A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

No proof of any of that, so what's the point? So far it seems like we have definitive proof on exactly one ex-president and he had A LOT.

 

Seeing the regs twist themselves all up to make this "no big deal" is kinda funny, kinda sad. You betcha!

I love this argument, it's one of my favorites.

 

The point is that to the voting public, context usually matters.  Sure, the occasional self-righteous poindexter rolls out with "I don't want to talk about that!!" when wanting to fixate on a particular subject, but when it comes to hot button issues like this, the question "What exactly is the standard criminally, civilly, and what's considered acceptable in spite of rules that may date back as far as 1776?".    

 

In context, all the hand-wringing liberals worried about Trump and authoritarian behavior have been completely comfortable with the following authoritarian behavior:

 

• Alleging collusion with Russia while being completely comfortable with collusion with a foreign national and a phony story;
• Expressing concern about a second or third hand retelling of an allegation of Ukrainian shakedown while being completely comfortable with an on-camera acknowledgement of a Ukrainian shakedown;
• The DOJ executing an armed raid on the opposition party purportedly searching for illegally held confidential+ material, while extending unprecedented courtesy to allow a candidate judged to be exceptionally reckless with confidential+ material to perform self-reported wrongdoing and delete whatever it was that she felt the FBI didn't need to see;
• Outrage over claims that an election was stolen by one candidate, complete comfort with allegations of treason, illegitimate elections and a president installed in a coup by their faves;
• The seizure of non-relevant material and documents, including allegations that material protected under attorney-client privilege was seized, in spite of the size, scope and number of agents who participated in the search;
• The request by the DOJ to deny Trump's request to assign a Special Master to provide additional oversight on this matter, in essence saying "Trust us, national security is at risk!" , a standard used throughout history to bamboozle the American people and potentially represent that pesky darkness where democracy is thought to die;

I dunno on this one.  We've been told by the highest ranking FBI agent in the land that no reasonable prosecutor prosecutes folks for sending classified+ material on the G-mail, that factual information destined to impact voter choice at a critical election was Russian intel, and that social media outlets manipulated data that might have changed the outcome as well. 

 

I think the wisest course of action is to recognize that whatever side you're on, the other side is demonstrably full of $%$# and the government should not be trusted implicitly.  You n' yours should remember how it feels, you were there a couple years ago. 

 

 

[snafu]

16 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax. 

Hoax.  The agents shouldn’t make judgments about the papers to be collected while on site, particularly because the sensitivity of some of the documents in question is such that many, if not all, of those agents lacked clearance to review them.  Any overreach could be (and, to my understanding, was) corrected later. 

 

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You’re getting conspiratorial now.  Which, I suppose, is unsurprising given the Q circles in which you hang.  

 

Face it.  Your main guy got caught with some pretty sensitive stuff for which he now has to answer.  Whining about what other people may or may not have possibly done if Jupiter was in line with Venus during a harvest moon in a leap year  with a La Niña isn’t going to change anything in that respect. 

Trump should have Chef Jim Crow get admitted pro hac vice to help him out on this one.  Could drop the spatula on the government and show them what’s what.  A fine change to apply his reverse Pee Wee Herman defense: “I know I am but what are you?”  Should be wild!

 

 

You're right about one thing.  The agents shouldn't make judgments about the nature of the papers.

And it isn't okay for them to release photos of the papers so that people like you can speculate about the nature of the papers and make your own judgments

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

17 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

 

You're right about one thing.  The agents shouldn't make judgments about the nature of the papers.

And it isn't okay for them to release photos of the papers so that people like you can speculate about the nature of the papers and make your own judgments

 

 

 

That is indeed not right. The constitution requires very specific warrants be issued. The government is explicitly not allowed to come into your home, vacuum up anything they want, take it all back to their office, and then sift through the findings. 

[Gene Frenkle]

18 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Up until recently we, as the general public, had no proof Trump had taken classified documents. The point was to open that up for discussion regarding the possibility that this may be common. 
 

And you just assume my point for bringing this up was to make this regarding Trump “no big deal”.  You can join @SectionC3 in the very wrong assumption room.  Good job. 

 

But there is actual proof with Trump. Lots. The rest is speculation based on what? What you would do? What you might imagine presidents might do? Who gives a *****? What makes your imagination important? There are lots of facts here. Those are actually real. Remember when we cared about real things?

[BillsFanNC]

18 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

That is indeed not right. The constitution requires very specific warrants be issued. The government is explicitly not allowed to come into your home, vacuum up anything they want, take it all back to their office, and then sift through the findings. 

 

I think if you take a magnifying glass and squint really hard, you can find where it says in the constitution: "except Trump"

[Chef Jim]

6 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

But there is actual proof with Trump. Lots. The rest is speculation based on what? What you would do? What you might imagine presidents might do? Who gives a *****? What makes your imagination important? There are lots of facts here. Those are actually real. Remember when we cared about real things?

 

The proof Trump took documents has nothing to do with my point.  

 

My speculation is based on human nature especially the human nature of the type of person that gets into politics.  If you think no politician has ever taken confidential documents I think you're being extremely naive.