I doubt hardly anyone is reading that last post, tanq. At best they may glance at the last 3 lines.

You had 14 separate quotes and 14 separate responses in a single post. Most have no idea how to even read or compose such a post and others would strain something even attempting it.

It comes off as substance driven posting.

(06-19-2023 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What, if anything, would be sufficient to be considered of at least 'some evidence' of a Trump crime at MAL?

Sufficient competent evidence, admissible at trial, to prove that all requisite elements of a crime occurred.

Now I have two questions for you:

1. What, if anything, would be sufficient to convince you the DOJ. FBI, and CIA are biased and corrupt institutions more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda than enforcing the law and protecting the homeland?

AND

2. If both propositions are correct (that Donald Trump committed a crime at MAL and that DOJ/FBI/CIA are biased and corrupt), then which is a greater threat to our democratic republic?

I read the full back-and-forth, and found it very interesting. Both WSME and tanq. make good, interesting points - - at least at my remedial level. +3 both.

But I come away with the same two conclusions that I always do:

1) Dress it up however you may, there is no way to view this as anything other than a political investigation/prosecution. The protagonists in this instance may very well be playing it straight. But we’ll never know, because they are the same set who who’ve been proved over and over again to have not played it straight. The system is broken generally. But it is downright weaponized when it comes to Donald Trump. There is virtually nothing that will come from his investigation/prosecution that is going to convince the American public otherwise. That is not the fault of Donald Trump. That is very much the fault of a politically corrupted D.o.J., FBI and judiciary. Even if tanq. is right on the actual “facts” of this particular instance, we’ll never know for certain because the investigators, prosecutors and most sadly judiciary have proved themselves underhanded.

2) In that sense, WSME has the better of this argument. The only place that this mess will be ever sorted out is in the court of public opinion not in a court of law. The shameful consequence of that, however, is that “Trump the victim” will be afforded way too much deference for persistent behavior that we would not tolerate in ANY other public figure. He ought not have been subjected to a raid of his residence. He ought not now be facing prosecution. But, even more so, he ought not be part of any discussion for the 2024 presidential campaign. Just because the investigation/prosecution is wrong does not make Donald Trump right.

(06-20-2023 04:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2023 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What, if anything, would be sufficient to be considered of at least 'some evidence' of a Trump crime at MAL?

Sufficient competent evidence, admissible at trial, to prove that all requisite elements of a crime occurred.

Now I have two questions for you:

1. What, if anything, would be sufficient to convince you the DOJ. FBI, and CIA are biased and corrupt institutions more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda than enforcing the law and protecting the homeland?

AND

2. If both propositions are correct (that Donald Trump committed a crime at MAL and that DOJ/FBI/CIA are biased and corrupt), then which is a greater threat to our democratic republic?

And, as always, someone else manages to sum things up better than I do. Great post, owl#’s.

(06-20-2023 03:37 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I doubt hardly anyone is reading that last post, tanq. At best they may glance at the last 3 lines.

You had 14 separate quotes and 14 separate responses in a single post. Most have no idea how to even read or compose such a post and others would strain something even attempting it.

It comes off as substance driven posting.

A cursory glance, if that, is all any of his posts get from me anymore. It's like he has 10 talking points that he randomly repeats ad nauseum. If you've read one you've read them all.

(06-20-2023 04:55 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I read the full back-and-forth, and found it very interesting. Both WSME and tanq. make good, interesting points - - at least at my remedial level. +3 both.

But I come away with the same two conclusions that I always do:

1) Dress it up however you may, there is no way to view this as anything other than a political investigation/prosecution. The protagonists in this instance may very well be playing it straight. But we’ll never know, because they are the same set who who’ve been proved over and over again to have not played it straight. The system is broken generally. But it is downright weaponized when it comes to Donald Trump. There is virtually nothing that will come from his investigation/prosecution that is going to convince the American public otherwise. That is not the fault of Donald Trump. That is very much the fault of a politically corrupted D.o.J., FBI and judiciary. Even if tanq. is right on the actual “facts” of this particular instance, we’ll never know for certain because the investigators, prosecutors and most sadly judiciary have proved themselves underhanded.

2) In that sense, WSME has the better of this argument. The only place that this mess will be ever sorted out is in the court of public opinion not in a court of law. The shameful consequence of that, however, is that “Trump the victim” will be afforded way too much deference for persistent behavior that we would not tolerate in ANY other public figure. He ought not have been subjected to a raid of his residence. He ought not now be facing prosecution. But, even more so, he ought not be part of any discussion for the 2024 presidential campaign. Just because the investigation/prosecution is wrong does not make Donald Trump right.

I believe I made the comment when Trump was impeached over a phone call, the rally cry was he was going after a political opponent, which was in September 2019 when this came about.. Why are we not hearing the outcry now like we did then?

(06-19-2023 10:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not so. In this type of case, the DOJ has to get permission to disseminate them. You are correct that the public wont see Document #19 ('material concerning US nuclear weaponry'), but Trump and his attorneys absolutely will.

If the item is fabricated from whole cloth, Trump's legal counsel has every opportunity to review the stuff, and make every counter if they believe it to be false.

The importance isnt that *we* cant see it, but that the Trump legal team has every opportunity to dispute it.

Not positive here, but IIRC, his legal team can only see this if they are afforded the proper security clearance to see it. That is one reason why trump may have issues finding qualified counsel.

Thought I read that somewhere over the recent weeks.

(06-20-2023 08:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not positive here, but IIRC, his legal team can only see this if they are afforded the proper security clearance to see it. That is one reason why trump may have issues finding qualified counsel.

And wouldn't it be just like the evil Deep State bastards to deny security clearances to anybody who signs on as Trump's counsel?

(06-20-2023 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-20-2023 08:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not positive here, but IIRC, his legal team can only see this if they are afforded the proper security clearance to see it. That is one reason why trump may have issues finding qualified counsel.

And wouldn't it be just like the evil Deep State bastards to deny security clearances to anybody who signs on as Trump's counsel?

Don't take the documents outside of a SCIF and this isn't an issue.

Biden*'s garage is a SCIF?

(06-20-2023 11:01 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Biden*'s garage is a SCIF?

Don't lie in response to a Federal subpoena is a start as well.

(06-20-2023 11:01 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Biden*'s garage is a SCIF?

Ahh, a case of BDS ehh? (See how that works).

I've said they should file charges there too. Although if you watched Brett Baier last night you even heard him (a big pro-Trump guy) admit Biden gave his back voluntarily and let them search the house, so the circumstances are certainly different.

I'll say this again... throw Trump, Biden, Hillary, and anyone else who broke the law regarding their handling of our nations secrets in prison. If it were me I'd have been thrown in prison and never seen any sort of freedom again.

(06-20-2023 11:05 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-20-2023 11:01 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Biden*'s garage is a SCIF?

Ahh, a case of BDS ehh? (See how that works).

I've said they should file charges there too. Although if you watched Brett Baier last night you even heard him (a big pro-Trump guy) admit Biden gave his back voluntarily and let them search the house, so the circumstances are certainly different.

I'll say this again... throw Trump, Biden, Hillary, and anyone else who broke the law regarding their handling of our nations secrets in prison. If it were me I'd have been thrown in prison and never seen any sort of freedom again.

Brett is a big Trump guy? Bwahahaha. No he isnt.

Good god man if you cant see the diff in the way they treat Trump and Biden. Ridiculous.

Its ok to break the law if you give accessto your jackboots

Stop. Just stop.

No credibility at this point.

The doj has been weaponized against trump from day 1

(06-20-2023 11:01 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Biden*'s garage is a SCIF?

Not all classified information has to be kept in a SCIF.

(06-20-2023 11:01 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Biden*'s garage is a SCIF?

Fricks defending this shite.

Amaxing

Anyone that thinks trump has been treated the same as biden* and hilary is either deluded or dishonest.

There is no other option.

Anyone else find it ironic that all of a sudden everyone on the left knows what a classified document is?

(06-20-2023 11:14 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Brett is a big Trump guy? Bwahahaha. No he isnt.

You must watch a different program than me. Up until recently he still was pushing the whole stolen election story.

Quote:Good god man if you cant see the diff in the way they treat Trump and Biden. Ridiculous.

Its ok to break the law if you give accessto your jackboots

Stop. Just stop.

No credibility at this point.

The doj has been weaponized against trump from day 1

He broke the law, plain and simple. Whether DoJ was weaponized really doesn't matter at this point. DON'T TAKE US GOVERNMENT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF A SCIF! What is so hard to understand about that? If he did, he needs to be held accountable.

That being said, he's part of the elite class and we know he'll never be held responsible. He has never been held accountable for the first almost 80 years of his life.

(06-20-2023 11:45 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-20-2023 11:14 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Brett is a big Trump guy? Bwahahaha. No he isnt.

You must watch a different program than me. Up until recently he still was pushing the whole stolen election story.

Quote:Good god man if you cant see the diff in the way they treat Trump and Biden. Ridiculous.

Its ok to break the law if you give accessto your jackboots

Stop. Just stop.

No credibility at this point.

The doj has been weaponized against trump from day 1

He broke the law, plain and simple. Whether DoJ was weaponized really doesn't matter at this point. DON'T TAKE US GOVERNMENT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF A SCIF! What is so hard to understand about that? If he did, he needs to be held accountable.

That being said, he's part of the elite class and we know he'll never be held responsible. He has never been held accountable for the first almost 80 years of his life.

So youve tried and convicted him. Yeah. Doesnt work that way. Yet.



Ok sport.

(06-20-2023 11:18 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Anyone that thinks trump has been treated the same as biden* and hilary is either deluded or dishonest.

There is no other option.

You seem to think that because I want Trump to be held accountable that I think the other 2 have been held accountable. I've said time and again they all should be. If they all go to prison then so be it. I'd be fine with it.

The problem you have is that we'd eliminate all of our politicians at this point. So they don't want to get the precedent in place because it would be their downfall as well.