Tommy Callahan Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 54 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I don't understand how anyone with just the basic grasp of the facts could think that the Mar A Lago charges are a dud. I don't watch and parrot MSNBC.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I'm guessing lack of good information. Reporting on legal cases is generally pretty poor but it also seems that a lot of people here are being taken in by people who have no idea what they are talking about like Julie Pepe Silvia. Happened to the former president too. Ignored his lawyers, listened to Tom Fitton instead and then got indicted. I think it's recognition that the system is flawed and likely politicized 99 times out of 100. People don't trust the system because it's used to bludgeon some and protect others. Maybe this is the 100th time and Jack Smith is the hero we all deserve, but chances are he's not. The DOJ didn't help themselves here, at least from the 'trust the professionals are doing professional things' perspective. They view the issue as so important that they send armed agents, presumably with orders to dispatch those who may not comply or pose a threat to the order, spend 11 or 12 hours rifling through documents vitally important to National Security. While doing so, they grab protected personal information, tax return documents, and documents protected by attorney/client privilege. A short time later, they release details of the raid including pictures of folders like they're running a reality TV show. On cue, a short time later, we find that like with the Clintons, this whole national security stuff is so important that Biden is leaving &*&^% around like a drunken circus performer and no one in the government has any idea where anything is at any given point in time. We're told, of course, that this isn't a problem at all...it's slippage. As far as the SC pulling out all the stops, what would prevent him from doing so? It doesn't cost him (or anyone) a dime to launch multiple attacks on multiple fronts and run this out as long as possible. In fact, he's getting paid for all of it, and his financial future is assured one way or the other. There's big money in all this. You should be guessing "lack of trust". 1
BillStime Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You should be guessing "lack of trust". Credibility goes both ways.
ChiGoose Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 12 minutes ago, Chris farley said: I don't watch and parrot MSNBC. Me neither. I'm not even sure my tv package even has MSNBC. 6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I think it's recognition that the system is flawed and likely politicized 99 times out of 100. People don't trust the system because it's used to bludgeon some and protect others. Maybe this is the 100th time and Jack Smith is the hero we all deserve, but chances are he's not. The DOJ didn't help themselves here, at least from the 'trust the professionals are doing professional things' perspective. They view the issue as so important that they send armed agents, presumably with orders to dispatch those who may not comply or pose a threat to the order, spend 11 or 12 hours rifling through documents vitally important to National Security. While doing so, they grab protected personal information, tax return documents, and documents protected by attorney/client privilege. A short time later, they release details of the raid including pictures of folders like they're running a reality TV show. On cue, a short time later, we find that like with the Clintons, this whole national security stuff is so important that Biden is leaving &*&^% around like a drunken circus performer and no one in the government has any idea where anything is at any given point in time. We're told, of course, that this isn't a problem at all...it's slippage. As far as the SC pulling out all the stops, what would prevent him from doing so? It doesn't cost him (or anyone) a dime to launch multiple attacks on multiple fronts and run this out as long as possible. In fact, he's getting paid for all of it, and his financial future is assured one way or the other. There's big money in all this. You should be guessing "lack of trust". I think this very much misconstrues the actual facts of the case, how law enforcement works, what search warrants do, and basically the entire case itself. So I'm feeling pretty good about lack of knowledge as the actual reason.
Pokebball Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: I don't understand how anyone with just the basic grasp of the facts could think that the Mar A Lago charges are a dud. More than a dud. Enough to put cuffs on Trump?
Unforgiven Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 dem wall be closing slow af.. don't mind if in I don't hold my breath y'all
ChiGoose Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, Pokebball said: More than a dud. Enough to put cuffs on Trump? Anyone other than Trump would already have been in cuffs and on their way to jail
Doc Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Anyone other than Trump would already have been in cuffs and on their way to jail Same goes for Joke.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 20 minutes ago, BillStime said: Credibility goes both ways. Of course it does, BillSy. Change a couple names, the other side of the aisle lacks trust and demands accountability. We agree. Tonight I play the lottery.
ChiGoose Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Doc said: Same goes for Joke. Not at all if you actually understand how the law works. Trump brought this on himself. Even after he took the documents, showed them around his club, refused to turn them over for months, he likely would have faced no charges if he had just actually handed them over instead of lying and saying he did. Edited July 14, 2023 by ChiGoose
Doc Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 Just now, ChiGoose said: Not at all if you actually understand how the law works. Trump brought this on himself. Even after he took the documents, showed them around his club, refused to turn them over for months, he likely would have faced no charges if he had just actually handed them over instead of lying and saying he did. Anyone in possession of classified information would be jailed. Period. Especially a Senator who cannot physically possess it and would need to steal it. 1
ChiGoose Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 1 minute ago, Doc said: Anyone in possession of classified information would be jailed. Period. Especially a Senator who cannot physically possess it and would need to steal it. Wrong. Period.
Doc Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Wrong. Period. I know you tell yourselves this to make believe that your guy isn't incredibly crooked. And that's exactly how they want you to be.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Me neither. I'm not even sure my tv package even has MSNBC. I think this very much misconstrues the actual facts of the case, how law enforcement works, what search warrants do, and basically the entire case itself. So I'm feeling pretty good about lack of knowledge as the actual reason. I'm not surprised. You strike me as a pretty smart guy generally, but you're a linear thinker. 1 1
ChiGoose Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Doc said: I know you tell yourselves this to make believe that your guy isn't incredibly crooked. And that's exactly how they want you to be. I know you have no idea what you’re talking about no matter how many times it’s explained to you. Possession alone is insufficient to prove intent in a court of law. Just trying to explain basic facts it’s impossible to you. I don’t care about Joe Biden. He wasn’t my top choice in the 2020 Dem primaries and he was closer to the bottom than the top. If he did crimes, he should be punished. But the insane fever dream rantings of people who have no idea what they are talking about fueled by them listening to people who also have no idea what they are talking about is insufficient to bring criminal charges. Why? Because possession alone is insufficient to prove intent in a court of law. Edited July 14, 2023 by ChiGoose 1
Pokebball Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 43 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Anyone other than Trump would already have been in cuffs and on their way to jail So, we talking about you or Trump? The left's been after Trump or 7yrs now. They gonna dig to China?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 12 minutes ago, Doc said: I know you tell yourselves this to make believe that your guy isn't incredibly crooked. And that's exactly how they want you to be. See, here Doc, I agree with Chi. Washington would cease to function without an uneasy alliance between adversaries. So, with a few exceptions, mutually assured destruction keeps things mostly quiet on that front. Hunter Biden is protected in large part because Mitch McConnell's son, brother, cousin or whomever is operating in a similar fashion. Consider, for example, W Bush. According to the dems, he lied about WMDs, manufactured false intelligence, started a war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and a million plus people in the Middle East. His punishment for all this was a nice place in Texas and a special relationship with the Obama's and Clinton family. Trump is the wild card because he's an outsider and rocked the boat. He also was foolish to maintain any documents at all when it was crystal clear Biden/Garland would go scorched earth on any issue they could find. They would have found something else, but why expose his throat to the wolves at the door? 1
Doc Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: I know you have no idea what you’re talking about no matter how many times it’s explained to you. Possession alone is insufficient to prove intent in a court of law. Just trying to explain basic facts it’s impossible to you. I don’t care about Joe Biden. He wasn’t my top choice in the 2020 Dem primaries and he was closer to the bottom than the top. If he did crimes, he should be punished. But the insane fever dream rantings of people who have no idea what they are talking about fueled by them listening to people who also have no idea what they are talking about is insufficient to bring criminal charges. Why? Because possession alone is insufficient to prove intent in a court of law. Look, I realize that you need to make every excuse possible for Joke's criminality because Trump has broken your brain and you need to believe Joke is better. A regular Joe Schmoe caught with classified material in his garage would be in jail and you know it. And I couldn't care less how any of them got the documents because none of them should have them and they should be treated equally. But obviously certain people get special treatment and many pols have taken classified documents. A lame excuse like "spillage" says more about you than anything else. What I care more about is what was done with the materials. And if being able to prove something in a court of law is your standard to believe something, how much of a chance do you think Russian collusion would have to be proven in court of law? Yet you guys all still cling to it.
ChiGoose Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 23 minutes ago, Doc said: Look, I realize that you need to make every excuse possible for Joke's criminality because Trump has broken your brain and you need to believe Joke is better. A regular Joe Schmoe caught with classified material in his garage would be in jail and you know it. And I couldn't care less how any of them got the documents because none of them should have them and they should be treated equally. But obviously certain people get special treatment and many pols have taken classified documents. A lame excuse like "spillage" says more about you than anything else. What I care more about is what was done with the materials. And if being able to prove something in a court of law is your standard to believe something, how much of a chance do you think Russian collusion would have to be proven in court of law? Yet you guys all still cling to it. Partisanship has so broken your brain that you can no longer see reality and you reject it when it confronts you. Instead of assuming I’m in the tank for Biden, you could have just asked what I thought of him. I’ve told you that I didn’t support him in the 2020 primaries. Of the major candidates, he was probably only above Bernie in my rankings. I didn’t want him to run for reelection and I’m disappointed that he is. If he committed crimes, he should pay for them. But me simply trying to explain facts to you comes off as partisan because when you live in a world of falsehoods, actual factual reality is an attack against you. Hillary, Pence, and Biden* haven’t been charged with crimes because the feds did not believe they could prove intent. Trump has decided to be a textbook case on how to demonstrate intent to a jury. That’s the difference. If he had never tried to deceive his own lawyer, he wouldn’t be in this mess. You’re also comparing a “regular schmoe” to elected and/or Senate confirmed officials. When classified docs go missing, the priority is recovering them. Prosecuting everyone who ended up with them would create an incentive for people who truly had them accidentally to hide them or even destroy them. So while they may face discipline from their employers, they generally only get charged if the Feds can prove that they either intended to take them or, upon learning they had them, did not immediately notify the government and cooperate with returning them. And I think it’s pretty fitting to the complete lack of understanding that you have so far demonstrated on these matters that you cite the lack of indictment of the president by an investigation predicated on the fact that it cannot indict the president as evidence of literally anything. The Mueller Report was a road map to impeachment but as he explicitly stated in the report, he was never going to charge the president no matter the crimes he found (and by the way, in addition to all of the other crimes he charged, he also found that Trump himself committed multiple crimes). Maybe try staying in your lane if you’re going to insist on listening to people who are either lying to you or too ignorant to know what the hell they are talking about. *The Special Counsel investigation into Biden is still ongoing so this may change if new facts develop. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 14, 2023 Posted July 14, 2023 4 hours ago, ChiGoose said: I'm guessing lack of good information. Reporting on legal cases is generally pretty poor but it also seems that a lot of people here are being taken in by people who have no idea what they are talking about like Julie Pepe Silvia. Happened to the former president too. Ignored his lawyers, listened to Tom Fitton instead and then got indicted. She's my fav legal reporter but is limited to SCOTUS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/author/mcoyle Who do you think is good?
Recommended Posts