presidential record was personal or official, and most significantly, POTUS's determinations on such issues were final, not even subject to review.

The courts will have to curtail that standing precedent.

Of course, a criminal trial leaves such questions to a jury (which of course why this issue when to criminal cort rather than civil court). But that jury determination will be subject to appeal. SCOTUS is not going to view this issue early as narrowly as you are. They are going to recognize it for what it is....an effort to subject Presidential power to review by subordinate officers. Such a writhing pile of knotted snakes that will make government unfunctionable. SCOTUS will not allow it.

---

No, a criminal trial does not leave such questions to a jury.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

If by "trivial process irregularities" you mean intentionally lying to investigators, hiding documents from subpoena, asking to have someone hide and/or destroy documents, and actively showing unauthorized people classified documents that weren't declassified (Trump's on tape with that), then we have different interpretations of that phrase.

Trump was in full rogue mode after he left office, and this is one action he took where it's likely going to bite him.

---

Everything he's done is covered by powers stated in NARA and by Federal Court ruling. His retention while still in office deemed the documents as personal rather than official records.

you neverTrumpers are getting way out over your skis on this one. USG does not have an open/shut case here. The standard I cite is the baseline of precedence, the predicate for his actions. USG will be arguing to narrow that precedence. It is hardly a slam dunk they will succeed.

---

I don't think you've read the indictment. Trump hid boxes from his own attorney tasked with pulling out documents marked classified, secret, confidential, etc. under federal subpoena, asked him to remove ("pluck") some of those documents he found in what he searched, then had his attorneys sign a subpoena certification that it's all been reviewed and turned over only for the FBI to find out a month or so later about those other boxes leading to the search warrant where they find dozens more.

And you of all people should know that battle plan outlines and intelligence briefings and reports are not "personal" documents.

---

You are ignoring the recent precedence of the SockDrawer case, where the Obama DOJ literally argued that a federal record became a presidential record the moment it came into possession of POTUS, that POTUS had sole discretion over whether than presidential record was personal or official, and most significantly, POTUS's determinations on such issues were final, not even subject to review.

The courts will have to curtail that standing precedent.

Of course, a criminal trial leaves such questions to a jury (which of course why this issue when to criminal cort rather than civil court). But that jury determination will be subject to appeal. SCOTUS is not going to view this issue early as narrowly as you are. They are going to recognize it for what it is....an effort to subject Presidential power to review by subordinate officers. Such a writhing pile of knotted snakes that will make government unfunctionable. SCOTUS will not allow it.

---

No, a criminal trial does not leave such questions to a jury.

---

Sure, the judge instructs, but the jury gets a vote. They can convict even it it conflicts with instructions.

It's a second bite at the apple.....

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

If by "trivial process irregularities" you mean intentionally lying to investigators, hiding documents from subpoena, asking to have someone hide and/or destroy documents, and actively showing unauthorized people classified documents that weren't declassified (Trump's on tape with that), then we have different interpretations of that phrase.

Trump was in full rogue mode after he left office, and this is one action he took where it's likely going to bite him.

---

Everything he's done is covered by powers stated in NARA and by Federal Court ruling. His retention while still in office deemed the documents as personal rather than official records.

you neverTrumpers are getting way out over your skis on this one. USG does not have an open/shut case here. The standard I cite is the baseline of precedence, the predicate for his actions. USG will be arguing to narrow that precedence. It is hardly a slam dunk they will succeed.

---

I don't think you've read the indictment. Trump hid boxes from his own attorney tasked with pulling out documents marked classified, secret, confidential, etc. under federal subpoena, asked him to remove ("pluck") some of those documents he found in what he searched, then had his attorneys sign a subpoena certification that it's all been reviewed and turned over only for the FBI to find out a month or so later about those other boxes leading to the search warrant where they find dozens more.

And you of all people should know that battle plan outlines and intelligence briefings and reports are not "personal" documents.

---

You are ignoring the recent precedence of the SockDrawer case, where the Obama DOJ literally argued that a federal record became a presidential record the moment it came into possession of POTUS, that POTUS had sole discretion over whether than presidential record was personal or official, and most significantly, POTUS's determinations on such issues were final, not even subject to review.

The courts will have to curtail that standing precedent.

Of course, a criminal trial leaves such questions to a jury (which of course why this issue when to criminal cort rather than civil court). But that jury determination will be subject to appeal. SCOTUS is not going to view this issue early as narrowly as you are. They are going to recognize it for what it is....an effort to subject Presidential power to review by subordinate officers. Such a writhing pile of knotted snakes that will make government unfunctionable. SCOTUS will not allow it.

---

No, a criminal trial does not leave such questions to a jury.

---

Sure, the judge instructs, but the jury gets a vote. They can convict even it it conflicts with instructions.

It's a second bite at the apple.....

---

Juries vote on questions of fact. Questions of law depend on precedent, and in this case your interpretation of precedent is deeply flawed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.

---

It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.

---

Weak argument.

1) Pence was not POTUS so did not have same express and implied powers.
2) Most of Biden's docs were retained while he also did not have express/implied powers of POTUS.
3) The fact that Biden did allow FBI to search his residence to see/seize what was there did not change the nature of his power to retain all of them taken there while POTUS, or thereafter.

All class/declass power flows from POTUS. That is a very short, powerful sentence which Trump critics are trying desperately to ignore. A POTUS cannot commit a security violation. At every turn, POTUS actions with classified documents are dispositive, to include the determination of what are official and private documents (per Fed court ruling).

Your argument ultimately devolves to the presumption that a Lieutenant can relieve a General over trival process irregularities

---

If by "trivial process irregularities" you mean intentionally lying to investigators, hiding documents from subpoena, asking to have someone hide and/or destroy documents, and actively showing unauthorized people classified documents that weren't declassified (Trump's on tape with that), then we have different interpretations of that phrase.

Trump was in full rogue mode after he left office, and this is one action he took where it's likely going to bite him.

---

Everything he's done is covered by powers stated in NARA and by Federal Court ruling. His retention while still in office deemed the documents as personal rather than official records.

you neverTrumpers are getting way out over your skis on this one. USG does not have an open/shut case here. The standard I cite is the baseline of precedence, the predicate for his actions. USG will be arguing to narrow that precedence. It is hardly a slam dunk they will succeed.

---

I don't think you've read the indictment. Trump hid boxes from his own attorney tasked with pulling out documents marked classified, secret, confidential, etc. under federal subpoena, asked him to remove ("pluck") some of those documents he found in what he searched, then had his attorneys sign a subpoena certification that it's all been reviewed and turned over only for the FBI to find out a month or so later about those other boxes leading to the search warrant where they find dozens more.

And you of all people should know that battle plan outlines and intelligence briefings and reports are not "personal" documents.

---

You are ignoring the recent precedence of the SockDrawer case, where the Obama DOJ literally argued that a federal record became a presidential record the moment it came into possession of POTUS, that POTUS had sole discretion over whether than presidential record was personal or official, and most significantly, POTUS's determinations on such issues were final, not even subject to review.

The courts will have to curtail that standing precedent.

Of course, a criminal trial leaves such questions to a jury (which of course why this issue when to criminal cort rather than civil court). But that jury determination will be subject to appeal. SCOTUS is not going to view this issue early as narrowly as you are. They are going to recognize it for what it is....an effort to subject Presidential power to review by subordinate officers. Such a writhing pile of knotted snakes that will make government unfunctionable. SCOTUS will not allow it.

---

No, a criminal trial does not leave such questions to a jury.

---

Sure, the judge instructs, but the jury gets a vote. They can convict even it it conflicts with instructions.

It's a second bite at the apple.....

---

Juries vote on questions of fact. Questions of law depend on precedent, and in this case your interpretation of precedent is deeply flawed.

---

questions of fact as directed by Judge on law.....

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

You have to have evidence to bring an indictment, so not sure what you're saying here.

---

No, you have to convince a grand jury to bring an indictment.

Proving your case is something very different.

---

Convince requires more than a story...

---

Not as much as you think, when we're talking about Grand Juries

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You do understand that the indictment is not factual, it is a narrative used to sway media ahead of the trial, right?

---

No, I don't understand that. Especially when they have audio tape, texts, sworn affidavits, and photos.

I do know a jury will get to evaluate these claims assuming he doesn't plead out.

---

Once again, you focused on the indictment, which is not evidence or any kind of proof.

You are correct that the jury will decide what counts as proof, but pointing to the indictment as anything other than a story told by the prosecutor is very 'Red Queen' behavior.

---

You have to have evidence to bring an indictment, so not sure what you're saying here.

---

No, you have to convince a grand jury to bring an indictment.

Proving your case is something very different.

---

Convince requires more than a story...

---

Not as much as you think, when we're talking about Grand Juries

---

I received a summons on Friday for Grand Jury service next month. If selected, will be my 3rd go-around on a GJ.

The Trump audio:

"See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

"Now we have a problem," a staffer responds. pic.twitter.com/ftNqOTnfZn

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 27, 2023

Hannity plays the tape on Fox and says: That does not confirm for me whether or not specifically this document was declassified or not. Was that actually the real document or was it a story he was telling? pic.twitter.com/pNk5nxixnB

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 27, 2023

exactly.

This particular aspect of the case will be telling. If the alleged classified NDI document on Iran was not found at MAL, then we know the degree to which the entire case is pure spin.

whiterock said:

---

exactly.

This particular aspect of the case will be telling. If the alleged classified NDI document on Iran was not found at MAL, then we know the degree to which the entire case is pure spin.

---

Or it was destroyed, like Trump directed his lawyer to do

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

exactly.

This particular aspect of the case will be telling. If the alleged classified NDI document on Iran was not found at MAL, then we know the degree to which the entire case is pure spin.

---

Or it was destroyed, like Trump directed his lawyer to do

---

Speculation is a fun game, don't think it proves anything.

A lot smoke around potential criminal charges against Trump and others regarding attempts to overturn the election. And more Trump lawyers and aides admitting their rigged election theories were BS, and they knew it at the time. Not good.

sombear said:

---

A lot smoke around potential criminal charges against Trump and others regarding attempts to overturn the election. And more Trump lawyers and aides admitting their rigged election theories were BS, and they knew it at the time. Not good.

---

1. Democrats have dreamed about charging Trump with crimes, no matter the facts since before Joe Biden told his first Corn Pop lie;

2. Worrying they cannot prove the rigged election in now way means the lawyers agree with Democrats that the election was fair and clean

3. Not being able to prove the election was stolen in no way proves even the slightest intent to commit violence or break the law by Trump on January 6th.

Pretty damned weak piss you are drinking there, pal.

Oldbear83 said:

---

sombear said:

---

A lot smoke around potential criminal charges against Trump and others regarding attempts to overturn the election. And more Trump lawyers and aides admitting their rigged election theories were BS, and they knew it at the time. Not good.

---

1. Democrats have dreamed about charging Trump with crimes, no matter the facts since before Joe Biden told his first Corn Pop lie;

2. Worrying they cannot prove the rigged election in now way means the lawyers agree with Democrats that the election was fair and clean

3. Not being able to prove the election was stolen in no way proves even the slightest intent to commit violence or break the law by Trump on January 6th.

Pretty damned weak piss you are drinking there, pal.

---

Easy there . . . I did not say I support this. I said it seems that's where Smith is headed.

I call things as I see them.

For the 100th time . . . Russia was a hoax, and I do not think Trump is criminally liable for Jan 6 - though he was an idiot and coward. I also don't want to see Trump or any former Pres thrown in jail.

But I continue to believe Trump committed crimes with the classified docs and obstruction.

Finally, there is a huge difference between acknowledging lack of proof and acknowledging you never had proof and never believed it. I still don't think it's criminal, but it's really unfortunate they intentionally misled their supporters and the public in general.

sombear: "I continue to believe Trump committed crimes with the classified docs and obstruction."

I do not. At least not the 'Espionage' crap or the idea that Trump led an 'insurrection'.

Trump is an arrogant ass, but these charges are garbage.

But here's the thing:

Since Obama became President, we have seen more and more federal agencies weaponized against conservatives.

The IRS targeted conservatives under Obama, and may well be doing so now.

The DOJ and FBI used documents they knew were bogus to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump, both during the campaign and after he took office. You wanna talk about Treason, start there.

No one should imagine that the Democrats would stop with Trump. If they can take him down with these garbage accusations, then they can and will use the same weapons against DeSantis or anyone else they see as a threat.

Remember the lies thrown out against Kavanaugh? Remember that the DOJ abjectly failed to protect SCOTUS Justices last summer?

Next Spring, I hope the voters tell Trump to go home. But for now Conservatives, all of us, need to tell these lying accusers to go to hell.

Oldbear83 said:

---

sombear: "I continue to believe Trump committed crimes with the classified docs and obstruction."

I do not. At least not the 'Espionage' crap or the idea that Trump led an 'insurrection'.

Trump is an arrogant ass, but these charges are garbage.

But here's the thing:

Since Obama became President, we have seen more and more federal agencies weaponized against conservatives.

The IRS targeted conservatives under Obama, and may well be doing so now.

The DOJ and FBI used documents they knew were bogus to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump, both during the campaign and after he took office. You wanna talk about Treason, start there.

No one should imagine that the Democrats would stop with Trump. If they can take him down with these garbage accusations, then they can and will use the same weapons against DeSantis or anyone else they see as a threat.

Remember the lies thrown out against Kavanaugh? Remember that the DOJ abjectly failed to protect SCOTUS Justices last summer?

Next Spring, I hope the voters tell Trump to go home. But for now Conservatives, all of us, need to tell these lying accusers to go to hell.

---

I agree with about 90% of your post. We'll agree to disagree on the classified docs, hiding them, etc.

My main strategic disagreement is the same one I have with Whiterock. Yes, Dems will continue to go after conservatives, just like we go after them. That's modern day politics. But, why make it easy for them by once again nominating a candidate with zero self control or discipline?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

exactly.

This particular aspect of the case will be telling. If the alleged classified NDI document on Iran was not found at MAL, then we know the degree to which the entire case is pure spin.

---

Or it was destroyed, like Trump directed his lawyer to do

---

Speculation is a fun game, don't think it proves anything.

---

Seems Speculation is fun enough when directed toward anything negative toward Trump. Actually, everything Trump says is speculation.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

exactly.

This particular aspect of the case will be telling. If the alleged classified NDI document on Iran was not found at MAL, then we know the degree to which the entire case is pure spin.

---

Or it was destroyed, like Trump directed his lawyer to do

---

Speculation is a fun game, don't think it proves anything.

---

Seems Speculation is fun enough when directed toward anything negative toward Trump. Actually, everything Trump says is speculation.

---

Actually, seems like some people are consumed by hate where certain names come up.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

exactly.

This particular aspect of the case will be telling. If the alleged classified NDI document on Iran was not found at MAL, then we know the degree to which the entire case is pure spin.

---

Or it was destroyed, like Trump directed his lawyer to do

---

Speculation is a fun game, don't think it proves anything.

---

Seems Speculation is fun enough when directed toward anything negative toward Trump. Actually, everything Trump says is speculation.

---

Actually, seems like some people are consumed by hate where certain names come up.

---

Or Govt...

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

that's pretty ironic, given that Trump critics have been running around for 6 years saying the walls are closing in on one contrived crisis after the other.

I understand the argument about the value of disciplined candidates. The problem with it is that Democrats do not have to worry about that. Only Republicans.

THAT is a problem which cannot go on forever.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

that's pretty ironic, given that Trump critics have been running around for 6 years saying the walls are closing in on one contrived crisis after the other.

I understand the argument about the value of disciplined candidates. The problem with it is that Democrats do not have to worry about that. Only Republicans.

THAT is a problem which cannot go on forever.

---

Sure it can. The GOP can't agree whether to cross a street or not, never mind any type of policy direction or concerted action! GOP is supposedly "idealistic", ask Murkowski, Collins, Ryan, Romney, Cheney, and Lee. All willing to break ranks to meet their ideology. Meanwhile Dems play Realpolitik and are kicking the GOPs ass.

So keep being idealistic. Yell at RINOs, MAGAS, etc... Run Trump. We will have 4 more years of Biden/Harris.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

that's pretty ironic, given that Trump critics have been running around for 6 years saying the walls are closing in on one contrived crisis after the other.

I understand the argument about the value of disciplined candidates. The problem with it is that Democrats do not have to worry about that. Only Republicans.

THAT is a problem which cannot go on forever.

---

Sure it can. The GOP can't agree whether to cross a street or not, never mind any type of policy direction or concerted action! GOP is supposedly "idealistic", ask Murkowski, Collins, Ryan, Romney, Cheney, and Lee. All willing to break ranks to meet their ideology. Meanwhile Dems play Realpolitik and are kicking the GOPs ass.

So keep being idealistic. Yell at RINOs, MAGAS, etc... Run Trump. We will have 4 more years of Biden/Harris.

---

I'm playing the realpolitik here - holding my side to the same standard Democrats do. I do not appreciate it when Murkowski, Collins, Ryan, Romney, Cheney do what Democrats never do = fight with their base. I appreciate Mike Lee because he never does that.

You did Mike Lee a great disservice by lumping him in with Murkowski, Collins, Romney et al.... They will say they are disciplined candidates. That could not be further from the truth. They are virtue-posturing hacks who are unwilling to spend any of their political capital on things most important to the people who elected them, and find particular joy in attacking the Mike Lee types who do.

I mean, really, that bunch of moderates takes great pride in NOT standing on conservative principles, back-stabbing those who do, and calling the exercise of never fighting for anything "discipline." In no small part, the reason they reflexively avoid actually standing for something is they know it will invite exactly the kind of furious clawing and scratching from Democrats that Trump has had to deal with.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

that's pretty ironic, given that Trump critics have been running around for 6 years saying the walls are closing in on one contrived crisis after the other.

I understand the argument about the value of disciplined candidates. The problem with it is that Democrats do not have to worry about that. Only Republicans.

THAT is a problem which cannot go on forever.

---

Sure it can. The GOP can't agree whether to cross a street or not, never mind any type of policy direction or concerted action! GOP is supposedly "idealistic", ask Murkowski, Collins, Ryan, Romney, Cheney, and Lee. All willing to break ranks to meet their ideology. Meanwhile Dems play Realpolitik and are kicking the GOPs ass.

So keep being idealistic. Yell at RINOs, MAGAS, etc... Run Trump. We will have 4 more years of Biden/Harris.

---

I'm playing the realpolitik here - holding my side to the same standard Democrats do. I do not appreciate it when Murkowski, Collins, Ryan, Romney, Cheney do what Democrats never do = fight with their base. I appreciate Mike Lee because he never does that.

You did Mike Lee a great disservice by lumping him in with Murkowski, Collins, Romney et al.... They will say they are disciplined candidates. That could not be further from the truth. They are virtue-posturing hacks who are unwilling to spend any of their political capital on things most important to the people who elected them, and find particular joy in attacking the Mike Lee types who do.

I mean, really, that bunch of moderates takes great pride in NOT standing on conservative principles, back-stabbing those who do, and calling the exercise of never fighting for anything "discipline." In no small part, the reason they reflexively avoid actually standing for something is they know it will invite exactly the kind of furious clawing and scratching from Democrats that Trump has had to deal with.

---

Lee voted no when McCarthy needed support. He broke and would have defaulted rather than support what McCarthy needed. That is exactly what I am talking about and why Dems will keep control. Dems don't have that problem, Dems walk the Party line when they need votes. That is power.

GOP will now discuss how Lee is right and what a great guy he is for standing his ground. Meanwhile the Dem steamroller rolls on...

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

I have White Rage. For Mark Milley.

Cannot wait for him and Rear Admiral Rachel Levine to sail off into the sunset.

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

Explain this then.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

that's pretty ironic, given that Trump critics have been running around for 6 years saying the walls are closing in on one contrived crisis after the other.

I understand the argument about the value of disciplined candidates. The problem with it is that Democrats do not have to worry about that. Only Republicans.

THAT is a problem which cannot go on forever.

---

I haven't. Russia was a hoax. I agree with Bill Barr's full throated defense of Trump in the Russia hoax affair.
The 2 impeachments were a travesty.

Now, that doesn't mean Trump has immunity from all subsequent crimes.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

Explain this then.

---

Explain what? Please write a clear declarative sentence & I'll answer as best I can.

So far you've posted that the FBI planted documents at MAL, that Jan 6 was just some tourists walking through the Capitol, Trump really won the 2020 election, Kari Lake is governor of Arizona, and on and on. You're gullible

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

Explain this then.

---

Explain what? Please write a clear declarative sentence & I'll answer as best I can.

So far you've posted that the FBI planted documents at MAL, that Jan 6 was just some tourists walking through the Capitol, Trump really won the 2020 election, Kari Lake is governor of Arizona, and on and on. You're gullible

---

Whoa buddy, I did not post those opinions.

You're making a caricature in your head of what you think I am and its not true.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Did General Milley leak classified information to the New Yorker? Yes! Oh wait he didn’t, because the entry storyline Jack Smith put into the indictment was a false narrative designed to mislead as Trump isnt charged for the Iran plan documents, which means Milly didn’t leak or https://t.co/dlZvFnvmyt pic.twitter.com/vgaM8K2slb

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 28, 2023

---

You are so gullible

---

Explain this then.

---

Explain what? Please write a clear declarative sentence & I'll answer as best I can.

So far you've posted that the FBI planted documents at MAL, that Jan 6 was just some tourists walking through the Capitol, Trump really won the 2020 election, Kari Lake is governor of Arizona, and on and on. You're gullible

---

Whoa buddy, I did not post those opinions.

You're making a caricature in your head of what you think I am and its not true.

---

I experienced the same behavior, Doc. Some folk just want to attack straw men, not address what is actually said.