F.B.I. Raids Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate

Page 46 of 67 [ 1069 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 ... 67  Next

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

05 Sep 2022, 8:25 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

This guy thinks you (the American public) are completely stupid:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marco-ru ... 6be047c4bf


Don't all politicians?

Of course, I doubt the average American is really aware there are LAWS extremely specific to the unique situation of presidential documents, and that violating those laws is a whole lot more serious than a traffic violation.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

05 Sep 2022, 8:37 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
So you have formed and are stubbornly holding onto an opinion based on your memory of events without ever having looked up the one document that matters? The worst part for me is I can't even call you out for that because I know as well as anyone that we all have to make choices on how we spend our time, and I've unknowingly argued opinions that, it turned out, could easily have been refuted. It's human nature, but, dang, its annoying sitting on the other side of it.

Let me help you out, it takes less than a minute to read: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr ... 1/download

Primary purpose: Russian interference.
Scope: allowed to include investigation into individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.
Note: complete lack of authorization to investigate Donald Trump himself.

Given the scope and my note are open to some interpretation, be aware that Mueller has stated he felt the document did NOT give him authority to investigate Donald Trump, the individual, and he did not do so.

I realize you don't care. So be it. But ... my opinion on this is weighing a whole lot heavier than yours.

I said I don't remember if I read it. Why would you expect anyone to remember whether or not they read a generic blurb like that five years ago?

Now as to article one: any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump


How do you figure that excludes Donald Trump?



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

06 Sep 2022, 12:03 am

Matrix Glitch wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
So you have formed and are stubbornly holding onto an opinion based on your memory of events without ever having looked up the one document that matters? The worst part for me is I can't even call you out for that because I know as well as anyone that we all have to make choices on how we spend our time, and I've unknowingly argued opinions that, it turned out, could easily have been refuted. It's human nature, but, dang, its annoying sitting on the other side of it.

Let me help you out, it takes less than a minute to read: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr ... 1/download

Primary purpose: Russian interference.
Scope: allowed to include investigation into individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.
Note: complete lack of authorization to investigate Donald Trump himself.

Given the scope and my note are open to some interpretation, be aware that Mueller has stated he felt the document did NOT give him authority to investigate Donald Trump, the individual, and he did not do so.

I realize you don't care. So be it. But ... my opinion on this is weighing a whole lot heavier than yours.

I said I don't remember if I read it. Why would you expect anyone to remember whether or not they read a generic blurb like that five years ago?

Now as to article one: any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump


How do you figure that excludes Donald Trump?


As I pointed out, the language in that part isn't very clear. Trump isn't necessarily his campaign. I read the line and see a reference to campaign staff, not the candidate. There are comments from Mueller on how he understood it, which was not including Trump. Anyway. We aren't going to agree.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 12:16 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
So you have formed and are stubbornly holding onto an opinion based on your memory of events without ever having looked up the one document that matters? The worst part for me is I can't even call you out for that because I know as well as anyone that we all have to make choices on how we spend our time, and I've unknowingly argued opinions that, it turned out, could easily have been refuted. It's human nature, but, dang, its annoying sitting on the other side of it.

Let me help you out, it takes less than a minute to read: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr ... 1/download

Primary purpose: Russian interference.
Scope: allowed to include investigation into individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump.
Note: complete lack of authorization to investigate Donald Trump himself.

Given the scope and my note are open to some interpretation, be aware that Mueller has stated he felt the document did NOT give him authority to investigate Donald Trump, the individual, and he did not do so.

I realize you don't care. So be it. But ... my opinion on this is weighing a whole lot heavier than yours.

I said I don't remember if I read it. Why would you expect anyone to remember whether or not they read a generic blurb like that five years ago?

Now as to article one: any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump


How do you figure that excludes Donald Trump?


As I pointed out, the language in that part isn't very clear. Trump isn't necessarily his campaign. I read the line and see a reference to campaign staff, not the candidate. There are comments from Mueller on how he understood it, which was not including Trump. Anyway. We aren't going to agree.

I've read that brief document a few times now, and what is written in it does not eliminate Trump himself. Like the Mar a Lago warrant, it is worded in such a way as to be open ended to include anyone / anything. In other words, both documents are ambiguous. And I doubt that wasn't intentional.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

06 Sep 2022, 3:40 am

FBI Investigators have now recovered thousands of documents, including more than 100 with classified and top-secret markings.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ago-search

At his most recent rally 1 day ago Trump declared “It was not just my home that was raided last month. It was the hopes and dreams of every citizen who I’ve been fighting for.”

And the MAGA faithful obeyed their tyrant master to condemn the FBI

Image



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Sep 2022, 6:18 am

You have idiots in every country….

Ive met some idiotic Canadians—but I certainly wouldn’t categorize the “Canadian public” as being idiotic.



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 6:40 am

It could be said it's idiotic not to see how the FBI / DOJ could be weaponized.

Also what's the point of making a big deal out of thousands of documents, when there's maybe 100 that are pertinent. It's a case of trying to make something sound worse than it actually is.



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 7:05 am

Judge grants Trump's request for a 'special master' to review materials seized from Mar-a-Lago.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/05/poli ... index.html

I think this is great news. It will be interesting to see how this neutral party assesses the matter.

As I recall there was a lot of balking over this taking place.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Sep 2022, 7:34 am

Let's hope this "special master" is actually "neutral."



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

06 Sep 2022, 7:39 am

Oh I'm sure the Democrats will scream he's not. It's their only recouse now that their attempt to bar one faild.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Sep 2022, 7:43 am

Keep in mind that I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. If a Democrat did the same sorts of things as Trump did, I would be just as vociferous in my opposition to that person. Even if an Independent did these sorts of things.....Trying to offset a legitimate election result transcends political party.

I feel like common sense tells me that Trump has to be bought down. I feel the "special master" will only delay things.

Again....what is it that makes Trump so appealing that one has to advocate for him constantly, no matter the evidence?



Last edited by kraftiekortie on 06 Sep 2022, 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

06 Sep 2022, 7:47 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Again....what is it that makes Trump so appealing that one has to advocate for him constantly, no matter the evidence?

It is baffling.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Sep 2022, 7:54 am

Every time something is revealed about Trump, Trump reverts back to his schoolyard bully days. He makes up "names" for those who revealed something about him (Trump).

The reason why I know this....is because I used to be bullied in exactly this manner...in the schoolyard.

When Trump starts calling people names, this is an indication that he is guilty of something. Otherwise, he would just provide proof that contradicts the charges leveled against him.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,610

06 Sep 2022, 7:59 am

Ad hominem attacks often indicate that there is a problem with one’s argument, such as a lack of evidence. His fan base might not “get” that. We need to be teaching this stuff in schools. People should know how to spot a bad argument.


_________________
“The darkness shall be the light, and the stillness the dancing.”
— from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Sep 2022, 8:02 am

Or spot a blatant lack of "common sense" by making use of "critical thinking."



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Sep 2022, 8:06 am

The reason why classified documents are taken so seriously......is that they COULD be sold to the highest bidder. Hence, the "Espionage" aspect of the investigation.

Why did Trump take all these documents back to his home, instead of immediately putting them in the Archives?

Imagine if Nixon did that?