╌>

Trump Faces Major New Charges in Documents Case

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  hallux  •  last year  •  292 comments

By:   Alan Feuer, Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush - NYT

Trump Faces Major New Charges in Documents Case

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Federal prosecutors on Thursday added major accusations to an indictment charging former President Donald J. Trump with mishandling classified documents after he left office, saying he told a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago that he wanted security camera footage there to be deleted.

The new accusations were revealed in a   superseding indictment   that named the maintenance worker, Carlos De Oliveira, as a new defendant in the case.

The revised indictment also added three serious charges against Mr. Trump — attempting to   “alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence” ; inducing someone else to do so; and a new count, the 32nd, under the Espionage Act stemming from a classified national security document he showed to visitors at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

Prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, had been investigating Mr. De Oliveira for months, concerned by his communications with an information technology expert at Mar-a-Lago, Yuscil Taveras, who oversaw the surveillance camera footage at the property.

The updated indictment said that in late June of last year, Mr. De Oliveira went to see Mr. Taveras — who is identified only as Trump Employee 4 — and told him that “‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted,” referring to the computer server holding the security footage.

“What are we going to do?” the indictment quoted Mr. De Oliveira as saying, after Mr. Taveras objected and said he would not know how and did not think he had the right to do so.

The revised indictment was released on the same day Mr. Trump’s lawyers met in Washington with prosecutors working for Mr. Smith to discuss a so-called target letter that Mr. Trump received this month suggesting that he might soon face a second indictment in a separate case related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Mr. De Oliveira’s lawyer, John Irving, declined to comment.

A statement attributed to “the Trump campaign” with no person’s name attached called the new accusations a “desperate and flailing attempt” by President Biden’s Justice Department.

The original indictment against Mr. Trump was filed last month in Florida and accused him of illegally holding on to 31 individual classified documents containing national defense information. That indictment also charged with Mr. Trump and Walt Nauta, one of his personal aides, with a conspiracy to obstruct the government’s repeated attempts to reclaim the classified material.

Prosecutors accused Mr. Nauta of repeatedly moving boxes in and out of a storage room at Mar-a-Lago in an effort to hide them from investigators. Many of these movements were caught on the surveillance camera footage.

The new charges, which accused Mr. De Oliveira of being part of that conspiracy, lay out in intricate detail efforts by Mr. Nauta to speak with Mr. De Oliveira about the security camera footage and how long the footage was stored after the government sought to obtain it under a subpoena.

The indictment contains an additional charge related to a classified document that Mr. Trump showed two people helping his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows write a book.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Hallux    last year

Oh darn, Trump is in the news again, maybe someone will save us and seed a bitchy article in Metaland.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1    last year

not today, article quota max already achieved.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Hallux  replied to  devangelical @1.1    last year

My favorite rule!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1.1.1    last year

I stand corrected, there it is, and I've gotten tributes. late to the party again...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    last year

that sausage sure does shrink with the heat ...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1    last year

thanks for the heads up...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.2    last year

now I'm dying to know what you said at the pity party...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2.1    last year

the morons are as usual deflecting to the Clintons

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    last year

Would that be like you deflecting to Trump a little while ago on an article not about Trump?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.4  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.2    last year

the standard response now is... "but hunter biden"

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.5  JBB  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    last year

I am AOK with them throwing the book at Hunter for owning a gun while being an active drug user, as long as they also go after every other meth and crack smoking, oxy snorting, Xanax and Valium munching, Adderall popping gun owner in America just as harshly!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @1.2.5    last year

I don't think Kentucky has that much jail space

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.7  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.6    last year

They don't. That's the point. Now add in all the pot heads...

I bet 95% were high AF when they purchased their guns and signed the same damn form Hunter did saying they did not consume any drugs that would make them ineligible...

Like all the antidepressants and antipsychotics Bubba takes.

That is what Hunter did. That and he payed 2 yrs taxes late...

Whoop Dee Doo! Nail Him Up! And, his dad the President, too!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.2.7    last year

hunter didn't pay his taxes when due.

The legally predicated IRS, JUSTICE DEPT. AND CONGRESS INVESTIGATIONS INTO Hunter continue.

Joe Biden has already been caught in lies about the mess.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.9  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.8    last year

Yet Hunter paid all his past due taxes after a thorough audit and years long investigation and the IRS closed his case. Meanwhile, Trump is on trial for actual criminal tax fraud in New York where his attorney and accountant already went to prison and his business was already convicted of civil fraud. Get a sense of proportion!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.2.9    last year
Yet Hunter paid all his past due taxes

I thought that his sugar brother, Kevin Morris, the Hollywood attorney paid Hunter's taxes.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.10    last year

And you would be correct.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.2.9    last year
Yet Hunter paid all his past due taxes after a thorough audit

You may choose to believe that crap but I will stick with the facts.

Hunter didn't pay shit, his sugar bro paid it off FOR him.

At least get the damn basics right.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.3  cjcold  replied to  Hallux @1    last year

Trump indicted again. Oh, must be a day ending in Y.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Hallux @1    last year

Working on it best I can - already posted 3 non-political articles on the Front (Home) Page today.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     last year
Oh darn, Trump is in the news again, maybe someone will save us and seed a bitchy article in Metaland.

Or accuse one of being a hater or having TDS. You would think after all this time that they could come up with something better than that or at least not so far off base.

So, more charges against Trump, he will be on TV whining how he is being picked on and summon a call for more donations from the lemmings to stuff his coffers.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2    last year
he will be on TV whining how he is being picked on and summon a call for more donations from the lemmings to stuff his coffers

another trip to the bottomless well of maga suckers...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @2.1    last year

trump's con job is reaching biblical proportions...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.1.1    last year

Well, I just want to point out.......wait a minute...

this article is two weeks old!

Have fun.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    last year

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1.1    last year

Jack Smith is going after the millions that the former 'president' turd and his willing dupes have contributed to his 'stop the steal 'presidential' campaign

I can't wait for the indictments from Georgia!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1.3    last year

Plenty of dogwhistling over in RWNJ land.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.5    last year

no humans will sleep with them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.7  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @2.1.6    last year

and it makes the dogs mean...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.8  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @2.1.7    last year

... and sexually frustrated.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    last year

Lock him up and throw away the key. After a while no one will be talking about him any more. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

of course they will.

hard to quit the focus of some people's lives.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    last year

american history is so boring, especially while it's happening around us and the gullible/seditious are on the wrong side of it. /s

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.1    last year

I have every confidence you will still be talking about Trump years from now.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    last year

we got decades of mileage off nixon, and he seems like an altar boy compared to trump... 

thanks rwnj's!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.3    last year

yeah I know some liberals have short attention spans and can only focus on one thing at a time

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    last year
... hard to quit the focus of some people's lives.

Would you consider the treatment of Trump in the documents case to be fair or unfair?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    last year
yeah I know some liberals have short attention spans

yeah I know some republicans have alt-patriotism...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.6    last year

only in some deluded liberal minds 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.5    last year

A question wholly unrelated to my post.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.7    last year

count 32

he's going to the courthouse and he's going to be convicted...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.9    last year

ok?

AND?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    last year

Once again, you run from a direct, easy-to-understand question about the topic to which you are ostensibly contributing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.11    last year
Once again, you run from a direct, easy-to-understand question about the topic to which you are ostensibly contributing.

Maybe one day you will ask me something even remotely related to one of my posts.

Maybe......................but doubtful.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.13  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    last year

your answers then, will be identical to now...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
3.1.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    last year
A question wholly unrelated to my post.

Just an invite down the rabbit hole.  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.15  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    last year

Even Charlie Manson was ignored after awhile.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @3.1.9    last year
he's going to the courthouse and he's going to be convicted

We've heard that for 7 years now and you all have been wrong for 7 years now.  Time to come up with something a bit more convincing.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
3.1.17  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    last year
I have every confidence you will still be talking about Trump years from now.

You used to love talking about Trump back when he invented the coronavirus vaccine.  The Trump vaccine.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1.17    last year

what an asinine post detailing shit I never once have said or claimed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.1    last year

Defending the indefensible and PD&D plus delusion seem to be the focus of some peoples lives

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.20  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.18    last year

what an antivax type of comment...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.20    last year
what an antivax type of comment...

Your comment is a perfect example of inanity.

Thank you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1.17    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @3.1.21    last year

Projection

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

Yes because as we all know, this accuser has to be telling the truth.

Right?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @3.2    last year
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.2    last year
Yes because as we all know, this accuser has to be telling the truth.

Is it your opinion that the charges against Trump in the documents case (reference the indictment) are bogus and unevidenced?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.2    last year

My “opinion” is pretty clear and speaks to the accuser in this article.     No one here knows if his testimony is believable or if he is lying.   Not me, not you, not anyone on NTers.   Unless of course they are working the case.   

And yet many here automatically believe him.    A clear symptom of TDS.

Still innocent until proven guilty in this country.   Even for Trump.    Clearly not on NTers though.    Not for the TDS ridden.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.3    last year

You immediately go off on a tangent about other people simply believing the witness, TDS, innocent until proven guilty, yada, yada.

I asked if you think the charges in the documents case are bogus and unfair.

The net of your answer is (it would seem):  "I do not know if the charges are fair".    

My opinion is that the charges against Trump are believable given what we know and the legal wording of the law (i.e. 18 U.S.C. 793, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, and 18 U.S.C. § 1001).

So at this point I think Trump is being treated fairly and that charges thus far do not seem bogus (invented, inflated, etc.).

We will of course know more as the trial ensues.   Trump will likely get a trial that gives him deference ... better treatment than what the average citizen would receive ... and a verdict will determine the conclusion of this case.   In the meantime, those interested in discussion will observe and opine while others will deflect to tangents about TDS, etc.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    last year
You immediately go off on a tangent about other people simply believing the witness, TDS, innocent until proven guilty, yada, yada.

Lol …. I went off on  tangent?    I simply clarified what I posted.   Meanwhile you responded by … going off on a tangent.    Amazing and SOSDD considering.

I asked if you think the charges in the documents case are bogus and unfair.…

The net of your answer is (it would seem):  "I do not know if the charges are fair".   

My opinion is that the charges against Trump are believable given what we know and the legal wording of the law (i.e. 18 U.S.C. 793, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, and 18 U.S.C. § 1001).

Yes because as we all know.    There are no innocent people in prison.    The DOJ never gets it wrong.    Especially when it comes to Trump. /s    

My opinion is that you can’t make a reasonable judgement with what little information you have and yet.    You still do.    And with confidence.

So at this point I think Trump is being treated fairly and that charges thus far do not seem bogus (invented, inflated, etc.).

Of course you do.    Meanwhile Bidens case gets slow rolled and we hear nothing from our resident legal experts here about that

We will of course know more as the trial ensues.   Trump will likely get a trial that gives him deference ... better treatment than what the average citizen would receive ... and a verdict will determine the conclusion of this case.   In the meantime, those interested in discussion will observe and opine while others will deflect to tangents about TDS, etc.

I rest my case.    Not that any of the TDS ridden “tangents” here are capable of making the connection.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.5    last year
There are no innocent people in prison. 

I did not even remotely suggest that our system is perfect.   What I wrote is that this case seems logical given what we know compared to the specific charges and the underlying law associated with each charge.

I (obviously) was referring to this specific case, not the justice system in general.

Given you are deflecting/arguing, you apparently believe these are bogus charges after all.  So make your case.   What charges are bogus and why?

And if you do not consider them bogus then you agree with me.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.7  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.6    last year

can't/won't

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
3.2.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.5    last year
My opinion is that you can’t make a reasonable judgement with what little information you have and yet.    You still do.    And with confidence.

Exactly.  It seems in lieu of facts too many people just make shit up to promote their narrative.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.8    last year

You act as though Trump’s actions are unknown (he has supplied much of the info with his careless talk).   And you can read the detailed indictment. 

Do you think the indictment is bogus?   If so, make an argument.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.2.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.5    last year
My opinion is that you can’t make a reasonable judgement with what little information you have 

That's pretty much 100% spot on.

Add to that idea the fact that in America we are ALL still innocent until proven guilty, even if the "we" in question is a giant orange bastard with no character and no filter about it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.11  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.6    last year
I did not even remotely suggest that our system is perfect.

I never said you did.

 What I wrote is that this case seems logical given what we know compared to the specific charges and the underlying law associated with each charge.

With comments like that, you would not make a very good juror.  Proffering preconceived notions like that with so little information.    Your biases are most definitely showing.

I (obviously) was referring to this specific case, not the justice system in general.

So was I …. obviously.     Determining the veracity of the person who’s testimony is the basis of the charges, is the case.

Given you are deflecting/arguing, you apparently believe these are bogus charges after all.  So make your case.   What charges are bogus and why?

Lol …. Not even a nice try.    I’ve been very clear here what my opinion is.   See my previous posts but “we” don’t have enough information to make a sound, legal determination.    But perhaps it’s just me.   I’m fresh off four days of jury duty last week and perhaps I’m still channeling my inner juror.

And if you do not consider them bogus then you agree with me.

I agree with you at times but this isn’t one of them.    If you don’t know my opinion by now you will never make the connection.

I’ll leave it at that ….. best of luck spinning it from here ….

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.12  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @3.2    last year
telling the truth

All Trump accusers are telling the truth.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.13  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @3.2.12    last year

And there it is.

Thanks for being honest.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  cjcold @3.2.12    last year
All Trump accusers are telling the truth.

Said nobody with a functioning brain.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    last year

[PD&D] plus delusion and defense of the indefensible seem to be all some have.

[Tessy, the comments you flagged below, using the same abbreviations you used here, will stand.  Please stop flagging behavior in which you are engaging.]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.15    last year

Wouldn’t that be PDD&D or PDDD&DI?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.17  bugsy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.16    last year

I think the correct way is PDD&D++

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.18  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    last year
(i.e. 18 U.S.C. 793, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, and 18 U.S.C. § 1001).

Do you think Biden should be charged under the same statutes being that he had classified materials dating back to when he was a Senator....in other words.....never having the legal  right to have those documents?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.19  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @3.2.18    last year

false equivalency.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.20  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  bugsy @3.2.17    last year

Thanks, it getting so hard to keep up with alphabet soup.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.21  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @3.2.18    last year

BTW...this is a yes or no question.

No three paragraph rant needed.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.22  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @3.2.19    last year

So you think it's OK for a senator/ Vice president to have up to thousands of classified information hidden away in various locations around the country, including in the garage where a crack head son with questionable relationships with other countries lived?

Or you simply just don't care?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.18    last year

No, because those statutes are all predicated on intent.   To charge Biden, one would need a case that shows he willingly and knowingly held classified material.    Thus far, that would be a stretch.

Do you really not see how the Trump case is fundamentally different from those of Biden or Pence?   

In short, stated again, duration has nothing to do with the law here.   The law focuses on intent.   Trump provably knew he had those documents and willfully tried to prevent their return.  On top of that, it appears he willingly disclosed contents to at least one unauthorized individual.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.23    last year

There have to be far more than 'at least one' as far as I'm concerned.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
3.2.25  Right Down the Center  replied to  cjcold @3.2.12    last year
All Trump accusers are telling the truth.

And the proof of this is?  Or is the fact they are saying something against Trump proof enough?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.25    last year

proof?

they don't need no stinking proof!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.22    last year

Of course it is not ‘okay’.   It is wrong because it compromises national security.   

The right thing to do is to immediately work to secure documents when discovered and to then preemptively look for other classified documents.

This is exactly what Biden and Pence did and is also the opposite of what Trump did.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.28  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @3.2.22    last year
thousands of classified information hidden away in various locations around the country

seriously? exaggerate much? maybe mike pence needs a second look...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
3.2.29  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.26    last year
they don't need no stinking proof!

That is good since they rarely if ever have any

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.2.30  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @3.2.21    last year
BTW...this is a yes or no question.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is also a yes-or-no question. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.2.31  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.23    last year
Do you really not see how the Trump case is fundamentally different from those of Biden or Pence?   

Of course he does. So what?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.8    last year

Nothing has been made up.  Like TiG said, he's provided, and his enablers/supporters, much pf the evidence himself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.2.31    last year

What is the value of faux obtuseness?    What good is accomplished by making oneself look foolish?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.2.34  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.33    last year

They crave the spotlight, regardless of the quality of the light. Being seen as an asshole is still a form of being seen.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.35  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.2.30    last year
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is also a yes-or-no question

OK...have you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.36  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.35    last year

Given I answered your question, what point were you trying to make?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.37  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.36    last year

Given that my question in .35 was not to you directly, what even respond to it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.38  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.2.34    last year

You had to have a white hot spotlight

You had to be a big shot last night
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.39  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.20    last year

The truth you mean.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.40  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.39    last year

I try not to be mean.  How about you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.40    last year

I see no evidence of that.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.42  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.41    last year

Bias is funny that way, like a pair of blinders.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.43  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.37    last year

You had no point to make @3.2.22 (the context)?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.44  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.43    last year

If you are concerned about 3.2.22, why did you respond to 3.2.25?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.45  bugsy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.38    last year
white hot spotlight

I think to some leftists, this will trigger them to think Billy Joel espouses white supremacy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.46  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.44    last year

I am encouraging you to actually contribute instead of trolling.   

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.47  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  bugsy @3.2.45    last year

Well, he is from NY.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.2.48  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.38    last year

Does the shoe fit?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.49  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.47    last year

No, I’m from Ohio.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.50  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.24    last year

There have been I believe at least 3 incidents revealed so far, so you just know there are many more.

How much info. has he given to putin over the years?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.51  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.2.34    last year

That's perfect Bob!  Just perfect.  And the truth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.52  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.46    last year

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif That will never happen.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.54  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.46    last year

give it up. the lost cause of lost causes...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.55  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @3.2.54    last year

that's funny and so very, very true

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.56  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.55    last year

I blame medicare for sustaining the maga plague of some 50's relics ...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.57  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.2.56    last year

meh, the next pandemic will carve off another big slice of the anti-vax party...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.58  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.2.57    last year

... insurrectionist party.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.59  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.2.58    last year

domestic terrorist party...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.60  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.2.59    last year

... and the hits just keep coming. LOL...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year
Lock him up and throw away the key.

Once they convict him of a crime, yes.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.3.1  cjcold  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3    last year
convict him of a crime

When one is a billionaire, one doesn't often get convicted.

It's about time that his dad's billions won't help him out anymore.

Trump has finally gotten in over his head.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @3.3.1    last year
It's about time that his dad's billions won't help him out anymore.

Fred Trump was never a billionaire.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  cjcold @3.3.1    last year
When one is a billionaire, one doesn't often get convicted.

There are very very few billionaires and they all have a lot to lose if they commit a crime.  The sample is too small and too skewed to allow accurate conclusions. I'm not sure the math on that works out

It's about time that his dad's billions won't help him out anymore.

I don't think his father was a billionaire.  Then again, we're not actually sure he is either.

Trump has finally gotten in over his head.

It's certainly wouldn't be the first time.  I guess I'm the only one who remembers the USFL.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.3.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.3    last year
they all have a lot to lose if they commit a crime.  

I doubt that. The very rich can buy whatever laws they need. Not to mention cops, prosecutors, judges.....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.4    last year

Almost worked for Hunter Biden until a judge asked a simple question and the whole deal fell apart!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.3.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.4    last year
I doubt that.

By definition, a billionaire has a lot to lose.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.3.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.6    last year

... and can afford to lose it. Trump has lost multiple fortunes... but claims to still have billions. John Doe cannot afford to lose anything at all. Who's in worse posture?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.7    last year

I heard on the news this morning that Trump has spent 40 million dollars of other people's money (from small campaign donors primarily) defending himself in court in his various current civil and criminal cases. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.3.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.8    last year

From today's Wash Post:

Former president Donald Trump’s political group spent more than $40 million on legal costs in the first half of 2023 to defend Trump, his advisers and others, according to people familiar with the matter, financing legal work that has drawn scrutiny from prosecutors about potential conflicts of interest between Trump and witnesses.

Save America, the former president’s PAC, is expected to disclose about $40.2 million in legal spending in a filing expected Monday, said the people familiar with the filing, who like others interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss information that has not been made public.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.3.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.8    last year

The best snake oil salesman ever.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.8    last year

Isn't that against the law?   Using 'campaign funds' for his legal defense?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.10    last year

Only braindead morns buy his 'product'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.12    last year

only braindead morons buy his 'product'

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.10    last year

… needs gullible people who buy his bullshit.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.3.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.14    last year

Forty million gogos.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.3.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.11    last year

You need to ask a lawyer specializing in campaign finance law.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.3.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.10    last year

Some folks really like media creations and the Establishment isn't as popular as it used to be.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.3.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.7    last year
and can afford to lose it. Trump has lost multiple fortunes... but claims to still have billions.

It's not the money.  Billionaires have very nice lifestyles.  Not so if they are incarcerated.  

John Doe cannot afford to lose anything at all. Who's in worse posture?

There us a reason poor people commit crimes at much higher rates.  The risk to benefit ratio is very different.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.19  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.16    last year

Also the former 'president' raised close to $250 million over his false claims that they "needed the money to fight to reverse election fraud even though the big fat lying fuck lying turd had been told repeatedly that there was no evidence to back up those fraud claims."

It turns out THAT'S ILLEGAL

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.3.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.18    last year
poor people commit crimes at much higher rates

Rich people's crimes are less blatant than armed robbery... but financial and environmental crimes are rich people's doing.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year
After a while no one will be talking about him any more. 

Just the left.  You know.  Like you all do now.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.4.1  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4    last year

no rug available to sweep that POS under...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @3.4.1    last year

don't need it the way the left brings him up at every opportunity.  The article could be about artichokes and you all will mention him.  He's your obsession.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.4.3  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.2    last year

looks like the next 16 months could be pretty hard on the maga super patriots...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.4.4  cjcold  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.2    last year

As long as that career criminal is running for president, we'll be on him like stink on shit.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.4.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @3.4.3    last year

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Same worn out statement. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.4.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  cjcold @3.4.4    last year

How's proof of that working out for you?  7 years with very little restrictions on what is being investigated and 7 years of coming up empty handed.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.4.7  JohnRussell  replied to  cjcold @3.4.4    last year

It is ridiculous what we have to put up with on this site. 

One of Trump's own ex-lawyers, Ty Cobb, said yesterday that the new evidence against Trump in the documents case is "overwhelming". Overwhelming evidence indicates wrong doing, whether there ever is a conviction or not.  The same will apply to the Jan 6th case when that indictment is announced soon. These prosecutors will not bring a case against Trump that is not overflowing with proof of wrongdoing. Yet, the same clowns in MAGA land will be saying "where is the proof". Whatever happened to good old fashioned embarrassment? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.8  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.6    last year

The evidence against Donald Trump that was proof enough to induce multiple federal grand juries to vote over seventy federal felony criminal indictments against Trump, for which Trump is awaiting trial? And, more indictments are coming! 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.4.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @3.4.8    last year

More talking points.  When you actually have something you can substantiate, we'll talk.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.4.10  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.4.7    last year
One of Trump's own ex-lawyers, Ty Cobb, said yesterday that the new evidence against Trump in the documents case is "overwhelming".

If he's an ex-lawyer how does he know the new evidence?  Was he in the meeting with the current laywers?  Or is he just talking about what has been presented by our oh so honest media?  I would be careful of trusting the word of someone who's knowledge is based on what he can read in main-stream media.

I still think any charges for Jan 6th will be difficult as don't you also need to prove intent for that?  I always said that I felt the obstruction charges were the strongest case against Trump.  I don't think the NY case will go anywhere and I'm still waiting on Georgia to make charges.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.4.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.4.10    last year
Or is he just talking about what has been presented by our oh so honest media?  I would be careful of trusting the word of someone who's knowledge is based on what he can read in main-stream media.

He probably read the new 45 page indictment. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.4.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.4.10    last year

The evidence against former President Trump in the   classified documents case   is "overwhelming," according to former White House lawyer   Ty Cobb .

Driving the news:   The Justice Department on Thursday filed new charges related to its probe of   Trump's mishandling   of classified documents after he left the White House.

  • “I think this original indictment was engineered to last 1,000 years and now this superseding indictment will last an antiquity,” Cobb said during an   interview with CNN's Erin Burnett   Thursday night.
  • “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming," he added.
Catch up quick:   Federal prosecutors charged Trump with an   additional count   of retaining classified material, contradicting Trump's explicit denial in a taped conversation in July 2021 that he had retained any classified documents.
  • While last month's   initial indictment   in the case named Trump and his Walt Nauta as defendants, Thursday's filing   added a third defendant   — Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos de Oliveira — to the obstruction conspiracy charge in the original indictment.
  • Thursday's superseding indictment also charged Trump, Nauta, and De Oliveira with two new counts of obstruction of justice.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.4.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.6    last year

The Clintons are at well over four decades of inquiries by both law enforcement and reporters, with nothing foind. Do you therefore consider them guiltless?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.13    last year
with nothing foind

except for numerous moral and legal missteps.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @3.4.4    last year

As opposed to the one who replaced him? Yeah right, just like conservatives will be on him! I look at Biden and I am reminded of Richard Nixon and his famous phrase, "I am not a crook!". Sadly, yes Biden is.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.4.16  devangelical  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.4.15    last year

7 years, still no proof...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.4.15    last year
Sadly, yes Biden is.

It is almost impossible to believe that given the facts made public, anyone could possibly believe that Hunter wasn't selling access to joe and foreigners were willing to spend millions to get that access.

It defies credibility.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.18  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.17    last year

James Roosevelt, FDR oldest son, made a bundle off of his access to Dad. Joe Kennedy Sr. aided him in multiple, questionable endeavors.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.19  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.17    last year

It most certainly does.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.20  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.4.19    last year
It most certainly does.

I would hate myself if I was that gullible, but to each their own, I suppose.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.21  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.20    last year

Some will learn while some will continue their beliefs regardless.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.22  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.18    last year

Yes, and John and Abigail Adams' younger son Charles Adams the alcoholic degenerate gambler, failed financial speculator and the original deadbeat dad was similarly accused, also...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Adams_(1770%E2%80%931800)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.23  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.4.22    last year

So do you think Hunter Biden selling influence and access to his father was just following tradition?

LOL!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.4.22    last year

And the Bush girls drank alcohol in college.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.25  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.23    last year

Hunters only crimes were paying his taxes late and not admitting he had a drug addiction on a federal form...

It stinks when people like the Supreme Court Justice's wives, Congressmen's kids, Hunter and THE TRUMPS personally profit from their access to power, but it is not illegal...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.26  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.24    last year

The scandal though was the fake ids and being underage. Would Jenna be hosting Good Morning America if for not?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.27  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.4.25    last year
Hunters only crimes were paying his taxes late and not admitting he had a drug addiction on a federal form...

Bullshit. Hunter STILL hasn't registered under FARA requirements.

Hunter sold access to his father. The whole Biden Family collected millions in foreign money for that access.

Denial is futile and rather silly at this point.

Why do YOU think Hunter's name was drawn at random from a pool of crackhead lawyers some foreigners decided to rain millions on?

You can't defend this bullshit because you can't even see anything wrong!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.4.28  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.14    last year

Over forty years for roughly nothing... compared with two impeachments and dozens of indictments in four years.

"Lock her up!"

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.4.25    last year
Hunters only crimes were paying his taxes late and not admitting he had a drug addiction on a federal form...

Exactly, they received the millions because Hunter's business accumm was widely respected.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.4.30  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @3.4.25    last year
not admitting he had a drug addiction on a federal form...

It’s funny watching  avid gun control advocates, make excuses when liberals break gun control laws.

Lying on an ATF gun purchase form #4473 is a felony.    Punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

But I mean no biggie, it’s a Biden ….. right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.31  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.29    last year

How gullible must one be to think Hunter Biden was hired by foreigners for his legal expertise?

How many multi-million-dollar companies or how many governments are in the habit of paying a crackhead millions for his mere existence?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.32  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.27    last year

Now you are just babbling and making foolish unfounded reckless accusations without proof. Joe and Jill Biden's taxes are public going back twenty years. Never has any proof been produced that he had any unreported income or personally profited from any illegal activity, UNLIKE TRUMP! You should be ashamed!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.4.33  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.17    last year

The attention paid to Hunter, and the blind eye turned to Don Jr, Eric, and the Kushners.

Cognitive dissonance.......

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.34  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.33    last year
The attention paid to Hunter, and the blind eye turned to Don Jr, Eric, and the Kushners.

My, my, are you denying ALL the crap written on these forums over the years?

LMMFAO!

Cognitive dissonance.......

Pure ignorant statement.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.35  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.29    last year

Are you really accusing the President of the United States of America, your Commander In Chief of cheating on his taxes?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.36  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.28    last year

Roughly

Free to live in her little, wealthy white enclave:

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.37  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.4.32    last year
Now you are just babbling and making foolish unfounded reckless accusations without proof

The FUCK I am.

Have you listened to the news or read a paper lately?

Do you not acknowledge the fact that the Biden Family has benefitted from millions in foreign money?

One question not a single damn Biden sycophant has been able to answer:

WTF did any of the Bidens do to get foreigners to rain millions on them?

Joe and Jill Biden's taxes are public going back twenty years.

While we all know Biden is a complete fuck up, I don't know if his handlers are dumb enough to make him declare illegal income on his taxes. That is a stupid, ignorant argument.

I am ashamed that so many are willing to overlook anything a Biden does.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.4.38  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.37    last year

Joe does love his useful idiots.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.39  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.37    last year

Who the fuck is this "Biden Family"? Are you talking about Ed and Emma Biden who own the Hyundai dealership in Gotebo Oklahoma. They do millions in foreign business. Is it illegal to engage in the import and export business now? All of your nameless baseless wildass accusations are so lame nobody but wild-eyed MAGA nutters could ever take you seriously!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.4.40  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @3.4.39    last year

Speaking of nutters, your comment is one of them.  

A really yuge nutter …. Bigly!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.41  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @3.4.30    last year

We all know the Biden's can do no wrong, right?😆

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.42  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.31    last year

I think all the private ones associated with Hunter Biden have gone belly up, but I could be wrong.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.43  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.4.42    last year
associated with Hunter Biden have gone belly up,

Not surprising, without Hunter’s expertise they were doomed to go under.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.44  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.4.32    last year

You are correct jbb but what else is new?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.45  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.37    last year
I don't know if his handlers are dumb enough to make him declare illegal income on his taxes. That is a stupid, ignorant argument.

This has been explained to him many times, but....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.46  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.4.39    last year

Seriously, you are asking who the Biden family is? The President and you are asking dumb questions about some yahoos in OK?

wtf?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.47  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.4.39    last year
Are you talking about Ed and Emma Biden who own the Hyundai dealership in Gotebo Oklahoma.

When did Gotebo get a car dealership?

They do millions in foreign business. 

uh-huh.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.48  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.46    last year

It's called being intentionally and  ridiculously obtuse. He knows full well who "The Big Guy" is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.49  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @3.4.45    last year

to no avail.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.50  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.47    last year

Don't you know foreigners look for the most obscure car dealerships in podunk towns to buy from?

lmao

What could be more cost effective for buyers to have to ship cars to a coast first before shipping overseas?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.51  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @3.4.38    last year

Considering he's got a whole administration full of them.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.52  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.33    last year

And what were the charges and convictions of those you mentioned in post 3.4.33? Oh, that's right there haven't been any! Still want to talk cognitive dissonance?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.4.53  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.4.52    last year

Seriously? Are you going to stick with both "charges and convictions" and Trump?  jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.54  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.27    last year

Nothing you say is the truth so nothing to deny.  You are in denial.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.55  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.36    last year

What's this nonsense deflection regarding the town where the Clintons live?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.56  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.55    last year

Westchester County New York and it's town New Castle has a hamlet, Chappaqua were the Clintons live are predominantly white.  Housing segregation and discrimination have always been practiced the. 

Almost 20 years ago, a lawsuite was filed Westchester County claiming that the county falsely stated it was meeting fair housing obligations in order to receive millions of dollars in federal funding.  Of course, the county fought it.  around the midpoint of the Obama years, his administration  joined a lawsuit.  Finally the county agreed to construct 750 units of affordable housing including in Chappaqua.

The county dragged it heals and slowly built some units, none in Chappaqua.  It continued to go back to court seeking certified compliance.  11 times in total.  Finally. in 2017, the Trump administration gave the county the thumbs up.  Trumps Westchester National Golf Club is 6 miles away. 

Poor people of color still face structural racism there.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.4.57  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.53    last year

Very poor deflection Bob.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.58  bugsy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.56    last year
oor people of color still face structural racism there.

Exactly why the Clinton's chose to live there.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.59  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  bugsy @3.4.58    last year

Yes, they knew all about the neighborhood.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.60  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.59    last year

Of course, they did!

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.4.61  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.4.57    last year

No deflection. Although I think I now understand motivations, the actual behavior still stuns me.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.62  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.60    last year

You don’t think that they researched the area before buying a $1.7 million dollar in 1999?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.63  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.62    last year

You know exactly what I think about that.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.64  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.63    last year

I never know what you think.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.65  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.64    last year

Of course you do - regarding this exact topic and you and your little buddy.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.4.66  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.65    last year

No, I don't know what or how you think.  Please explain.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.4.67  bugsy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.4.59    last year
Yes, they knew all about the neighborhood.

First on their list for retirement.

Both are happy about their decision.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.4.69  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.13    last year

Clintons?  Who mentioned them?  I didn't.  Please try to keep up.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.4.70  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.69    last year
Clintons? Who mentioned them?

I did, obviously. Do try to keep up.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.4.71  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.70    last year

So you are just trying to distract and deflect.  

have a nice next 24 hours

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.4.72  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.71    last year

Exactly

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

But the media has to love him, because he keeps them able to sell themselves.  I think they'll continue to post news about him even if he's in jail.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3.5.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.5    last year

Trump is clickbait. I hadn't thought of that. Excellent!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.5.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.5.1    last year
I hadn’t thought of that.

You didn’t watch the 2016 campaign?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.5.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.5.2    last year

Probably more like ignored it.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    last year

That's Great!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5  bbl-1    last year

So Trump got another indictment.  How long did it take for the MAGA Machine to send out, "Save the Orange Peel" funding requests?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6  Sean Treacy    last year

Feel bad for the maintenance worker the DOJ is throwing the  book at. Too bad he isn’t a Biden who committed a gun crime.  Then the doj doesn’t care.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    last year
Feel bad for the maintenance worker

and Trump doesnt even tip good at christmas

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    last year

Gee, maybe Democrats should impeach him again.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.1    last year

I'd ask for what, but we already know the Democrats will make something up again.  Kind of like their Big Lie in 2016.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
6.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.2    last year

What's that famous saying - "Don't Futch with the Bidens"?  Makes John Daly's regime look like girl scouts.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    last year

They are going to Dr Ford that poor bastard.

Big time.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.3  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    last year
gun crime

If I had every right-wing fascist in the country after me, I'd be packing heat too.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @6.3    last year

Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time ……. Does not apply to Biden’s.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.1    last year

Only if you remove the multiple layers of Teflon they have on their backs.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.1    last year

Plural never takes an apostrophe. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.3.4  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @6.3    last year
If I had every right-wing fascist in the country after me

Like you seeing Russian bots under your bed every night, do you see "right wing fascists" over your shoulder every time you go out.

Must suck being scared at every turn.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.3.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.1    last year

Some people seem to think almost all conservatives that do not share their particular political worldview just have to be described as right wing fascists. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.3    last year

It depends on what Sparty meant.  If he meant his or their purported crimes, the apostrophe is proper, but if he meant all of the Bidens, then you are correct. 

Buzz the grammar grinch.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.6    last year

It's a confused sentence in any case.

If Sparty meant "belonging to a particular Biden", then he should have indicated which one. If he meant "belonging to any Biden" then it should be "Bidens' ", with the possessive apostrophe after the plural "s".

English ....

What bothers me is not the error. It's the disrespect for readers, requiring them to guess his meaning.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.7    last year

I don't think he did it deliberately to confuse anyone, I think it was probably just a result of not realizing himself that he did so.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.8    last year

Exactly 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.7    last year
… requiring them to guess his meaning.

Wiggle room.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.7    last year

Yeah, It bothers you when folks not of like mind make grammatical errors.    Not so much when folks of like mind make them.

Nitpicking unintentional grammatical errors?

Yep, this must be the internet.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.12  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.10    last year

Wrong, see 6.3.11.

Next ……

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.11    last year
What bothers me is not the error. It's the disrespect for readers, requiring them to guess his meaning.
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.14  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.13    last year
Nitpicking unintentional grammatical errors? Yep, this must be the internet.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.14    last year

Of course the error is unintentional. That's not the point.

Comm101 teaches us that understanding in any conversation is the responsibility of the "sender" (not the "receiver") because the sender controls the content. The receiver gets whatever is sent, however unintelligible it may be.

So proofreading is just basic courtesy when posting.

Don’t make your reader guess at your meaning. We have enough misunderstanding without that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.16  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.15    last year

Social Media 100

Nitpicking things like grammar on sites like NTers is a low social intelligence move.

So we consider the source.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.16    last year

So gracious!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.18  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.6    last year

I understood your post just fine.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.19  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.18    last year

Where did I say you didn't?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.20  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.16    last year
"Social Media 100"

I would think that Social Media 100 might indicate that where a comment could have two or more possible meanings, a clarification just might be considered a PROPER social intelligence move. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.21  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.20    last year

Had someone had the grace to directly ask for a clarification if they were confused, I would have happily given it.    Instead what we got was sophomoric nitpicking based on partisan biases.    And I’m not talking about you.

We see grammatical errors here every day that don’t get nitpicked.       That is good form considering the forum.    After all, this isn’t a Masters Thesis.    No matter how hard some of the academia tools here try to make it so.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.22  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.19    last year
Where did I say you didn't?

My apology, that was intended for Sparty, assuring him that despite the grammar Nazi, I understood his post--as I am sure others do as well.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.23  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.21    last year

I acknowledge and thank you for your statement that you are not talking about me.  If anything, I defended you.  I don't think I have ever put anyone down for their use of English.  I may have made a general statement but it was never aimed at an individual.  I am particularly sensitive about persons for whom English is not their first language and in that case have often said that I wished I could speak their first language as well as they could speak English.  Sometimes, using the powers that I have here, I have even anonymously corrected others' spelling and grammar.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.24  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.22    last year

Well, I may be a Grinch but I'm not a Nazi.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.25  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.24    last year

I don't think you are either.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.26  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.25    last year

Thanks, but I just posted a couple of really Grinchy articles. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.27  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.24    last year

Apparently, for some members of this forum, reminding another member of one of our language's simplest rules ("plural never takes an apostrophe") makes one a Nazi.

TPTB are mute.

Whereas saying that it is "fascism" to support racist authoritarians gets a ticket. Fascinating.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.28  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.27    last year

I sent you a PN.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.29  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.27    last year
Apparently, for some members of this forum, reminding another member of one of our language's simplest rules ("plural never takes an apostrophe") makes one a Nazi.

Either you figured out exactly what he meant or should have.

You accomplished absolutely nothing.

Whereas saying that it is "fascism" to support racist authoritarians gets a ticket.

I see nothing to support your claim.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.30  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.29    last year

Hi, Tex!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.31  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.30    last year

You accomplished absolutely nothing.

I see nothing to support your claim.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.3.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.31    last year

Keep looking...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.33  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.3.32    last year

Can't waste time looking for unicorns or proof from you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.34  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.33    last year

Maybe some Jackalopes will show up …..

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.3.35  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.34    last year

I saw two them in my front yard early this morning down on the border!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.36  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.3.35    last year

Hide the plants, bring in the kids ….jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.3.37  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.36    last year

Yep.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7  Sean Treacy    last year

Have to love the  Biden DOJ.  Yesterday they get embarrassed in court trying to pull a fast on the judge and are forced to admit that the deal the doj arranged for hunter is unprecedented. Today they pile on more charges against trump.   Say this for garland. He makes no pretense at being anything other than a partisan hack.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    last year

Still, Garland is the bullet dodged.    

He could have been sitting on the SC right now.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
7.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    last year

Well it seems it is the Department of JustUs......................

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.3  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3.1  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @7.3    last year

gee, I wonder what stereotype the russians and irish have in common? >hic< /s

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @7.3.1    last year

just how did the russians figure out how to distill fermented potatoes before the irish?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
7.3.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @7.3.2    last year

Vodka predates the introduction of potatoes in Europe.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8  bugsy    last year

Mark my words......

If Devon Archer throws out an indisputable bombshell about Joe Biden tomorrow, the DOJ will promptly throw out indictments for Jan 6 or something from Georgia to draw the leftist lemmings to report it in their newscasts and the rest to parrot incessantly on different social sites.....like here, giving them a reason to ignore whatever Archer might indulge.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @8    last year

... another GOP fart in the wind.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.2  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @8    last year

comer and jordan have cried wolf too often...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
9  Jeremy Retired in NC    last year
Federal prosecutors on Thursday added major accusations to an indictment charging former President Donald J. Trump with mishandling classified documents after he left office, saying he told a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago that he wanted security camera footage there to be deleted.

And yet there's this.

Special counsel Jack Smith's team admitted to incorrectly claiming to have turned over evidence as required by law in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.

So there is a violation of the Brady Law and yet things were permitted to move forward.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    last year

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11  devangelical    last year

the J6 sedition case will preempt trump's espionage case in the federal courts...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @11    last year

J6 trial starts this year.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12  devangelical    last year

PHOTO-Donald-Trump-In-An-Orange-Jumpsuit-Mugshot-768x481.jpg

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @12    last year

hopefully they put trump in an orange jumpsuit this afternoon in DC.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
12.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  devangelical @12.1    last year

hopefully they put trump in an orange jumpsuit this afternoon in DC.

Well orange does seem to be his go to color.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
13  Bob Nelson    last year

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    last year

It's been 72 hours and he's still free

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
13.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1    last year

Smith has nothing to gain by incarceration 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1    last year

at this rate he won't live long enough to see a jail cell.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.3  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @13.1.2    last year

... total bummer.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @13.1.2    last year

Only in your dreams.

TDS nightmares forever ….

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.4    last year

court can be very stressful, for the guilty...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.6  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @13.1.5    last year

probably a good idea to have a meat wagon on standby outside each courtroom...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.7  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @13.1.6    last year

... maybe a few.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @13.1.5    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
13.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.8    last year

Just the hardcore leftist liberal mindset for many.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @13.1.9    last year

Haters gonna hate.    Left, right, center …. It’s all the same.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
13.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @13.1.10    last year

Yep.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
14  seeder  Hallux    last year

I believe this seed has run the course ... shutting it down now.

 
 

Who is online

Jeremy Retired in NC
Hallux
Sparty On


425 visitors