Tommy Callahan Posted October 4 Posted October 4 Is there some reference to who CC1, P37 or number 5 are.
Backintheday544 Posted October 4 Posted October 4 7 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Is there some reference to who CC1, P37 or number 5 are. this is a good summary of the ones people figured out https://www.newsweek.com/list-redacted-people-jack-smith-filing-donald-trump-1963301 CC1 Rudy Giuliani - Trump's personal attorney CC2 John Eastman - Trump lawyer CC3 Sidney Powell - Trump lawyer CC5 Kenneth Chesebro - Trump lawyer CC6 Boris Epshteyn - Trump adviser P1 - Steve Bannon - Former White House chief strategist P17 - Brian Kemp - Georgia governor P21 - Mark Meadows - Former White House chief of staff
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 4 Posted October 4 39 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said: The SCOTUS "Immunity" Decision has nothing to do with a FORMER President keeping records after they were requested (several times I believe) to it is you who is changing the subject again. There also might a reason more than one person used the traffic stop analogy, it seems to apply nicely if you don't try and tie yourself in knots explaining away why a FORMER president kept documents he wasn't allows to have after they were requested back, including evidence the knowingly did this and tried to conceal them from recovery and shared them with people (some of who may have been foreign agents) not clear to see such materials. Whine all you want about how unfair it is to the Felon, but in reality it is unfair to the American people that he acted with such disregard for public property, and with the trust placed in him by the American people. Most sensible people would have to work hard to put together a post so unabashedly self-aware as this one, Starr, but kudos to you for setting the benchmark. L. Ron: "I think some things are black and white...Trump supporters never think he lies..etc etc..." Leh-nerd: "I think this...because of that...everything in not black and white...what are your thoughts about the SC and immunity as it relates to the subject of Trump/Smith...etc etc". Starr: "LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT AND IMMUNITY AS IT RELATES TO TRUMP/SMITH AND BLACK AND WHITE ISSUES AND THE FORMER PRESIDENT." Leh-nerd: I understand you don't want to discuss that, Starr, but I do. Your terms are unacceptable to me. Starr: YOU'RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. THIS IS ABOUT TRUMP/SMITH AND NOTHING ELSE! IT'S AN AFRONT TO CIVILITY AND DEBATE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT! Starr, 12.3 seconds later: Now, let's talk about vehicle and traffic law and how it applies here... 🤫 1
Scraps Posted October 4 Posted October 4 1 hour ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Everything you were told to. So you couldn't provide a single example. Not surprising. That would have taken thought and work. 5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Most sensible people would have to work hard to put together a post so unabashedly self-aware as this one, Starr, but kudos to you for setting the benchmark. L. Ron: "I think some things are black and white...Trump supporters never think he lies..etc etc..." Leh-nerd: "I think this...because of that...everything in not black and white...what are your thoughts about the SC and immunity as it relates to the subject of Trump/Smith...etc etc". Starr: "LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT AND IMMUNITY AS IT RELATES TO TRUMP/SMITH AND BLACK AND WHITE ISSUES AND THE FORMER PRESIDENT." Leh-nerd: I understand you don't want to discuss that, Starr, but I do. Your terms are unacceptable to me. Starr: YOU'RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. THIS IS ABOUT TRUMP/SMITH AND NOTHING ELSE! IT'S AN AFRONT TO CIVILITY AND DEBATE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT! Starr, 12.3 seconds later: Now, let's talk about vehicle and traffic law and how it applies here... 🤫 How does the immunity decision change the documents case? 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted October 4 Posted October 4 28 minutes ago, Scraps said: So you couldn't provide a single example. Not surprising. That would have taken thought and work. How does the immunity decision change the documents case? Who puts thought into this? If so, your doing it wrong. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 4 Posted October 4 11 minutes ago, Scraps said: How does the immunity decision change the documents case? I responded to a post about Trump supporters, and my thoughts on the odd set of circumstances that seem to surround the cases involving Trump. Here's my disclaimer: I don't care one way or the other how L Ron, Starr, you or anyone else feel about that, I was simply communicating how I feel to another poster. I asked about the SC and immunity to that particular poster because I was interested in thoughts on the SC decision. I'm not a Rubix cube, not the DaVinci Code, not an enigma wrapped in a riddle. To his credit, @L Ron Burgundy answered the question apparently of his own volition, with no undue or harsh pressure exerted upon him to compel his reply. We all can rest easy tonight on that issue. Now, maybe you can help me with your perspective on thoughts shared by another poster. Do you feel a case involving a driver going 49 in a 40 is directly relevant to a case involving a Special Counsel, an armed raid of a private dwelling, charges lodged, decisions made, Supreme Court involvement, the handling/mishandling of classified documents, and the impact on a presidential election? I don't recall seeing the '49 in a 40' precedent in the Smith filings. 1
Scraps Posted October 4 Posted October 4 10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I responded to a post about Trump supporters, and my thoughts on the odd set of circumstances that seem to surround the cases involving Trump. Here's my disclaimer: I don't care one way or the other how L Ron, Starr, you or anyone else feel about that, I was simply communicating how I feel to another poster. I asked about the SC and immunity to that particular poster because I was interested in thoughts on the SC decision. I'm not a Rubix cube, not the DaVinci Code, not an enigma wrapped in a riddle. To his credit, @L Ron Burgundy answered the question apparently of his own volition, with no undue or harsh pressure exerted upon him to compel his reply. We all can rest easy tonight on that issue. Now, maybe you can help me with your perspective on thoughts shared by another poster. Do you feel a case involving a driver going 49 in a 40 is directly relevant to a case involving a Special Counsel, an armed raid of a private dwelling, charges lodged, decisions made, Supreme Court involvement, the handling/mishandling of classified documents, and the impact on a presidential election? I don't recall seeing the '49 in a 40' precedent in the Smith filings. You criticized L. Ron. for not wanting to talk about the SC. 1 hour later to laud him for answering about the SC. Which is it and how the the SC affect the documents case? 1 1
Starr-Bills Posted October 4 Posted October 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Most sensible people would have to work hard to put together a post so unabashedly self-aware as this one, Starr, but kudos to you for setting the benchmark. L. Ron: "I think some things are black and white...Trump supporters never think he lies..etc etc..." Leh-nerd: "I think this...because of that...everything in not black and white...what are your thoughts about the SC and immunity as it relates to the subject of Trump/Smith...etc etc". Starr: "LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT AND IMMUNITY AS IT RELATES TO TRUMP/SMITH AND BLACK AND WHITE ISSUES AND THE FORMER PRESIDENT." Leh-nerd: I understand you don't want to discuss that, Starr, but I do. Your terms are unacceptable to me. Starr: YOU'RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. THIS IS ABOUT TRUMP/SMITH AND NOTHING ELSE! IT'S AN AFRONT TO CIVILITY AND DEBATE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT! Starr, 12.3 seconds later: Now, let's talk about vehicle and traffic law and how it applies here... 🤫 This was about the documents case right? The time in question was after “the peaceful transfer of power” right? How does immunity for a president apply to actions after being president? You are right I am self aware (pretty sure that’s not what you meant but you’re on a roll and I don’t want to interrupt). immunity is about (according to Scotus) official or potentially official actions of the president. Once you leave office, you are no longer the president despite the fact that people provide you with the honorary of still calling you president you are actually not president, but just a civilian just a citizen, a citizen, possessing top-secret documents and potentially sharing those top secret documents after they’ve been requested to be returned is not a presidential immunity situation. It’s not a get out a free jail card. at least that’s how I read the rulings in the interpretations of the rulings and the situation. Obviously, you have a different opinion we can agree to disagree and let the courts resolve the issue I guess. Edited October 4 by Starr-Bills I read the rest of your response. It’s moronic.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 4 Posted October 4 12 minutes ago, Scraps said: You criticized L. Ron. for not wanting to talk about the SC. 1 hour later to laud him for answering about the SC. Which is it and how the the SC affect the documents case? I didn't, and it is what it is, as it was when I typed the response. 1
Scraps Posted October 4 Posted October 4 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I didn't, and it is what it is, as it was when I typed the response. So how does the immunity decision change the documents case? 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 4 Posted October 4 3 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said: This was about the documents case right? The time in question was after “the peaceful transfer of power” right? How does immunity for a president apply to actions after being president? You are right I am self aware (pretty sure that’s not what you meant but you’re on a roll and I don’t want to interrupt). immunity is about (according to Scotus) official or potentially official actions of the president. Once you leave office, you are no longer the president despite the fact that people provide you with the honorary of still calling you president you are actually not president, but just a civilian just a citizen, a citizen, possessing top-secret documents and potentially sharing those top secret documents after they’ve been requested to be returned is not a presidential immunity situation. It’s not a get out a free jail card. at least that’s how I read the rulings in the interpretations of the rulings and the situation. Obviously, you have a different opinion we can agree to disagree and let the courts resolve the issue I guess. My most recent post was dedicated to pointing out your lack of self-awareness. Initially, I didn't suggest you were changing the subject, that was you directing criticism at me. I had no issue with your suggestion we move past the Immunity conversation, I just didn't want to do that. With respect to the entire process, I've shared my thoughts. I understand yours and L Rons. I was under no illusion I would change any hearts or minds. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 4 Posted October 4 10 minutes ago, Scraps said: So how does the immunity decision change the documents case? Who said it did? 1
Scraps Posted October 4 Posted October 4 3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Who said it did? You have asked others to apply the immunity case decision. Those people said the immunity decision does not apply to the documents case. Are you agreeing that the immunity decision does not apply to the documents case? 1
Starr-Bills Posted October 4 Posted October 4 5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Who said it did? It’s not just me all of us here. Thought you implied it when you brought Scotus into the conversation.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 4 Posted October 4 1 minute ago, Scraps said: You have asked others to apply the immunity case decision. Those people said the immunity decision does not apply to the documents case. Are you agreeing that the immunity decision does not apply to the documents case? In the past, I've wasted time with dishonest posters, and you remind me of one. Strike 1: You inquired with a question, I answered and posed one of my own. You w*ssed out without answering. Strike 2: You lied about insults lobbed at L Ron, I gave you an opportunity to step up, you w*ssed out again. Strike 3: I asked you who suggested the Immunity case changed the documents case, you w*ssed out again. Strike 4: I didn't ask anyone to apply anything. Have a nice day. 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 4 Posted October 4 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said: It’s not just me all of us here. Thought you implied it when you brought Scotus into the conversation. I've been accused of being overly wordy, condescending, high and mighty, a nazi, and delightfully handsome and charming in my time here. I can't help what you (and all of you) think, but I believe most do not need a secret decoder ring to figure out what I think on topics I engage in. I asked because I wanted to know what L. Ron thought about that particular subject. He answered. That's it. Oh, and some people* think you stated that I was changing the subject when I asked L that question, and that you went and changed the subject when you brought up speeding tickets in a hilarious coincidence. Do you think you mirrored the behavior that you think I implied when I didn't? (*For clarity--I am "some people") Edited October 4 by leh-nerd skin-erd 1
aristocrat Posted October 4 Posted October 4 3 hours ago, Roundybout said: Of course you’d say that. You said it about Obama too. No I didn’t I voted for him. He wasn’t what I thought he’d be but he wasn’t the worst
B-Man Posted October 4 Posted October 4 21 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: and charming in my time here. Can Confirm. Meanwhile, when it comes to Tibsy's Trump threads. 1
Tiberius Posted October 4 Author Posted October 4 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: Can Confirm. Meanwhile, when it comes to Tibsy's Trump threads. Exactly, you guys are proud he is a criminal. Criminals don't care about the law, the constitution or anything. And Sabres are losing and looking bad
Scraps Posted October 4 Posted October 4 38 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: In the past, I've wasted time with dishonest posters, and you remind me of one. Strike 1: You inquired with a question, I answered and posed one of my own. You w*ssed out without answering. Strike 2: You lied about insults lobbed at L Ron, I gave you an opportunity to step up, you w*ssed out again. Strike 3: I asked you who suggested the Immunity case changed the documents case, you w*ssed out again. Strike 4: I didn't ask anyone to apply anything. Have a nice day. 1. I asked a question. You did not answer. You wussed out and deflected. 2. I confused your discussions between L. Ron and Starr Bills. I'm guilty of that but since you didn't answer my question, I felt no compulsion to answer yours. 3.. I'm obviously not the only person who thought you suggested the immunity case had an impact. I asked again and you wussed out. 4. So you agree that the immunity decision should not impact the documents case?
Recommended Posts