I am not doing more bumps of the prior Mar-a-Lago Raid thread. That one is spent, particularly in light of the latest Washington Post reporting that there were no nuclear secrets being retained by Donald Trump; just a bunch of ego-driven mementos accompanied by an "f.u." attitude by the former president.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ce=twitter

[Yes, I realize that his is under a paywall, which I have no intention of paying. It is posted for the headline only.]

I instead have two questions, one for each of the antagonists:



For the government apologists: How do we as a nation not insist on full, transparent disclosure from all involved in authorizing this raid?

This was plainly a political hit from the get-go. Answers are needed:
--> from the Garland/Wray "leadership" that signed off on this raid, and then pretended they didn't know about it, and then admitted that they did know about it that it was just business as usual;
--> from the D.C.-based "special investigations unit (w.t.f.??? - - if this doesn't look, sound and smell like an American Gestapo unit, then I need to go back and reread my history); and
--> from our judiciary, who apparently cannot recognize an extraordinary search-warrant request, and signs off on a raid of the former president's residence without so much as looking beforehand into the supporting assertions. (If Judge Rubberstamp had looked into it, there would not have been a need for after-the-fact hearings to figure out what should have been redacted - - he would have already known.)

If I had been so nonchalant about any matter assigned to me - - even the everyday, ordinary ones - - I'd lose a client and very likely (and correctly) be sued for professional malpractice. There ought to be accountability and consequences. But I know that there won't be.



For the Trump apologists: At what point do you admit that his downsides are not just "mean tweets"?

The man is a menace. And he will not change. Did he think it was funny to jerk around gov't bureaucrats tasked with tracking down classified papers? For what purpose? So he could show a federal functionary that he was still boss?

What an irresponsible idiot! If this doesn't convince you that he has no business asking to be put back in the White House, then you are beyond convincing.

You answered the Trump apologist question yourself: "This was plainly a political hit from the get-go." I think he s/ **** w/ them back.

(11-17-2022 09:04 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  You answered the Trump apologist question yourself: "This was plainly a political hit from the get-go." I think he s/ **** w/ them back.

What has he done that has proven illegal? He's annoying, yes, but annoying doesn't equal illegal.

(11-17-2022 09:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 09:04 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  You answered the Trump apologist question yourself: "This was plainly a political hit from the get-go." I think he s/ **** w/ them back.

What has he done that has proven illegal? He's annoying, yes, but annoying doesn't equal illegal.

Trump was an incredible POTUS. Not a great guy, but he did a fantastic job. There is no denying the results.

(11-17-2022 08:39 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I am not doing more bumps of the prior Mar-a-Lago Raid thread. That one is spent, particularly in light of the latest Washington Post reporting that there were no nuclear secrets being retained by Donald Trump; just a bunch of ego-driven mementos accompanied by an "f.u." attitude by the former president.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ce=twitter

[Yes, I realize that his is under a paywall, which I have no intention of paying. It is posted for the headline only.]

I instead have two questions, one for each of the antagonists:



For the government apologists: How do we as a nation not insist on full, transparent disclosure from all involved in authorizing this raid?

This was plainly a political hit from the get-go. Answers are needed:
--> from the Garland/Wray "leadership" that signed off on this raid, and then pretended they didn't know about it, and then admitted that they did know about it that it was just business as usual;
--> from the D.C.-based "special investigations unit (w.t.f.??? - - if this doesn't look, sound and smell like an American Gestapo unit, then I need to go back and reread my history); and
--> from our judiciary, who apparently cannot recognize an extraordinary search-warrant request, and signs off on a raid of the former president's residence without so much as looking beforehand into the supporting assertions. (If Judge Rubberstamp had looked into it, there would not have been a need for after-the-fact hearings to figure out what should have been redacted - - he would have already known.)

If I had been so nonchalant about any matter assigned to me - - even the everyday, ordinary ones - - I'd lose a client and very likely (and correctly) be sued for professional malpractice. There ought to be accountability and consequences. But I know that there won't be.



For the Trump apologists: At what point do you admit that his downsides are not just "mean tweets"?

The man is a menace. And he will not change. Did he think it was funny to jerk around gov't bureaucrats tasked with tracking down classified papers? For what purpose? So he could show a federal functionary that he was still boss?

What an irresponsible idiot! If this doesn't convince you that he has no business asking to be put back in the White House, then you are beyond convincing.

With all respect, AM, there are not 'two questions about MaL'.

There is one question about Trump' demeanor, and one question about the MaL raid, search and seizure, or whatever nomenclature you want to refer to it as.

And those questions, both which are pertinent, really are disjunct.

I will answer the 2nd one -- and this is all my personal viewpoint on Trump.

Trump, through his ego, and through the issue that he seemingly does not note that an individual is *not* the Office of the President, thinks the Presidency *is* the individual in the office. And that allows him to believe that anything produced in the time he occupied the office is *his*. Which is incorrect under the law.

But we are dealing with a guy who throughout his life has flouted the law -- he thinks the law is immaterial. This is more than evidenced by the sheer number and scope he simply shafts whomever is at the other end of contract. He is legendary in that regard.

My view is that a person who disregards and flouts the law *should* not represent the Office of the *highest* aspect of enforcing the law in the nation. That is a horrendous mix.

And before the mix starts in on the 'whadabout' -- the same applies to many Dem high office holders and seekers.

But, I dont think we have seen such a high disregard for the law or for seeing that they are and should be subject to the law in anyone since Harding as I see see in Trump.

(11-17-2022 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 08:39 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I am not doing more bumps of the prior Mar-a-Lago Raid thread. That one is spent, particularly in light of the latest Washington Post reporting that there were no nuclear secrets being retained by Donald Trump; just a bunch of ego-driven mementos accompanied by an "f.u." attitude by the former president.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ce=twitter

[Yes, I realize that his is under a paywall, which I have no intention of paying. It is posted for the headline only.]

I instead have two questions, one for each of the antagonists:



For the government apologists: How do we as a nation not insist on full, transparent disclosure from all involved in authorizing this raid?

This was plainly a political hit from the get-go. Answers are needed:
--> from the Garland/Wray "leadership" that signed off on this raid, and then pretended they didn't know about it, and then admitted that they did know about it that it was just business as usual;
--> from the D.C.-based "special investigations unit (w.t.f.??? - - if this doesn't look, sound and smell like an American Gestapo unit, then I need to go back and reread my history); and
--> from our judiciary, who apparently cannot recognize an extraordinary search-warrant request, and signs off on a raid of the former president's residence without so much as looking beforehand into the supporting assertions. (If Judge Rubberstamp had looked into it, there would not have been a need for after-the-fact hearings to figure out what should have been redacted - - he would have already known.)

If I had been so nonchalant about any matter assigned to me - - even the everyday, ordinary ones - - I'd lose a client and very likely (and correctly) be sued for professional malpractice. There ought to be accountability and consequences. But I know that there won't be.



For the Trump apologists: At what point do you admit that his downsides are not just "mean tweets"?

The man is a menace. And he will not change. Did he think it was funny to jerk around gov't bureaucrats tasked with tracking down classified papers? For what purpose? So he could show a federal functionary that he was still boss?

What an irresponsible idiot! If this doesn't convince you that he has no business asking to be put back in the White House, then you are beyond convincing.

With all respect, AM, there are not 'two questions about MaL'.

There is one question about Trump' demeanor, and one question about the MaL raid, search and seizure, or whatever nomenclature you want to refer to it as.

And those questions, both which are pertinent, really are disjunct.

I will answer the 2nd one -- and this is all my personal viewpoint on Trump.

Trump, through his ego, and through the issue that he seemingly does not note that an individual is *not* the Office of the President, thinks the Presidency *is* the individual in the office. And that allows him to believe that anything produced in the time he occupied the office is *his*. Which is incorrect under the law.

But we are dealing with a guy who throughout his life has flouted the law -- he thinks the law is immaterial. This is more than evidenced by the sheer number and scope he simply shafts whomever is at the other end of contract. He is legendary in that regard.

My view is that a person who disregards and flouts the law *should* not represent the Office of the *highest* aspect of enforcing the law in the nation. That is a horrendous mix.

And before the mix starts in on the 'whadabout' -- the same applies to many Dem high office holders and seekers.

But, I dont think we have seen such a high disregard for the law or for seeing that they are and should be subject to the law in anyone since Harding as I see see in Trump.

Now do the Biden family.

(11-17-2022 09:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 09:04 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  You answered the Trump apologist question yourself: "This was plainly a political hit from the get-go." I think he s/ **** w/ them back.

What has he done that has proven illegal? He's annoying, yes, but annoying doesn't equal illegal.

I think that is a question that is still in the process of being answered.

You could have asked that same question about Charlie Manson on January 24, 1971 and gotten the same answer one would have to truthfully answer today with Trump -- that is nothing at this point has been proven as criminally liable.

Given the plethora of items on the burner, that answer could change. I count at least 6 proceedings that are ongoing -- including one at trial where the testimony yesterday from the CFO was that Trump was fully aware of the Trump organization's criminal tax evasion.

(11-17-2022 10:20 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 08:39 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I am not doing more bumps of the prior Mar-a-Lago Raid thread. That one is spent, particularly in light of the latest Washington Post reporting that there were no nuclear secrets being retained by Donald Trump; just a bunch of ego-driven mementos accompanied by an "f.u." attitude by the former president.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ce=twitter

[Yes, I realize that his is under a paywall, which I have no intention of paying. It is posted for the headline only.]

I instead have two questions, one for each of the antagonists:



For the government apologists: How do we as a nation not insist on full, transparent disclosure from all involved in authorizing this raid?

This was plainly a political hit from the get-go. Answers are needed:
--> from the Garland/Wray "leadership" that signed off on this raid, and then pretended they didn't know about it, and then admitted that they did know about it that it was just business as usual;
--> from the D.C.-based "special investigations unit (w.t.f.??? - - if this doesn't look, sound and smell like an American Gestapo unit, then I need to go back and reread my history); and
--> from our judiciary, who apparently cannot recognize an extraordinary search-warrant request, and signs off on a raid of the former president's residence without so much as looking beforehand into the supporting assertions. (If Judge Rubberstamp had looked into it, there would not have been a need for after-the-fact hearings to figure out what should have been redacted - - he would have already known.)

If I had been so nonchalant about any matter assigned to me - - even the everyday, ordinary ones - - I'd lose a client and very likely (and correctly) be sued for professional malpractice. There ought to be accountability and consequences. But I know that there won't be.



For the Trump apologists: At what point do you admit that his downsides are not just "mean tweets"?

The man is a menace. And he will not change. Did he think it was funny to jerk around gov't bureaucrats tasked with tracking down classified papers? For what purpose? So he could show a federal functionary that he was still boss?

What an irresponsible idiot! If this doesn't convince you that he has no business asking to be put back in the White House, then you are beyond convincing.

With all respect, AM, there are not 'two questions about MaL'.

There is one question about Trump' demeanor, and one question about the MaL raid, search and seizure, or whatever nomenclature you want to refer to it as.

And those questions, both which are pertinent, really are disjunct.

I will answer the 2nd one -- and this is all my personal viewpoint on Trump.

Trump, through his ego, and through the issue that he seemingly does not note that an individual is *not* the Office of the President, thinks the Presidency *is* the individual in the office. And that allows him to believe that anything produced in the time he occupied the office is *his*. Which is incorrect under the law.

But we are dealing with a guy who throughout his life has flouted the law -- he thinks the law is immaterial. This is more than evidenced by the sheer number and scope he simply shafts whomever is at the other end of contract. He is legendary in that regard.

My view is that a person who disregards and flouts the law *should* not represent the Office of the *highest* aspect of enforcing the law in the nation. That is a horrendous mix.

And before the mix starts in on the 'whadabout' -- the same applies to many Dem high office holders and seekers.

But, I dont think we have seen such a high disregard for the law or for seeing that they are and should be subject to the law in anyone since Harding as I see see in Trump.

Now do the Biden family.

I see you selectively edited this: "And before the mix starts in on the 'whadabout' -- the same applies to many Dem high office holders and seekers."

Smashup job there.

And, I didnt see where the initial question asked about 'the Biden family'. Can you point that out where that was asked for?

Hint: it wasnt. Next time you get butthurt over the lack of a focus on Biden when talking about Trump, at least look at the flipping question that *was asked*, instead of charging down a your favorite 'whadabout' garbage track.

Good responses. I wish that I could say that I am looking forward to seeing how this plays out, but I am really not. I sense that it is just going to get uglier and uglier.

(11-17-2022 08:39 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  For the Trump apologists: At what point do you admit that his downsides are not just "mean tweets"?

The man is a menace. And he will not change. Did he think it was funny to jerk around gov't bureaucrats tasked with tracking down classified papers? For what purpose? So he could show a federal functionary that he was still boss?

I'm not a Trump apologist... but while you answered your own question, I think you completely miss his appeal to a number of people, including me. (not that he has a lot of appeal for me, just the only thing about him that IS appealing)...

With great hubris, bravado, arrogance... choose your adjective.... Trump has exposed our government as a cesspool of graft and corruption whose primary purpose seems to be to enrich its members by following a complex myriad of often conflicting rules, often written by the same people to a T that protects them from legal trouble from things that don't protect ANYONE ELSE in the country from doing the same thing. They watch people like Biden sit in public judgement over Clarence Thomas who may have made inappropriate passes at a co-worker/peer, while they were sexually harassing a young campaign worker and faced no similar scrutiny.

People see what Biden and his son have done, making perhaps hundreds of millions over their lifetimes by trading on their political name.... but if Trump and his daughter does that, he needs to be put in jail.... and of course if you or I did it, we WOULD be in jail.

This is like when Rodney Daingerfield shows up at Bushwood and the arrogant and classist Judge Smails loses his mind.

The GOP and Democrats have effectively rendered him fairly moot at this point... by that I mean he may now be unelectable... but they may also be sealing their fate as losing the next 2+ elections as a result. They ARE the swamp that some meaningful part of the country (and especially of the right) want to drain.

(11-17-2022 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 08:39 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I am not doing more bumps of the prior Mar-a-Lago Raid thread. That one is spent, particularly in light of the latest Washington Post reporting that there were no nuclear secrets being retained by Donald Trump; just a bunch of ego-driven mementos accompanied by an "f.u." attitude by the former president.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ce=twitter

[Yes, I realize that his is under a paywall, which I have no intention of paying. It is posted for the headline only.]

I instead have two questions, one for each of the antagonists:



For the government apologists: How do we as a nation not insist on full, transparent disclosure from all involved in authorizing this raid?

This was plainly a political hit from the get-go. Answers are needed:
--> from the Garland/Wray "leadership" that signed off on this raid, and then pretended they didn't know about it, and then admitted that they did know about it that it was just business as usual;
--> from the D.C.-based "special investigations unit (w.t.f.??? - - if this doesn't look, sound and smell like an American Gestapo unit, then I need to go back and reread my history); and
--> from our judiciary, who apparently cannot recognize an extraordinary search-warrant request, and signs off on a raid of the former president's residence without so much as looking beforehand into the supporting assertions. (If Judge Rubberstamp had looked into it, there would not have been a need for after-the-fact hearings to figure out what should have been redacted - - he would have already known.)

If I had been so nonchalant about any matter assigned to me - - even the everyday, ordinary ones - - I'd lose a client and very likely (and correctly) be sued for professional malpractice. There ought to be accountability and consequences. But I know that there won't be.



For the Trump apologists: At what point do you admit that his downsides are not just "mean tweets"?

The man is a menace. And he will not change. Did he think it was funny to jerk around gov't bureaucrats tasked with tracking down classified papers? For what purpose? So he could show a federal functionary that he was still boss?

What an irresponsible idiot! If this doesn't convince you that he has no business asking to be put back in the White House, then you are beyond convincing.

With all respect, AM, there are not 'two questions about MaL'.

There is one question about Trump' demeanor, and one question about the MaL raid, search and seizure, or whatever nomenclature you want to refer to it as.

And those questions, both which are pertinent, really are disjunct.

I will answer the 2nd one -- and this is all my personal viewpoint on Trump.

Trump, through his ego, and through the issue that he seemingly does not note that an individual is *not* the Office of the President, thinks the Presidency *is* the individual in the office. And that allows him to believe that anything produced in the time he occupied the office is *his*. Which is incorrect under the law.

But we are dealing with a guy who throughout his life has flouted the law -- he thinks the law is immaterial. This is more than evidenced by the sheer number and scope he simply shafts whomever is at the other end of contract. He is legendary in that regard.

My view is that a person who disregards and flouts the law *should* not represent the Office of the *highest* aspect of enforcing the law in the nation. That is a horrendous mix.

And before the mix starts in on the 'whadabout' -- the same applies to many Dem high office holders and seekers.

But, I dont think we have seen such a high disregard for the law or for seeing that they are and should be subject to the law in anyone since Harding as I see see in Trump.

So what you’re saying is Biden is now expendable because the goal was to elect (select) him to removed Trump first; then the second was to shore up ballot harvesting ground game that will most likely secure a Dem Presidential win in 2024 no matter how bad the economy, inflation or whatever else is going on at that time.

(11-17-2022 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...trump has exposed our government as a cesspool of graft [sic]...

I assume you meant grift and not the process of altering plants...lol

Anyway, talk about hubris, coming away with this take on a guy like trump who pretty much did this on a daily basis during his administration.

(11-17-2022 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 08:39 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  For the Trump apologists: At what point do you admit that his downsides are not just "mean tweets"?

The man is a menace. And he will not change. Did he think it was funny to jerk around gov't bureaucrats tasked with tracking down classified papers? For what purpose? So he could show a federal functionary that he was still boss?

I'm not a Trump apologist... but while you answered your own question, I think you completely miss his appeal to a number of people, including me. (not that he has a lot of appeal for me, just the only thing about him that IS appealing)...

With great hubris, bravado, arrogance... choose your adjective.... Trump has exposed our government as a cesspool of graft and corruption whose primary purpose seems to be to enrich its members by following a complex myriad of often conflicting rules, often written by the same people to a T that protects them from legal trouble from things that don't protect ANYONE ELSE in the country from doing the same thing. They watch people like Biden sit in public judgement over Clarence Thomas who may have made inappropriate passes at a co-worker/peer, while they were sexually harassing a young campaign worker and faced no similar scrutiny.

People see what Biden and his son have done, making perhaps hundreds of millions over their lifetimes by trading on their political name.... but if Trump and his daughter does that, he needs to be put in jail.... and of course if you or I did it, we WOULD be in jail.

This is like when Rodney Daingerfield shows up at Bushwood and the arrogant and classist Judge Smails loses his mind.

The GOP and Democrats have effectively rendered him fairly moot at this point... by that I mean he may now be unelectable... but they may also be sealing their fate as losing the next 2+ elections as a result. They ARE the swamp that some meaningful part of the country (and especially of the right) want to drain.

This time 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Jail Trump for the rest of his life for all i care, but do not do so without him sharing a cell will Joe and his kid.


There are not enough rep points in existence which I can give to this....

(11-17-2022 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...trump has exposed our government as a cesspool of graft [sic]...

I assume you meant grift and not the process of altering plants...lol

Anyway, talk about hubris, coming away with this take on a guy like trump who pretty much did this on a daily basis during his administration.

As usual Tom you miss/ignore the actual message.

Trump is actually not much different than any of the others in any way except the path which he took to get there.


Ham did not say Trump should be exonerated because "Trump".... He said they should all be treated the same. Trump is not the exception to this system he is the rule - but he is treated like the exception.

(11-17-2022 10:36 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  Good responses. I wish that I could say that I am looking forward to seeing how this plays out, but I am really not. I sense that it is just going to get uglier and uglier.

Or not. Looks like they just used the raid for election propaganda. Apparently, nothing to see here.

(11-17-2022 11:33 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 08:39 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I am not doing more bumps of the prior Mar-a-Lago Raid thread. That one is spent, particularly in light of the latest Washington Post reporting that there were no nuclear secrets being retained by Donald Trump; just a bunch of ego-driven mementos accompanied by an "f.u." attitude by the former president.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...ce=twitter

[Yes, I realize that his is under a paywall, which I have no intention of paying. It is posted for the headline only.]

I instead have two questions, one for each of the antagonists:



For the government apologists: How do we as a nation not insist on full, transparent disclosure from all involved in authorizing this raid?

This was plainly a political hit from the get-go. Answers are needed:
--> from the Garland/Wray "leadership" that signed off on this raid, and then pretended they didn't know about it, and then admitted that they did know about it that it was just business as usual;
--> from the D.C.-based "special investigations unit (w.t.f.??? - - if this doesn't look, sound and smell like an American Gestapo unit, then I need to go back and reread my history); and
--> from our judiciary, who apparently cannot recognize an extraordinary search-warrant request, and signs off on a raid of the former president's residence without so much as looking beforehand into the supporting assertions. (If Judge Rubberstamp had looked into it, there would not have been a need for after-the-fact hearings to figure out what should have been redacted - - he would have already known.)

If I had been so nonchalant about any matter assigned to me - - even the everyday, ordinary ones - - I'd lose a client and very likely (and correctly) be sued for professional malpractice. There ought to be accountability and consequences. But I know that there won't be.



For the Trump apologists: At what point do you admit that his downsides are not just "mean tweets"?

The man is a menace. And he will not change. Did he think it was funny to jerk around gov't bureaucrats tasked with tracking down classified papers? For what purpose? So he could show a federal functionary that he was still boss?

What an irresponsible idiot! If this doesn't convince you that he has no business asking to be put back in the White House, then you are beyond convincing.

With all respect, AM, there are not 'two questions about MaL'.

There is one question about Trump' demeanor, and one question about the MaL raid, search and seizure, or whatever nomenclature you want to refer to it as.

And those questions, both which are pertinent, really are disjunct.

I will answer the 2nd one -- and this is all my personal viewpoint on Trump.

Trump, through his ego, and through the issue that he seemingly does not note that an individual is *not* the Office of the President, thinks the Presidency *is* the individual in the office. And that allows him to believe that anything produced in the time he occupied the office is *his*. Which is incorrect under the law.

But we are dealing with a guy who throughout his life has flouted the law -- he thinks the law is immaterial. This is more than evidenced by the sheer number and scope he simply shafts whomever is at the other end of contract. He is legendary in that regard.

My view is that a person who disregards and flouts the law *should* not represent the Office of the *highest* aspect of enforcing the law in the nation. That is a horrendous mix.

And before the mix starts in on the 'whadabout' -- the same applies to many Dem high office holders and seekers.

But, I dont think we have seen such a high disregard for the law or for seeing that they are and should be subject to the law in anyone since Harding as I see see in Trump.

So what you’re saying is Biden is now expendable because the goal was to elect (select) him to removed Trump first; then the second was to shore up ballot harvesting ground game that will most likely secure a Dem Presidential win in 2024 no matter how bad the economy, inflation or whatever else is going on at that time.

BigTiger --- in all honesty, I voted for Trump in 2020. I had no issue with Trump's courtroom challenges after the election. He had every right to do those. Some, like the WI were horribly executed -- claiming a very real issue (the SoS directive and the Governor's order is not the legislature) and then asking for the relief not a 'redo' overall, but the literal throwing out of votes, and only in selected counties, was pretty bad. Given the disparity of relief asked for, the court was correct to toss that out.

The events of 1/6 and how, imo, Trump disabused the office then turned me against him in the 'I wont vote for him' realm. And MaL has reinforced that.

I specifically not only voted for Trump in 2020, I also included a vote against Biden in there.

I couldnt care less what, if anything happens to Biden. The rest of your comment is just plain empty rhetoric. In Biden, I think there is plenty there that should be investigated.

If you read my words, and not what you want to read, I am not saying what you claim in the slightest, which is one humongous stretch from what I did say, and what I am currently saying.

I see Tanq doing his little DOJ two-step in this thread.

Out of all of those hundreds of documents marked classified that you mistakenly thought they took, turns out zero had anything regarding national security.

Thats what happens when you get a special master overseeing the doj and foiling their dirty work.

(11-17-2022 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 09:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 09:04 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  You answered the Trump apologist question yourself: "This was plainly a political hit from the get-go." I think he s/ **** w/ them back.

What has he done that has proven illegal? He's annoying, yes, but annoying doesn't equal illegal.

I think that is a question that is still in the process of being answered.

You could have asked that same question about Charlie Manson on January 24, 1971 and gotten the same answer one would have to truthfully answer today with Trump -- that is nothing at this point has been proven as criminally liable.

Given the plethora of items on the burner, that answer could change. I count at least 6 proceedings that are ongoing -- including one at trial where the testimony yesterday from the CFO was that Trump was fully aware of the Trump organization's criminal tax evasion.

No, it's the strawman the D's have been pushing since day 1 of his presidency. According to them, everything the man did/does is illegal and requires an investigation. Mar A Lago is just the latest in a long line off what's been proven to be nothing. In reality, NOTHING has been proven true revealing that all the allegations thus far have been lies and political nonsense.

Trump is the same a$$hole he was yesterday.. He'll be the same @sshole tomorrow.

And that's why he appealed to people.