B-Man Posted February 10 Posted February 10 Reminder: This was the greatest security risk in US history !
Doc Posted February 10 Posted February 10 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: Reminder: This was the greatest security risk in US history ! Their argument is "he didn't give them back fast enough!" Meanwhile Joke knowingly had classified documents for at least 7 years... 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 10 Posted February 10 12 hours ago, BillStime said: Yeah - our resident Australian also failed to mention that Trump’s motor inn in Florida was a revolving door with random people, pedophiles, and Chinese ”trespassers” who crept past that 24/7 security. But yes - tell us more about canceling those pedos. It’s so funny how hard these idiots try to downplay how Trump obstructed justice w these sensitive documents. He literally could have returned them and all would be forgotten but as usual - the POS thought he was above the law and could sell these documents for top dollar. They were literally an insurance policy for him to get out of all his mounting debt. F him because it’s all about him He'll just not reply now because his position is indefensible and absurd. The law apparently agrees with us.
ChiGoose Posted February 10 Posted February 10 36 minutes ago, Doc said: If you're still clinging to the "Joke didn't know he had classified documents" belief (again, stop talking about legalities), I question whether you ever had a brain... I’m just stating the facts that under the law, no prosecutor would bring charges because the intent component would likely lose. Hur agrees. All he has is a statement. Everything else could be knocked down be a rookie defense attorney.
BillStime Posted February 10 Author Posted February 10 49 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: He'll just not reply now because his position is indefensible and absurd. The law apparently agrees with us. They always run away when you start asking questions. 1
John from Riverside Posted February 10 Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Doc said: Their argument is "he didn't give them back fast enough!" Meanwhile Joke knowingly had classified documents for at least 7 years... This is simply not true, and no amount of saying it is going to make it true Special counsel found that he did not know that he had those documents and he immediately gave them up
Doc Posted February 10 Posted February 10 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I’m just stating the facts that under the law, no prosecutor would bring charges because the intent component would likely lose. Hur agrees. All he has is a statement. Everything else could be knocked down be a rookie defense attorney. Get a gung-ho prosecutor, like there seem to be a lot of when it comes to going after Trump, and a sympathetic jury and you'd be surprised. Although in DC... And it's more than just a "statement:" it's an admission of guilt. We (now) know for a fact that he showed "secret and top secret" information to his ghostwriter back in 2017, yet it was never returned until last year, (conveniently) after Trump was charged. What do you call that if not intent to keep? Are you, as his non-rookie defense lawyer, going to stand in front of the jury and say "he forgot he had it" or "he didn't know it was classified/can't read when he shared it with his ghostwriter"? Remember that this was 2017 when he was 74 and 3 years prior to when you and all the other Dems were assuring everyone he was compos mentis to be President. Speaking of the ghostwriter, I'd subpoena him and threaten him with obstruction of justice if he didn't at least testify, it not produce the conversations he illegally deleted after the investigation started. But again, I'm not looking for a criminal conviction. And while I advocated for an impeachment, there's no need anymore. The damage has been worse than I imagined after Hur said he was too senile to stand trial, meaning he's not close to being fit to be re-elected, if not remain President. 1
John from Riverside Posted February 10 Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Doc said: Get a gung-ho prosecutor, like there seem to be a lot of when it comes to going after Trump, and a sympathetic jury and you'd be surprised. Although in DC... And it's more than just a "statement:" it's an admission of guilt. We (now) know for a fact that he showed "secret and top secret" information to his ghostwriter back in 2017, yet it was never returned until last year, (conveniently) after Trump was charged. What do you call that if not intent to keep? Are you, as his non-rookie defense lawyer, going to stand in front of the jury and say "he forgot he had it" or "he didn't know it was classified/can't read when he shared it with his ghostwriter"? Remember that this was 2017 when he was 74 and 3 years prior to when you and all the other Dems were assuring everyone he was compos mentis to be President. Speaking of the ghostwriter, I'd subpoena him and threaten him with obstruction of justice if he didn't at least testify, it not produce the conversations he illegally deleted after the investigation started. But again, I'm not looking for a criminal conviction. And while I advocated for an impeachment, there's no need anymore. The damage has been worse than I imagined after Hur said he was too senile to stand trial, meaning he's not close to being fit to be re-elected, if not remain President. L O L You don’t need impeachment anymore because the Republicans are too disorganized to even do that right
Doc Posted February 10 Posted February 10 7 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: L O L You don’t need impeachment anymore because the Republicans are too disorganized to even do that right Whatever. They don't need to be organized for Joke/the Dems to sink their re-election chances. 1
ChiGoose Posted February 11 Posted February 11 5 hours ago, Doc said: Get a gung-ho prosecutor, like there seem to be a lot of when it comes to going after Trump, and a sympathetic jury and you'd be surprised. Although in DC... And it's more than just a "statement:" it's an admission of guilt. We (now) know for a fact that he showed "secret and top secret" information to his ghostwriter back in 2017, yet it was never returned until last year, (conveniently) after Trump was charged. What do you call that if not intent to keep? Are you, as his non-rookie defense lawyer, going to stand in front of the jury and say "he forgot he had it" or "he didn't know it was classified/can't read when he shared it with his ghostwriter"? Remember that this was 2017 when he was 74 and 3 years prior to when you and all the other Dems were assuring everyone he was compos mentis to be President. Speaking of the ghostwriter, I'd subpoena him and threaten him with obstruction of justice if he didn't at least testify, it not produce the conversations he illegally deleted after the investigation started. But again, I'm not looking for a criminal conviction. And while I advocated for an impeachment, there's no need anymore. The damage has been worse than I imagined after Hur said he was too senile to stand trial, meaning he's not close to being fit to be re-elected, if not remain President. Aaaand in this long rant of ignorance you have demonstrated that you didn’t read the report, don’t understand how the law works, have been spoon-fed misleading information about Hur’s conclusions, suffer from severe Dunning Kruger, and just make up whatever reality you want that makes you feel good. Once again, take a break from the internet because you seem to be suffering from terminal online brain. 1 1
Doc Posted February 11 Posted February 11 (edited) 3 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Aaaand in this long rant of ignorance you have demonstrated that you didn’t read the report, don’t understand how the law works, have been spoon-fed misleading information about Hur’s conclusions, suffer from severe Dunning Kruger, and just make up whatever reality you want that makes you feel good. Once again, take a break from the internet because you seem to be suffering from terminal online brain. What complete and utter bull####. You really are a braindead partisan hack. The evidence is staring you right in the face and you're still "nah, he good because there needs to be 100% proof (except when it comes to Trump)." Make up whatever reality you want that makes you feel good. I really couldn't care less. The rest of the World sees the report for what it is even if Hur's "conclusion" is that he wouldn't charge Joke because he's senile. And that's the most damning part of the whole thing and what has your party's leaders wetting their beds. So carry on with the Trump witch hunts. It's been working so well for you guys so far... Edited February 11 by Doc 2
John from Riverside Posted February 11 Posted February 11 1 hour ago, Doc said: What complete and utter bull####. You really are a braindead partisan hack. The evidence is staring you right in the face and you're still "nah, he good because there needs to be 100% proof (except when it comes to Trump)." Make up whatever reality you want that makes you feel good. I really couldn't care less. The rest of the World sees the report for what it is even if Hur's "conclusion" is that he wouldn't charge Joke because he's senile. And that's the most damning part of the whole thing and what has your party's leaders wetting their beds. So carry on with the Trump witch hunts. It's been working so well for you guys so far... have you even read the report? 1
ChiGoose Posted February 11 Posted February 11 6 hours ago, John from Riverside said: have you even read the report? He clearly hasn’t. And he’s repeatedly demonstrated a very low level of reading comprehension so I’m not sure how much good it would do for him to actually read it. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 11 Posted February 11 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: He clearly hasn’t. And he’s repeatedly demonstrated a very low level of reading comprehension so I’m not sure how much good it would do for him to actually read it. expected outcome from a loser so insecure in his true position in life that he pretends to be someone else for a decade...what a pathetic pos. 1
Doc Posted February 11 Posted February 11 (edited) 7 hours ago, John from Riverside said: have you even read the report? I've read this part: "Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen." Oh and this part: [Joke's conduct] "present[ed] serious risks to national security." I also read how the ghostwriter wasn't pursued despite illegally destroying evidence after the investigation began. If you respond to just one thing, can you give me an explanation as to why he did that? Was it just conversations about wedding plans? Look, Occam's razor says Joke knew the classified material was there. It was in his friggin' garage next to his Corvette that he's seen, if not driven, every weekend of his Presidency practically, for crying out loud. You guys have to twist yourselves into pretzels (like you'll do if you answer my question above) inventing ways to avoid admitting this because in your mind Joke is and just has to be better than Trump...and it's comical. But again, I'm not advocating being petty and charging Joke criminally, despite what I quoted from Hur above (I'll leave that to the Dems and see them continue to buoy Trump in the polls). And as I said earlier, I'm not even advocating impeachment anymore. That's because the "he's senile" is the worst thing to come out of that report and has Dems scrambling like mad. Edited February 11 by Doc 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 11 Posted February 11 (edited) 51 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: ⬆️ Friggin Quack MD quack (plural quacks) (derogatory) A fraudulent healer, especially a bombastic peddler in worthless treatments, a doctor who makes false diagnoses for monetary benefit, or an untrained or poorly traineddoctor who uses fraudulent credentials to attract patients geez, it's almost as if there was someone on this board for whom this term is actually appropriate. This represents an illustrative example of projection.... Edited February 11 by Joe Ferguson forever 1
Doc Posted February 11 Posted February 11 37 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: quack (plural quacks) (derogatory) A fraudulent healer, especially a bombastic peddler in worthless treatments, a doctor who makes false diagnoses for monetary benefit, or an untrained or poorly traineddoctor who uses fraudulent credentials to attract patients geez, it's almost as if there was someone on this board for whom this term is actually appropriate. This represents an illustrative example of projection.... You're the only one who is a proven liar, poser. 1
Recommended Posts