╌>

The Trump Classified Documents Indictment

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tig  •  last year  •  189 comments

By:   Jack Smith

The Trump Classified Documents Indictment
As a result of TRUMP's retention of documents after his presidency, and refusal to return them, hundreds of classified documents were not recovered by the United States government until 2022, ...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



 


This is the actual indictment.

Refusal … Willful … Conspiracy … Obstruct … Withhold … Corruptly … Conceal … Scheme … False

The counts:

Counts 1-31:  Willful retention of National Defense Information

Count 32: Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

Count 33: Withholding a Document or Record

Count 34:  Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record

Count 35: Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation

Count 36: Scheme to Conceal

Counts 37-38:  False Statements and Representations


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  seeder  TᵢG    last year

Trump brought this on himself.

Had he cooperated with NARA, the documents would have been long secured in a safe facility and this indictment would have not been issued.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @1    last year

Trump's ego wrote checks his legal team had to quit over.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @1    last year

Agreed.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.4  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @1    last year
Had he cooperated with NARA, the documents would have been long secured in a safe facility and this indictment would have not been issued.

I think this goes back to intent and what everyone keeps trying to make about Clinton's email server. The FBI said they couldn't find intent with Clinton where they lay out a case of what they think is clear intent with Trump. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
1.4.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  evilone @1.4    last year

after reading the indictment, which is damn powerful shit, Trumps intent looks pretty fckn obvious. Tumpy did some over and above very personal guidance to keep these documents, far from safe and some very FCKN IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS, from being returned to the safe haven Trump SHOULD HAVE NEVER REMOVED THEM FROM !!!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  evilone @1.4    last year

Hillary's intent was clear...she wanted a private server or network....allegedly for personal stuff

But why did she then willfully use it to send and receive classified emails....what was her intent in that case? 

Deception? Hiding something?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4.2    last year

Are you seriously trying to equate Trump's behavior with Hillary's?

Did you read the indictment of this seed?    

Do you think Trump willfully committed serious, gratuitous acts that compromised national security and engaged in deception of government agencies?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.4.4  evilone  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4.2    last year
Hillary's intent was clear...she wanted a private server or network

Hilary was told to setup a private server by Powel when she took the job. Rice also had her own private server. 

But why did she then willfully use it to send and receive classified emails...

It's my understanding she received most of the information from outside sources that LATER got classified. It's pretty much the job, right? It's already been established she was sloppy (seems like a lot of that going around for years in DC). Intending to commit a crime? A much higher legal bar, but go ahead and make your case, based on real evidence and not inuendo and suspicion. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.4.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @1.4.4    last year
ary was told to setup a private server by Powel when she took the job. Rice also had her own private serve

Absolutely, 100% untrue. 

d. It's pretty much the job, right? I

Which is why setting up a private server knowing she would handle classified information is an intentional act.

Intending to commit a crime?

The statute only requires gross negligence, which Hillary undeniably was. 

It's really amazing to realize how much damage Obama did by refusing to appoint a special prosecutor for Clinton, even after the election when she was no longer useful to Democrats. Instead, by letting his  DOJ protect her without a serious investigation he opened the door to Trump's argument that their are two tiers  of federal justice.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.6  Ender  replied to  evilone @1.4.4    last year

What PolitiFact states is she never sent or received classified documents, it was chatter between people in emails where they had talked about classified info.

That they even try to compare that to trump stealing documents is just bizarre.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.4.5    last year

Hillary aside, do you consider this indictment to be credible — based on a foundation of facts and law?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.4.8  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4.2    last year
Hillary's intent was clear

I didn't see her mentioned in the article?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.4.9  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.4.5    last year
Which is why setting up a private server knowing she would handle classified information is an intentional act.

There was no law against that.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.4.10  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.4.5    last year
The statute only requires gross negligence,

Intent is baked into the language of the LAW. I quoted and linked to it at the time.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.4.11  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4.2    last year

The state department's server was hacked. Hillary's server wasn't.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.4.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @1.4.11    last year

When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.4.14  al Jizzerror  replied to  evilone @1.4.4    last year
Hilary was told to setup a private server by Powell when she took the job.

House Democrats Release Emails Between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton Showing Advice He Gave Her

The email chain released appear to show Powell telling Clinton how he used personal email to avoid cumbersome State Department rules.

BTW, the State Department's server was hacked.  There is no evidence that Hillary's server was hacked.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.5  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1    last year

everyone that has done what trump is accused of doing, served time or is serving time...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2  Trout Giggles    last year

oh...wow...I'm not even a lawyer but I know some of those charges are super serious

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    last year

reality winner was the first person prosecuted by the trump administration for espionage. working as a DoD contractor, she made a copy of a low level classified document about russians interfering in the 2016 election and mailed it to a media outlet. for that 1 page document she did 5 years in federal prison. apply that to trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    last year

800

"Look what I found..."

I think this supports the theory that Trump took the documents intending to sift through them later and find something that could be monetized. He just packed up dozens of boxes of documents like you might drop a fish net into the ocean hoping to scoop as much as possible. He didnt know what he had at first, but was hoping there was something in those dozens of boxes that would make him money. 

He didnt want to give them back because he hadnt finished going through them all yet. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

wins what case?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    last year

Mileys , i believe. Some General that was watching over Trump so he didn't start WWIII before exiting the White House

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    last year

i think that when I heard the other day that Trump told an interviewer that Nixon had got 18 million from the government for his papers (I dont know if that is actually true or not but Trump believes it)  a light bulb went on in my head. I think it is about money, and I think he thought he could sell these documents back to the government. That is also why he calls them "my documents". 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
3.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

oh c'mon now, Trump is all about country first, and never would place ANYTHING of monetary worth, above said country. Sheesh, who could ever picture ole compatriot Trump placing something above or in front of US...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

It seems like like the prosecution’s theory is that he just took these papers as some kind of trophies. I’d almost have more respect for it if he planned to use them as leverage in business. The way he’s just showing them off to look cool is actually pathetic.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    last year

trmp wouldn't be couldn't be cool if he were wearing an ice vest

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
3.3.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.1    last year

but then he would have, an ice chest, to keep his diet cokes warm

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
3.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

Agreed, and it was all illegal and he should be punished in accordance with the law yes? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    last year

Remember, two grand juries are still considering many additional criminal felony charges against Trump, in Georgia for election interference and in Washington DC for January 6th. Today is a start!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @4    last year

And those are the charges that I am most interested in since they hold him accountable for his precedent-setting wrongdoing as PotUS.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    last year

A guilty verdict on just a fraction of the charges is still enough to send Trump to jail for a long time. I have never had a problem with that. If he is indeed found guilty then send him to prison. I just want him to have the same consideration anybody else should expect to get in a court of law.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.1    last year

Seems to me, the government has bent over backwards to cater to Trump during the long document recovery process.   He has been afforded considerations that no ordinary citizen would get. 

Given the venue has been moved to Florida and Jack Smith has not placed any demands on the judge, I see absolutely no indication that Trump will be treated unfairly ... indeed, the opposite is more likely due to him being a former PotUS.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.3  CB  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    last year

Begs the question: Donald Trump is motor-caded around with aerial coverage. . .at somebody's expense. I hope it is his. (I don't know.) If not that is an awful lot of expenditure, manpower, and coverage for one ridiculous man.

(All this is reminiscent of 2016's coverage of the man.) Is this nation being 'forced' to do this again on the people's or partially on the people's dime? Simply because he wants to fight the system?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5  seeder  TᵢG    last year

One of the more damning excerpts showing willful intent and knowledge of classification:

800

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @5    last year

He knew exactly what he was doing. Thinking he can get away with doing whatever he wants.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5    last year

Is this ever going to make it to trial?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.2.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2    last year

why do you ask Vic ? Still find nothing wrong with trumps' behavior ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2    last year
Is this ever going to make it to trial?

I think it will.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.2    last year

There is a major problem with the judge.  I believe that she will do everything in her power to dismiss the case.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.4  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.3    last year

let her risk her lifetime appointment, she's already on thin ice in that district...

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
5.2.5  George  replied to  devangelical @5.2.4    last year
let her risk her lifetime appointment, How?  she's already on thin ice in that district...Right......I'd ask for proof but there isn't any.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.3    last year

What would that do to her career, in your opinion?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.7  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @5.2.4    last year
let her risk her lifetime appointment, she's already on thin ice in that district...

I'm not so sure about that.  She can only be removed by impeachment.  She would have to be impeached by the House of Representatives, and then convicted in a trial by the Senate with 2/3 of the votes being required for a conviction.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.6    last year

I don't know that it would have any effect on her career at all.  She would be considered by at least half of the population to be a disgrace, but what are the chances of her being impeached?  Next to none.

Do you have any thoughts as to what it might do to her career?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.8    last year

I suspect most of the people who would have an impact on her career are generally rational.   Given the nature of the indictment and the evidence thus far that shows Trump did indeed act as described, I find it hard to imagine anyone with credibility approving of a dismissal.    And this is based on my view that there are no credible grounds for dismissal.

I do not think that dismissal would lead to her impeachment, but her reputation would take a very serious hit and I suspect she would not want to bring that down on herself.   Is loyalty to Trump worth permanent damage to one's career?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5.2.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.9    last year

I wish I were as optimistic as you are about her.  She already endured one pretty hard hand slap for blatantly favoring Trump.  I'm not sure she's worried about her reputation, and her job is secure.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.11  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.9    last year
Is loyalty to Trump worth permanent damage to one's career?

As I stated, I believe that it would certainly cause reputational damage, but it would not affect her federal judgeship in her current position, although she may not receive elevation to a higher court if that was something she might ever want.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.11    last year

Also, could her dismissal be appealed?   Given the circumstances of this case, it would seem a dismissal would be on shaky grounds at best and ripe for appeal.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.13  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.12    last year

There is one method she could employ that would not be subject to review.  It is known as a Rule 29 acquittal, which allows her to dismiss the case after the prosecution rests or after the defense puts on its case, but before the jury votes to convict. 

Rule 29 acquittal

Like all federal judges, Cannon has the discretion to grant Trump an acquittal on any of the 37 counts he faces — or on all of them — at the conclusion of the government’s case or after any defense Trump’s lawyers may put on. Such a ruling — under   Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure   — would amount to the judge’s declaration that the government failed to prove a key element or elements of its case and that no reasonable jury could find the former president guilty based on the evidence presented.

Defense motions under Rule 29 are routine, but judges rarely throw out an entire case under this mechanism. What makes the trial judge’s power on such motions particularly weighty is that it is unreviewable. There’s no appeal for the government against an acquittal during the trial. Some judges “reserve” on the motion until the trial is complete, which makes the question moot if the defendant is acquitted by the jury. If Cannon grants Trump’s acquittal motion after a jury votes to convict, then the government could appeal.

If you're not sufficiently worried based on that, you should be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.13    last year

The key then is her willingness to destroy her credibility for Trump.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.15  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.14    last year

I doubt that she cares much about that.  It would make her a hero with the MAGA crowd, and she will spend the rest of her life yachting around the world with Harlan Crow and the Thomases.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.16  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.14    last year

The key would seem to be to indict Trump for the insurrection, indict him in D.C., and win a conviction!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.16    last year

This is what I have been waiting for anyway.   Holding Trump accountable for his behavior while in office is what has set the bad precedent.   I would be entirely okay with holding him accountable only for those offenses.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.18  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.17    last year

I want to see Trump held accountable for everything he has done, in New York, in Florida, in D.C., in Georgia and anywhere else.  Trump has gotten away with far too much for far too long, and it's way past time for him to receive his just desserts.  Trump boasted that he is his followers' retribution, but the true and just retribution, as it surely will be, deserves to be visited upon him.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.19  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.18    last year

I agree, but my priority is on what he did while PotUS because that set a bad precedent that affects the nation.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.20  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.19    last year

The insurrection investigation and the election interference investigation in Georgia both involve events that occurred during Trump's presidency, and both set bad precedents.  The insurrection and the Georgia election interference, which was one branch of a multi-state scheme, were part of the same effort -- Trump's plot to overthrow American democracy and install an authoritarian, fascist regime.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.21  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.20    last year

Correct.  Except that I think Trump's sole motivation was to save face rather than a grand plot to install an authoritarian, fascist regime.   He is ultimately a very simple man.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.22  CB  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.20    last year

And, Trump has more from where that comes from! Remember, he has repented of not one damn thing he has done to this country, its government, its people. He promises for troubles for an already troubled nation. That is, more of the same.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.23  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.21    last year

That is where we disagree.  I do not believe that his sole motivation was "to save face".  Based on the evidence - his conduct, his statements, his associations - I ascribe far more sinister motives to him than merely attempting to save face.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.24  Gsquared  replied to  CB @5.2.22    last year
more of the same

That is to be expected.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.23    last year

Trump is no strategist; in contrast, he is impulsive and reactionary at a childlike level.   I am sure he would love to be king of the planet, but his actions are based on short-term objectives.   Again, like a child.

He could not even devise a strategy to keep his TS/SCI classified souvenirs without stepping in it.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.26  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.25    last year
Trump is no strategist

That may be, but that doesn't mean he and his cohorts haven't been, and won't, make the effort.  He was able to sufficiently strategize to win the presidency.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.27  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.23    last year

I agree. he's completely transactional, those documents are currency to him and would be made available to anyone for a price.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.2.28  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @5.2.27    last year
those documents are currency to him and would be made available to anyone for a price.

That's what I think.  I find it very hard to believe that he kept such important documents just so he could feel good about having them as "trophies" or whatever.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.29  CB  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.28    last year

And like the numbskull he is (and I don't say this lightly), this former president who has the highest security classification in the world (anywhere) by position and status is literally trying to convince "Joe Blow": 1. It is A-OKAY if I declassify highly sensitive and life-threatening content of national security interests because the U.S.A. loaned them to me—once and I can keep them.

Even a rank beginner security cleared officeworker has it drilled into his or her head that "loose lips sinks ships, subs, hardware, technology, . . . .  And yet, this DUMB-ASS models for the security class that he can own government secrets because they were once extended to him temporarily.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    last year

Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski
·
12m
Marge: “This is a communist country. We’ve been taken over. We’re not a free country anymore.”

800

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6    last year

Im just thinking of all the great leaders and patriots who gave their lives and energy to helping America be great rolling over in their graves right now. 

This fool is one of the most powerful people in the Republican Party. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
6.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1.1    last year

Thought one with your background, just might take this shit seriously...? 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.3  George  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    last year
This fool is one of the most powerful people in the Republican Party. 

That is one of the most ignorant comments of all time. That is like saying the little terrorist girl who married her brother is one of the most powerful people in the Democrat party, Loud and stupid doe not equal power, you of all people should know that John.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.4  JBB  replied to  George @6.1.3    last year

Except that, the Democrats are out of power and Ilhan Omar is the only Muslim in our predominately Christian Congress which makes her pretty marginal, while Marjorie Taylor-Greene is a leader of the conservative Freedom Caucus that holds Speaker Kevin McCarthy by his balls...

So, no. The comparison is not at all valid! 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  George @6.1.3    last year

Omar is a back bencher. Greene is a spokesperson for MAGA. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.7  George  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.5    last year

Only in the opinion of the ignorant, intelligent people dismiss her.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.8  George  replied to  JBB @6.1.4    last year
Ilhan Omar is the only Muslim in our predominately Christian Congress

Your comment is a lie, [deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  George @6.1.8    last year

Yep. Seems they forgot about Omar's Palestinian good bud Tlaib.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.10  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.9    last year

It is debatable whether Talib is Muslim but even if two out of four hundred fifty five members of Congress were Muslim you have hardly undone my point!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.11  George  replied to  JBB @6.1.10    last year

What about Andre' Carson? you going to question his religion also? You lied and got caught. Now we are at 3.

The muslim population is approx. 1%, so they are fairly represented.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.13    last year

You guys are waaaay off topic.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.14    last year

Apologies.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.16  Igknorantzruls  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.14    last year

True, but they make more sense that way.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.5    last year
Greene is a spokesperson for MAGA. 

Maybe not anymore.

As she tries to get along a little more in the House, the MAGA crowd keeps finding ways to show their displeasure . Looks like the Man got the message, too.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @6    last year

She's beyond stupid She doesn't even know the definition of communism

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2    last year

I bet she did when she was in college... >wink<

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @6.2.1    last year

did she go to college?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.2    last year

univ of ga '96

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @6.2.3    last year

really?!?! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.5  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.4    last year

they grade on the curve for resident students...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.3  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @6    last year

And yet here she is, free to spout off all her bullshit.

Imagine that...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @6    last year

I bet anyone $10,000 that she hasn’t read 2% of the indictment yet.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.4    last year

The 2% she looked at is the pictures. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
6.4.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4.1    last year

Maybe she read the non fat skim milk version.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.4.3  devangelical  replied to  Igknorantzruls @6.4.2    last year

she's waiting on espionage for dummies to be published.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.5  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @6    last year

She is a fool. She is basically saying that powerful people on her side anyway should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Which, btw, is why she calls herself  a "powerful person." 

This country is being made to look like a foolish place and other countries will soon wonder what the hell they are looking UP to the U.S. for anyway! Our politics is CLOWNISH and the envy of nobody (or should not be).

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
7  George    last year

I would have one request from the Federal Judiciary, recuse this Judge and find a Bush appointee. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1  Tacos!  replied to  George @7    last year

I think we have to assume the prosecution will ask the circuit to take her off the case. They probably could have filed elsewhere, but Trump likely could have just had the case removed to her district. Or at least, he would have tried. The way they’re doing it probably saves time.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.1.1  evilone  replied to  Tacos! @7.1    last year
I think we have to assume the prosecution will ask the circuit to take her off the case. They probably could have filed elsewhere, but Trump likely could have just had the case removed to her district. Or at least, he would have tried. The way they’re doing it probably saves time.

They filed in the district the crimes are alleged to have happened. Judges are assigned randomly. I assume there will be a motion filed to ask her to recuse herself. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  evilone @7.1.1    last year
They filed in the district the crimes are alleged to have happened.

Right, and I do think they made the best choice, for a few reasons. As you say, most of the crimes happened there. The evidence and witnesses are there. And I think Trump would have sought that venue himself, so starting there speeds things up.

But they also probably could have filed in D.C., where the documents were taken from. There’s also a possibility they could have filed in New Jersey, where the damning recordings were made.

But beating Trump in his home court would be especially satisfying.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
7.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  George @7    last year

Trump said if he were to receive "damages", he might, he might rabbit, be gracious enuff to consider dropping out, or was it Acid, i can't seem to recall as i stumble over my own thoughts and wards up, asz Trumps very serious downward spiral does a Kaleidoscope spin like the wheel pin, stuck on a frozen needle, about to found and lost in thousands of even tiny erh hay stax, without a fever , just a Saturday night with a Sleaze, stacked, like documents next to Xerox copier , cause, cause could it get n e sloppy erh than how Trump left it found...cause from Trump and his defenders, neither are sound, just often found, lost, at the lost and found, as herd mentality is all that abound in camp Le Buffooon , Trumpy be loving this month , like  a misses Cleaver

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.3  bbl-1  replied to  George @7    last year

Jeez and a Holy Cracker---------------"That is the most logical and profound statement on this subject I have read thus far."  Kudos.  You did good. Damn good.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8  seeder  TᵢG    last year

Counts 1-31 cite violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 793 paragraph e:

e)  Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the UnitedStatesentitled to receive it; 

Count 32 cites violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 1512 paragraph k:

(k)  Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Count 33 cites violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 1512 paragraph b.2.A:

(b)  Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

            (2)  cause or induce any person to—

            (A)  withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

Count 34 cites violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 1512 paragraph c.1:

(c)  Whoever corruptly
   (1)  alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

Count 35 cites violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 1519:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Count 36 cites violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 1001 paragraph a:

(a)  Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully
    (1)  falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

Counts 37-38 cite violation of Title 18 U.S. Code 1512 1001 paragraph a:

(a)  Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully
   (2)  makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @8    last year

Maybe you can tell us how the Espionage Act of 1917 applies to this case???

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    last year
Maybe you can tell us how the Espionage Act of 1917 applies to this case???

Vic, seriously man, you need to stop believing whatever Trump says.    The Espionage Act of 1917 has been incorporated into United States Code and the Code has undergone much change over time.   Trump's indictment (counts 1-31) are violations of current U.S. Code Title 18 and much of that content originally came from the criminal aspects of the Espionage Act.

Trump is playing word games (and of course blatantly lying) ... trying to claim that he is being viewed as a WWI era spy.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    last year

maybe you can tell us why you can't admit that trump brought this upon himself...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    last year

Another point per your question.   

The most stark difference between Trump's case and those of Biden and Pence is encapsulated in the words:  knowingly and willfully.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9  Ender    last year

So I imagine all of this will happen mostly behind closed doors?

I don't seem them doing a live broadcast like the OJ trial.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @9    last year
ine all of this will happen mostly behind closed doors?

Yes, cameras aren't allowed in the Courtroom. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1    last year

So is that just for federal cases? Honestly I don't know.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @9.1.1    last year

Federal Courts prohibit them and each state makes their own rules. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.2    last year

Ah, thanks.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.1.4  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.2    last year

I actually have more procedural questions but I am already off topic on TiG's seed...Haha

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Ender @9.1.4    last year

I'm very optimistic that trump supporters will want this "witch hunt" and "political persecution" trial broadcast to the public and collectively demand that the court allow that to happen. /s

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
10  Tacos!    last year

If they even get a conviction on half of this, he’ll likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
10.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Tacos! @10    last year

Doubtful he’ll spend a second incarcerated.

The conviction is the goal for anyone who cares about the rule of law and setting the precedent that no one is above the law, lest an even more devious, dangerous person hold or abuse the office. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.1  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @10.1    last year

I hope that you're wrong about that. trump needs to go to prison, if convicted. if nixon had died in prison, would we be seeing this abuse of power by elected officials today?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
10.2  evilone  replied to  Tacos! @10    last year
If they even get a conviction on half of this, he’ll likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

There will be tremendous pressure on whomever is President to pardon Trump, or at the very least to commute his sentence if he's actually put in a jump suit.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  evilone @10.2    last year

I really hope that doesn't happen.  I think pardoning Nixon contributed to the idea some still hold that Trump was above the law so long as he was POTUS.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
10.2.2  evilone  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.1    last year
I think pardoning Nixon contributed to the idea some still hold that Trump was above the law so long as he was POTUS.

I think Obama not appointing a Special Council investigation into the Bush Admin for lying to Congress on WMD in Iraq was a huge mistake. But really there are no good options here as long as both parties are playing partisan politics. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11  seeder  TᵢG    last year

Beau weighs in on why this is normal jurisprudence rather than political:

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
11.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  TᵢG @11    last year

I'm of the opine, that in order for those still wishing to whine, about unequal treatments and witch hunts pursuing the one without a spine, that they be required to dine, on the fruitful bounties described within this indictment read and this YouTube feed. It contains more than any should need, unless, like Trump, they are extra seedy, and excessively greedy...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @11    last year

The lack of restrictions placed on him is a bit concerning, TBH.  It seems to me that he should at least have been forced to surrender his passport.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.2.1  evilone  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2    last year

I thought NY had his passport, but I'm obviously wrong. I'm very surprised, but maybe it has something to do with the conditions put forth by the Secret Service detail?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  evilone @11.2.1    last year

That's true.  It could well be that, if he were to try to leave the country, his Secret Service detail would be on the phone immediately to prevent that from happening.

I suppose my concern is that he could flee to a country with whom we have no extradition treaty, with state secrets to trade for their help in keeping him out of reach.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.2.3  JBB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.2    last year

Trump could plead guilty or go into exile!

If not then he will be physically locked up.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
11.2.4  evilone  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.2    last year
...my concern is that he could flee to a country with whom we have no extradition treaty, with state secrets to trade for their help in keeping him out of reach.

Then he would be persona non grata everywhere outside that country. I would assume it would be Russia where he has business and contacts, but maybe not. He's be Snowden 2.

I don't think he'd do that though. It would admit defeat and show weakness.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2    last year

I doubt he can go anywhere without his SS entourage cooperating.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  evilone @11.2.4    last year
I don't think he'd do that though. It would admit defeat and show weakness.

I hope you and TiG are right.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.6    last year

Imagine if Trump were to flee the country.   His legacy would be beyond disgraced.    Although IMO his Big Lie campaign already screwed his legacy.   But fleeing might even cause MAGAites to turn.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.7    last year

Maybe.  I'm not sure he cares for his legacy anymore.  He already sounded pretty pitiful, begging Raffensperger to find more votes for him.  And TBH, I can see the MAGAites spinning it as "Well, he had to flee the unfair justice system that was going to imprison the greatest POTUS ever to sit in the Oval Office on sheer politics."  I honestly think some are no longer capable of believing anything negative about him.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.8    last year
I honestly think some are no longer capable of believing anything negative about him.

You have a point.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.9    last year

But I will trust that having a Secret Service detail will keep him from disappearing.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.11  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.8    last year
I honestly think some are no longer capable of believing anything negative about him.

they are so fully invested in trump mentally that they can no longer turn back.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @11.2.11    last year

Yup.  Sunk cost fallacy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.13  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.12    last year

Stubborn ignorance.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.13    last year

That, too.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
11.2.15  1stwarrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.8    last year

What's a "MAGAites"?  Do we have a new political party, or is that just a "slam" against anyone opposed to Dems/Liberals???

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  1stwarrior @11.2.15    last year

That's where you got stuck?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @11.2.15    last year
What's a "MAGAites"? 

Those who still believe and support Trump.

Do we have a new political party, or is that just a "slam" against anyone opposed to Dems/Liberals???

Not at all.   I used that term first here and I am not a D or a liberal.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.18  devangelical  replied to  1stwarrior @11.2.15    last year

I agree. unamerican scum or gullible fucking morons would seem much more appropriate...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @11.2.18    last year

There really is a point where loyalty to Trump precludes loyalty to the US.  I think there can be no doubt that we have passed that point.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.20  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.19    last year

some people are definitely on the wrong side of american patriotism, let alone the constitution...

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
11.2.21  George  replied to  devangelical @11.2.20    last year
some people are definitely on the wrong side of american patriotism, let alone the constitution...

Like promoting Social Security fraud?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.22  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  George @11.2.21    last year

No, supporting Trump.   Do you think it is patriotic, rational and responsible to help/enable Trump to win the GOP nomination?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
11.2.23  George  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.22    last year

No.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.2    last year

Oh please please please...let him board a plane for Russia and we won't ever hear from him again!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.22    last year

Why do you allow George to go off topic?

You're too nice

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
11.2.27  George  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.26    last year

[removed]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  George @11.2.27    last year

You are clearly off topic because TiG's seed is not about social security fraud. But this is my last word on the matter since it is his seed and I'm derailing

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.30  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.29    last year

apparently only elected republicans are allowed to commit fraud...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.31  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.25    last year

fix the fuel gauge first... /s

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
11.2.32  Hallux  replied to  George @11.2.21    last year
Like promoting Social Security fraud?

Do you really think that's what dev was suggesting ... @!@

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.33  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @11.2.30    last year

you've got a stalker....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.34  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.33    last year

more like a group...

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.2.35  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.25    last year

Personally, I was thinking North Korea myself...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
11.2.36  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.2.35    last year
I was thinking North Korea

Yeah, Trump misses his North Korean girl friend.

512

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.2.37  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.5    last year

"..ss entourage cooperating." Really? No offense meant, but if you are referring to ss as in Nazi Germany, that seems a big stretch on a thin limb there.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11.2.38  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.2.37    last year

Secret Service 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.39  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.2.37    last year

Yes, as JBB noted, SS = secret service.

It surprises me that you would think I would write anything as bizarre as how you interpreted my comment.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.2.40  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.39    last year

My most humble apologies. I should have known better.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12  seeder  TᵢG    last year

Beau weighing in on the 'two tiered system' talking point:

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
12.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  TᵢG @12    last year

very good videos TiG

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
13  Nerm_L    last year

Just another spin of the cycle.  This situation isn't any different than the BLM protests.  The outrage depends upon trusting the bureaucrats making the allegations and charges.

If you trust the police, prosecutors, and courts then there is a criminal involved.  If you don't trust the police, prosecutors, and courts then there is a victim involved and it really doesn't matter what the victim did.  We already know that the police, prosecutors, and courts will twist things to cover their backsides.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
13.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @13    last year
So you are now firmly opposed to law enforcement? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14  seeder  TᵢG    last year

Looks like many of the Trump defenders have (for the moment) paused with their ridiculous attempts to defend the indefensible.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
14.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @14    last year

It won't last lol. They are just trying to decide which version of "trump is above the law" will play politically. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @14.1    last year

Pathetic, is it not?

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
15  Thomas    last year

Trump on Tuesday night:

“If the communists get away with this, it won’t stop with me. They will not hesitate to ramp up their persecution of Christians, pro-life activists, parents attending school board meetings, and even future Republican candidates,” Trump said. “I am the only one that can save this nation.”

The man creates and inhabits his own reality by spinning lies. If the last one didn't work, make up another, bigger one

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1  CB  replied to  Thomas @15    last year
The man creates and inhabits his own reality by spinning lies. If the last one didn't work, make up another, bigger one

And that is not the worse part of it (phenomenally tragic as that is), this buy-in to an alternative truth by a steady pool of conservatives is raw power personified. Trump promises conservatives detachment and pursuit of their heart's desires as they march headlong against the stream of tomorrow! That is, Trump is selling them once again that he will achieve their goals (he is a liar's liar) where others still manage to fail them.

And, at the end of the day, conservatives desperately want to have their foot on the neck of liberals! Conservatives 'hunger' (pant) after success over those groups of citizens they consider inferior to their worldview.

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
15.1.1  Thomas  replied to  CB @15.1    last year
...conservatives desperately want to have their foot on the neck of liberals! Conservatives 'hunger' (pant) after success over those groups of citizens they consider inferior to their worldview.

I am not too sure if I would go that far. Some conservatives want that without a doubt. Some liberals would like to kick around on some conservatives. That is more a character issue endemic to certain people. I think that the vast majority of Americans just want to go about their lives with a minimum of interference from anyone.

It is when groups of people start to see other groups as enemies that we see the concurrent rise of politicians tending, growing and ultimately harvesting votes from the perceived demons at the door.  They are like vampires in that way.  They, politicians, cultivate little differences and grow them into festering wounds all for the sake of your money, your vote, and their own power. Hell, I would bet that some of them do that exact thing without realizing it. 

The party mindset is coercive and corruptive. I feel that it is best done away with. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
15.1.2  CB  replied to  Thomas @15.1.1    last year

Friend Thomas, you may or may not have paid any attention to several years of comments where up to my recent time as "Away" from NT, I always referred to MAGA conservatives as "some conservatives" but I did so. 

Upon my return to "CB," I took to heart that it bothered some conservatives (there it is again) here that I was using an euphemism (some conservatives) to avoid labeling the 'lot' of them. So I switched up and went back to using the whole word conservatives trusting that it may be that others would understand.

LOL. You called me out on the change, knowing this background or not knowing it. : )

(Many members will recall it being so, nevertheless.)


I am not dead set against republicans or conservatives, not even hardened against some republicans or some conservatives. What I am doing (here and now) is pushing back as hard as they do against their prescriptions and policies that suggest/inform/tell people like myself that we should not properly exist inclusively, equitably/equally, and with diversity alongside them. That word, "alongside" of conservatives and some conservatives is important. Because if they ever allow us to exist inclusively equally, in diversity, without these made up cultural 'wars'. . . that is, leave us alone to be ourselves as mainstream citizens. . . .

To wit. When they can live their lives in peace while letting us live our lives in peace. I can go along and live with them in peace. That is the (my) goal: Peace.  Not dominance. To be clear.  I don't care if (MAGA) or rank and file republicans/conservatives ever like liberals, but I can live with them in peace if they just end the cultural war campaign (which is wild and all out of proportions).

For that matter, I see rank and file republicans (aka: called RINOs by MAGAns) like former RNC Chair Michael Steel, Nicole Wallace, Joe Scarborough, The Lincoln Product "team" of republicans, Omarosa Manigault Newman, Anthony Scaramucci, Colin Powell, Rick Wilson, George Conway, Rick Wilson, Liz Cheney, al as conservatives who have turned against the true problem today in republican politics:

Takeover conservative dominance of the entire political bailiwick! That is, 'scorched earth' conservatism, white nationalism, and christian nationalism dominating the entire company.

Donald Trump recently stated his goals as, "I am your retribution!" "No one can save you but me." Meaning from the liberals, the progressives, the blacks, the Others.

Therefore, it is my driving force to think about conservatives, especially some conservatives, as they are now; I am willing to moderate my perceptions of some conservatives just as soon as they drop their rocks.

Because we, minorities, women, Others are putting our heart and soul into this country and should be a partially permitted to set the national standards too! 

As for me personally, I like people - all people. But, I have to call them out when they are wrong as I see it proportionally. And yes, I do think some republican ideas are 'just' and honest, but there's some much malice and deceit emanating from their side of the aisle against the other side that it throws everything positive about them out of whack (for me anyway).

Thank you for giving me a chance to explain this a bit :) :) :)  

(Now, it's dinner time for me.)

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
15.2  devangelical  replied to  Thomas @15    last year

that worked pretty well for his hero adolph, about 90 years ago...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
16  Snuffy    last year

I'm willing to wait until the end of the trial.  Let's not forget that indictments are really a one-sided narrative and we cannot forget that Jack Smith has a history of stretching the law and over charging.

Partisans will do doubt contest or applaud this post depending on where their partisanship lies and I really don't care.  I can wait until the end of the trial.  And I suspect this will be a long wait as I do not expect a fast trial.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
16.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @16    last year

Trump will almost certainly engage in delay tactics.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
16.1.1  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @16.1    last year

but will trump's wallet outlast the clock he's hoping to run out?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
16.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @16.1.1    last year

People keep sending him money, so it very well may.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
16.1.3  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @16.1.2    last year

I read the going rate for a retainer to defend him is now $3 million, up front. his fund raising efforts are also steadily diminishing as time goes on...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
16.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @16.1.3    last year

I stand corrected, and gladly so.

I do worry that lack of counsel will prevent a trial from going forward, though.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
16.1.5  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @16.1.3    last year
$3 million, up front.

If a lawyer wants to be paid, it has to be "up front".

Trump doesn't pay his bills.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
16.1.6  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @16.1.4    last year

you're not wrong, but the numbers of his willing rubes is either dying off, out of money, or rethinking sending their money to a traitor.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
16.1.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @16.1.4    last year

I do worry that lack of counsel will prevent a trial from going forward, though.

Finding an impartial jury will also be challenging.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
16.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @16.1.7    last year

Not to mention a jury that can also pass the necessary background checks to be able to view and talk about those 31 charges dealing with classified documents.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
16.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  sandy-2021492 @16.1.2    last year

People keep sending him money, so it very well may.

It still shocks me that people are that ignorant. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
17  Kavika     last year

512

 
 

Who is online



626 visitors