Tommy Callahan Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Just a reminder that if this photo is your shot at TOTAL EXHONERATION!, then you're screwed. Everyone knows he's guilty, so let's put the system on trial instead. That playbook is becoming extremely tired. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 25 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: All of that is fine, but I hesitate to put blind faith in any institution. It occurs to me that the court filings prepared by the prosecution might well be misleading, untruthful or manipulative. There is ample evidence of that sort of behavior historically, and when politics are involved my spidey senses tingle. I may be a bit turned around in my head, but last night, @The Frankish Reich acknowledged that prosecutorial leaks were not uncommon, and indicated he felt my perspective was fair. Thereafter, you shared court filings and his perspective changed. My only issue there is--would the Smith team acknowledge leaking material? What exactly would they say? Julie Kelly is not the only game on the block. Stepping back from this--do you agree with Andrew Cuomo that the Bragg case against Trump was überpolitical? That, to paraphrase, it was the use of the justice system to destroy an individual? Quick question: Was the commentary from the 50+ intelligence agents meant to mislead the public, or a simple misunderstanding on a grand scale? I don't think Smith would acknowledge leaking material. I just question whether or not there was actually a leak since there is no evidence that anyone had the photo before it was published to the court docket. I mostly agree with @The Frankish Reich on the NY case. I was skeptical of it as first, but the more I learned about NY practice and the evidence presented in the case, I came to the conclusion that it was a strong case. Would Bragg have brought it against an average Joe? Can't say. That office has brought similar charges in the past but I think it's fair to assume that if Trump wasn't Trump, he might not have been charged. Of course, that doesn't mean he was innocent. He very clearly violated the law and a jury found so. Maybe he and Hunter Biden can commiserate together about how unfair life is. If they didn't want to be prosecuted, they probably shouldn't have done crimes. If I recall, the intelligence agents in question stated that the laptop had all of the earmarks of a Russian op but also stated that they were not saying for certain that it was. Also, that was a letter, not a court case, not testimony taken under oath. Just their assessment of a situation. If you want to complain that the media coverage was bad, by all means do so, but I don't think it's relevant to the Smith investigations. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 12 minutes ago, daz28 said: Just a reminder that if this photo is your shot at TOTAL EXHONERATION!, then you're screwed. Everyone knows he's guilty, so let's put the system on trial instead. That playbook is becoming extremely tired. Let’s put Brandon on trial for stealing classified documents. Oh, that’s right, he’s a democRAT so that makes it ok! F’n hypocrites. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Just now, Westside said: Let’s put Brandon on trial for stealing classified documents. Oh, that’s right, he’s a democRAT so that makes it ok! F’n hypocrites. That has been explained ad nauseum, but the rhetoric must go on. I'm pretty sure they explanation didn't include, "because he's a democrat" anywhere. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 (edited) Something about the fruit of a poisoned tree. If that's tampered with, like the videos from the raid??? And then there is this... Tampering with evidence in Florida is a third-degree felony A violation of Florida Statute 918.13 for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence is a felony of the third degree punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Edited June 26 by Tommy Callahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Something about the fruit of a poisoned tree. If that's tampered with, like the videos from the raid??? Not every misstep falls under that doctrine, and these supposed missteps have been intentionally overblown by Twitter hacks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 22 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Thanks for acknowledging that. When the facts (as I understand them, or misunderstood them) change, I may change my mind. Understandable, and I wanted to be sure I addressed it correctly. I didn't want to speak for you. 22 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Not addressed to me, but that's never stopped me from responding ... ... I agree with the first sentence. It was political. If he wasn't Donald Trump, he wouldn't have been prosecuted. In fact, even if he was Donald Trump, former President and retired from politics, it probably wouldn't have been prosecuted. Ok, again, fair enough. 22 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: But I don't agree with the second sentence. We've seen that Trump got away with an awful lot of chicanery and illegality over the years. A lot of crimes that probably weren't prosecuted because he was the uber-connected (with both parties) Donald Trump. At some point, the calculation changes; do you continue to ignore all that past illegality and let him run again, claiming (as he did in his impeachments) that he'd never ever done anything wrong, much less illegal? I didn't like the Bragg prosecution. I thought it was ill-advised - arguable on the law, fairly weak on the facts. I'm now convinced that it was strong on the facts, but still very arguable on the law. But he wasn't railroaded. He got the benefit of the doubt for a long time, not just on this, but on all the other shady (some probably criminal) deals he's been involved with. Sometimes who you are gets you a pass. Sometimes who you are gets you an indictment. Trump has played both roles in that drama. It was a weak case, based on a sh*tty premise, specifically targeted at the one individual but it's not a political hit because he got away with other crimes? That's the justice system in action? Someone claims someone says someone else did something he wasn't charged for, never had a chance to answer to, but it's ok because of make up justice? Ok, but wow. You wonder why people are cynical and don't trust the system? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 1 minute ago, daz28 said: That has been explained ad nauseum, but the rhetoric must go on. I'm pretty sure they explanation didn't include, "because he's a democrat" anywhere. That’s exactly what it was and you know it. The fact that you have no qualms about lying your azz off doesn’t surprise me one bit. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Tampering with evidence in Florida is a third-degree felony A violation of Florida Statute 918.13 for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence is a felony of the third degree punishable by up to 5 years in prison. So, who did the tampering? IS Jack or the FBI agents immune to being prosecuted for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Tampering with evidence in Florida is a third-degree felony A violation of Florida Statute 918.13 for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence is a felony of the third degree punishable by up to 5 years in prison. So, who did the tampering? IS Jack or the FBI agents immune to being prosecuted for it? Of course they are. They are doing the bidding of our corrupt government. So that makes it ok. Bunch of F’n hypocrites. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 27 minutes ago, daz28 said: Jack Smith just released specific discussions trump allegedly had to undermine and/or cover up the classified documents retrieval, and are very damning. Andrew Cuomo might be right, but does that mean that we shouldn't bring up politicians on charges they are guilty of? Best case scenario is they are ALL held accountable. The former intelligence agents said they had seen the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, which they did. Did they do so for nefarious reasons? Possibly, but they weren't lying. The GQP, on the other hand, has been using the laptop for 4 years as nefarious political fodder via Congress. You get way too caught up in GQP talking points, Lenny. At least you're willing to listen to why they are mostly bogus. Imagine us being in a crooked culture for so long, that we had forgotten that THIS was the original problem. Your post reminds me--tonight is spaghetti night. As I pick through it... Jack Smith is prosecuting a case. The accusations are damning, but ignoring the obvious questions that arise given all that we know is foolish. Proceed in that regard as you see fit. You didn't take a position on Andrew Cuomo's comments. Do you think he was telling the truth or not? You're not on trial here, you're among friends. What do you think? Yes, hold everyone accountable, but you seem to feel that's accomplished by selective prosecution. I don't. You didn't take a position on the intelligence agents. Do you think they acted nefariously, that their collective declarations was the result of well-meaning incompetence, or that they absolutely nailed the issue? You're not on trial here...what do you think? I think they made the declaration to sow doubt and provide cover for a story during an election. I'm comfortable managing the talking points and other facets of my life, but all feedback is welcome. Well, not all, but this seems harmless enough. 17 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I don't think Smith would acknowledge leaking material. I just question whether or not there was actually a leak since there is no evidence that anyone had the photo before it was published to the court docket. I mostly agree with @The Frankish Reich on the NY case. I was skeptical of it as first, but the more I learned about NY practice and the evidence presented in the case, I came to the conclusion that it was a strong case. Would Bragg have brought it against an average Joe? Can't say. That office has brought similar charges in the past but I think it's fair to assume that if Trump wasn't Trump, he might not have been charged. Of course, that doesn't mean he was innocent. He very clearly violated the law and a jury found so. Maybe he and Hunter Biden can commiserate together about how unfair life is. If they didn't want to be prosecuted, they probably shouldn't have done crimes. If I recall, the intelligence agents in question stated that the laptop had all of the earmarks of a Russian op but also stated that they were not saying for certain that it was. Also, that was a letter, not a court case, not testimony taken under oath. Just their assessment of a situation. If you want to complain that the media coverage was bad, by all means do so, but I don't think it's relevant to the Smith investigations. Fair enough. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 26 Share Posted June 26 5 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: If in the filing where the DoJ first disclosed the photo, they introduced it by saying that it was a picture of documents they removed from a container, then how was it fabricated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Your post reminds me--tonight is spaghetti night. As I pick through it... Jack Smith is prosecuting a case. The accusations are damning, but ignoring the obvious questions that arise given all that we know is foolish. Proceed in that regard as you see fit. You didn't take a position on Andrew Cuomo's comments. Do you think he was telling the truth or not? You're not on trial here, you're among friends. What do you think? Yes, hold everyone accountable, but you seem to feel that's accomplished by selective prosecution. I don't. You didn't take a position on the intelligence agents. Do you think they acted nefariously, that their collective declarations was the result of well-meaning incompetence, or that they absolutely nailed the issue? You're not on trial here...what do you think? I think they made the declaration to sow doubt and provide cover for a story during an election. I'm comfortable managing the talking points and other facets of my life, but all feedback is welcome. Well, not all, but this seems harmless enough. Fair enough. I did take positions, and that was that it's possible there were nefarious actions/intentions. I'm not going to sit here and claim that I know one way or the other. Selective prosecutions are and always have been an issue. The fact that there is less 'selective prosecution' for the rich and powerful has always bothered me. What Bragg prosecuted trump for may be ticky tack, but that act doesn't happen very often. What they prosecuted Hunter Biden for they could prosecute probably 10 million or more Americans for. To me that's EXTREMELY selective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 7 hours ago, Westside said: That’s exactly what it was and you know it. The fact that you have no qualms about lying your azz off doesn’t surprise me one bit. If you said you knew anything about prosecutions, you'd be lying your ass off. I personally witnessed a judge in traffic court tell an old man that he could leave, and that he should have never been ticketed to begin with. There was an audible moan, but it's just a fact that an old feeble man in court is going to get sympathy. I'd be fine with them charging Biden, Pence, Hillary, and whoever else, but I also do understand why a prosecutor feels that a jury would be sympathetic to Biden. Fwiw, I also do understand why people are upset that the prosecutor labeled a guy running for president as someone who would get sympathy from a jury, but it's the truth(and it's quite sad honestly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 7 minutes ago, daz28 said: I did take positions, and that was that it's possible there were nefarious actions/intentions. I'm not going to sit here and claim that I know one way or the other. Selective prosecutions are and always have been an issue. The fact that there is less 'selective prosecution' for the rich and powerful has always bothered me. What Bragg prosecuted trump for may be ticky tack, but that act doesn't happen very often. What they prosecuted Hunter Biden for they could prosecute probably 10 million or more Americans for. To me that's EXTREMELY selective. “Ticky tack” tells the tale, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: “Ticky tack” tells the tale, thanks. Do you feel that he should have been prosecuted federally? Would it be ok if the rich basically bought up all the bad info that could be found out about them to win elections, basically leaving voters in the dark about the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 9 hours ago, daz28 said: Do you feel that he should have been prosecuted federally? Would it be ok if the rich basically bought up all the bad info that could be found out about them to win elections, basically leaving voters in the dark about the facts. No, I don’t think he should have been prosecuted. I think that there is precious little faith in elected officials and the institution represented by Washington, DC generally. If you want to see a generalized shift in belief in the decency of those in power and the righteousness of people represented by a Merrick Garland and a Jack Smith, change the administration. My thinking has been that Trumps stolen election claim of 2020 was bad for the country—divisive, unsettling, and fed into the natural distrust of Washington and politics in general. However, the Dems claims of illegitimate elections/stolen elections/coup and all that bs that followed in 2016 did exactly the same thing. That one followed the other was completely predictable. To take it one step further—I believe that were the roles reversed, you as an individual would be lamenting the assault on decency and the American way if Biden was the target. So, recognizing most of these people can be targeted by the opposition for illegal/unsavory activity, I think what’s going on with Trump is bad across the board. What’s going to determine which future heads roll will be which party is in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 On 6/25/2024 at 4:52 PM, ChiGoose said: ...Unless I'm missing something, it really seems like this idea of it being a leaked photo staged to damage Trump is just a bad faith concoction. you qwpuld say the same if it was a leaked photo of Biden showering with his daughterwgich she admitted he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 Reminder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts