BillStime Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 1 minute ago, John from Riverside said: It’s a shame that Mr. Davis doesn’t understand what the espionage act is and how it pertains to classified documents For those of us that do know we see right through this He doesn’t actually care what his keepers say - he is just desperate to keep throwing as much schitt against the wall to once again, create a mirage - just like the idiots do with voter fraud.
B-Man Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 FTA: The special counsel’s hardest task is to try to distinguish what Trump did from what Joe Biden, Mike Pence and many others have done. I take it that the willfulness of Trump’s retaining documents after the National Archives asked for them, along with charges alleging the conspiracy to obstruct justice, making false statements, etc., serve this function. Will it work? I doubt it. I think most people will see no significant difference between Trump’s actions and Biden’s, and will consider this prosecution another manifestation of America’s two-tiered system of justice. They will be right to do so, although Trump’s own stubbornness and poor judgment also distinguish this case from Biden’s or Pence’s. If Trump had been trying to get himself indicted he wouldn’t have done anything differently. I don’t think any of these charges have merit. On the other hand, all of them stem, to one degree or another, from Trump’s poor judgment and personality flaws. Together, they add up to an amount of baggage that many Republican primary voters will consider unacceptable. He is scheduled to go to trial in the New York case at the end of March–the height of the primary season. It may well be that during most of the primaries, Trump will be appealing a criminal conviction and a jail sentence. Democratic voters have a elected a mayor or two from a prison cell, but that may be a bridge too far for Republican presidential primary voters. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/trump-in-the-crosshairs.php
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 Hillary Clinton is reacting to former President Trump’s federal indictment by making a pitch for her “But Her Emails” merchandise. The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee took to social media Friday — just hours after Trump announced Thursday that his legal team had been told he was indicted following an investigation into his handling of classified documents — with a plug for her tongue-in-cheek swag. “Bringing this back in light of recent news,” Clinton told her more than 31 million Twitter followers. “Get a limited-edition But Her Emails hat and support @onwardtogther groups working to strengthen our democracy,” she added. The $32, made-in-the-U.S. caps emblazoned with the words “But Her Emails” are described as “unstructured dad hats” on Onward Together’s sales page. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4042352-hillary-clinton-responds-to-trump-indictment-with-but-her-emails-merch-pitch/
All_Pro_Bills Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, John from Riverside said: As I have said, before, I am against wrongdoing by any party But this is not evidence you know that it’s not evidence there are a lot of allegations I’m always willing to listen they say they’ve got some thing coming up and they say they can prove it let’s see because so far they haven’t I'd suggest our difference of opinion is centered on the definition of evidence. And while I didn't use the word "evidence" in my response for the sake of argument I'll retract references to that word. And for the sake of that argument I'll define "evidence" as testimony or exhibits presented in a court of law as evidence. All of which has yet to happen. Given that, I'll center my argument around the legal concept of sufficient "probable cause" to provide the likelihood that a crime has been committed. Probable cause being the threshold of reasonable suspicion a court would use to issue warrants or agree to proceed with a case against an individual. Evidence a prosecutor would claim to have when presenting a case for an indictment to a grand jury. So given the large amount of suspicious activity supported by witness statements, physical items, and transactions like bank wire transfers of money from one account to another in the name of suspected individuals under scrutiny, would you agree there is probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed which requires a more thorough and detailed investigation by the Department of Justice? One additional comment: It's intriguing to me that both statements by Bobulinsk and the FBI whistleblower's statements about the FBI form FD-1023 document both, and most importantly independently each other, refer to Joe Biden as "the big guy". Tell me that's a coincidence. Edited June 9, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills
John from Riverside Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Hillary Clinton is reacting to former President Trump’s federal indictment by making a pitch for her “But Her Emails” merchandise. The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee took to social media Friday — just hours after Trump announced Thursday that his legal team had been told he was indicted following an investigation into his handling of classified documents — with a plug for her tongue-in-cheek swag. “Bringing this back in light of recent news,” Clinton told her more than 31 million Twitter followers. “Get a limited-edition But Her Emails hat and support @onwardtogther groups working to strengthen our democracy,” she added. The $32, made-in-the-U.S. caps emblazoned with the words “But Her Emails” are described as “unstructured dad hats” on Onward Together’s sales page. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4042352-hillary-clinton-responds-to-trump-indictment-with-but-her-emails-merch-pitch/ Hillary Clinton would be better off just sitting this one out. The emails being kept on a server was highly questionable as well. 5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I'd suggest our difference of opinion is centered on the definition of evidence. And while I didn't use the word "evidence" in my response for the sake of argument I'll retract references to that word. And for the sake of that argument I'll define "evidence" as testimony or exhibits presented in a court of law as evidence. All of which has yet to happen. Given that, I'll center my argument around the legal concept of sufficient "probable cause" to provide the likelihood that a crime has been committed. Probable cause being the threshold of reasonable suspicion a court would use to issue warrants or agree to proceed with a case against an individual. Evidence a prosecutor would claim to have when presenting a case for an indictment to a grand jury. So given the large amount of suspicious activity supported by witness statements, physical items, and transactions like bank wire transfers of money from one account to another in the name of suspected individuals under scrutiny, would you agree there is probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed which requires a more thorough and detailed investigation by the Department of Justice? One additional comment: It's intriguing to me that both statements by Bobulinsk and the FBI whistleblower's statements about the FBI form FD-1023 document both, and most importantly independently each other, refer to Joe Biden as "the big guy". Tell me that's a coincidence. I would agree that if the department of justice thinks that it’s enough to look into it, they should look into it I’m not a big fan of corruption from either side of the aisle
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 1 minute ago, John from Riverside said: Hillary Clinton would be better off just sitting this one out. The emails being kept on a server was highly questionable as well. And she paid for it with the FBI announcing a pointless investigation 10 days before the election, she is free to troll away
John from Riverside Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 Just now, Tiberius said: And she paid for it with the FBI announcing a pointless investigation 10 days before the election, she is free to troll away Personally, and I thought this at the time I thought that she was a horrible candidate, regardless if it came out of the Republicans It’s not because she’s a woman I would gladly except a woman president or a person of color or whatever as long as they understood that they were going to be a president for a whole nation and not just for a half
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 1 minute ago, John from Riverside said: Personally, and I thought this at the time I thought that she was a horrible candidate, regardless if it came out of the Republicans It’s not because she’s a woman I would gladly except a woman president or a person of color or whatever as long as they understood that they were going to be a president for a whole nation and not just for a half You can say that about almost any president. Half the voting country elects them, the other half of voters is against
B-Man Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 Walt Nauta’s lawyer was threatened by Jack Smith’s special counsel office that his future judgeship would be in jeopardy if Nauta didn’t flip. And now Nauta will be indicted. Banana Republic stuff. 1
John from Riverside Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 29 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You can say that about almost any president. Half the voting country elects them, the other half of voters is against I suppose this is true although I do think there is a middle group that actually decides presidential elections. I’d like to think of my Part of the independent group
BillsFanNC Posted June 9, 2023 Author Posted June 9, 2023 Just now, B-Man said: Easy. With Trump and anyone in his orbit, every prosecution is reasonable. It's called the law of @ChiGoose hypocrisy. They teach it law school. You can look it up.
John from Riverside Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 12 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Shocker You need a better understanding of the espionage act
ChiGoose Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Or, it could be that Clinton’s case was very different from Trump’s in both the facts and the law. But that would require actually examining the cases with logic and facts, which seems impossible here no matter how many times you explain it. 2
John from Riverside Posted June 9, 2023 Posted June 9, 2023 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: Or, it could be that Clinton’s case was very different from Trump’s in both the facts and the law. But that would require actually examining the cases with logic and facts, which seems impossible here no matter how many times you explain it. For my part, I think they both did it wrong I think that’s kind of puzzling me as I’m hearing this two-tiered justice system There definitely is, but not like how you think if your average worker did with these people did, they would have their security clearances, revoked, and at best be fired at worst be looking at jail time
Recommended Posts