Trump: Gimme back those documents the FBI planted!

[Bugsy McGurk]

A Bidenlandin speaks.

Imitation: The sincerest form of flattery.

;-)

 

[protectionist]

He's lonely, sad, and miserable. He's brought it on himself.

I'm very happy, and you are miserable that you don't have the talent, creativity, and artistic and musical abilities that I have, and you never will. On your deathbed someday, you will say that your biggest regret in life was that you couldn't match up to protectionist (or even come close). You eat your heart out, by trying (fruitlessly) to diminish others. SAD.

 

[protectionist]

Imitation: The sincerest form of flattery.

You have that as a consolation prize.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I'm very happy, and you are miserable that you don't have the talent, creativity, and artistic and musical abilities that I have, and you never will. On your deathbed someday, you will say that your biggest regret in life was that you couldn't match up to protectionist (or even come close). You eat your heart out, by trying (fruitlessly) to diminish others. SAD.

“musical abilities”….

Yer a HOOT!

;-)

 

[protectionist]

Well, they used due process and executed a legal search warrant. Now it looks like they are examining the documents they seized. Next they will either decide whether to charge Trump or anyone else with a crime or to simply secure the misplaced documents. It’s very early in the process at this point. Simply demanding stuff doesn’t change that process. I look forward to reading the court record for tomorrow to see what both sides say. Then the process will continue according to laws of the US. As per those laws, both sides will have ample opportunities to advance their positions. This is how the law works here in the US. I have always found it interesting and fascinating. I love actually reading court documents and judicial decisions.

legal storm troopers

 

[protectionist]

“musical abilities”….

Yer a HOOT!

;-)

Maybe you didn't click my you tube videos, or maybe you just habitually/ridiculously lie.
Yeah, musical abilities, according to 3 employers whom I have worked for as a music teacher, nightclubs where I played with a band for 9 years. When you try to diminish your adversaries who display strength, all you do is give a victory to them.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Maybe you didn't click my you tube videos, or maybe you just habitually/ridiculously lie.
Yeah, musical abilities, according to 3 employers whom I have worked for as a music teacher, nightclubs where I played with a band for 9 years. When you try to diminish your adversaries who display strength, all you do is give a victory to them.
View attachment 72002

As you know, I did listen to them.

Noisy noise.

 

[protectionist]

As you know, I did listen to them.

Noisy noise.

(another jealous regreter)

watch out - there could be a quiz

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

View attachment 72007 View attachment 72006 (another jealous regreter)

watch out - there could be a quiz

A word of advice: Don’t quit your day job.

;-)

 

[Jack4freedom]

Except that you're not too sure about criminal intent.

I know exactly what criminal intent is champ. However the burden that has to be met at this stage is probable cause. It was met so the search warrant was granted. At each stage of criminal proceeding different burdens of proof must be met. Get yourself one of those books For Dummies…..US Criminal Procedures For Dummies….That should get you started and familiarize you with basic terms and basic concepts. Then maybe you can come back and argue some points without looking like a complete jackass.

 

[protectionist]

I know exactly what criminal intent is champ. However the burden that has to be met at this stage is probable cause. It was met so the search warrant was granted. At each stage of criminal proceeding different burdens of proof must be met. Get yourself one of those books For Dummies…..US Criminal Procedures For Dummies….That should get you started and familiarize you with basic terms and basic concepts. Then maybe you can come back and argue some points without looking like a complete jackass.

I have won cases in criminal court based on the lack of criminal intent. (ex. Florida Statute 316.061) I don't need your book or you jackass comments.

 

[protectionist]

A word of advice: Don’t quit your day job.

My day job is teaching music for the top music store in Tampa, Florida. (Sam Ash) + 2 online companies.

A word of advice. Quit forum posting.

 

[Jack4freedom]

legal storm troopers

Legal is the key word there champy. From what was reported by both sides the search warrant that was served at Trump’s Palace last week was executed “legally”, very professionally and very peacefully. No injuries, no property damage no real spectacle. In FACT this incident was not even known about by the press or electronic media until Trump himself reported it after the feds were finished. That’s the American Way!

In case you didn’t know, the term “storm troopers” was coined by the Germans during the early years of the Hitler regime. Those people which were made up of Nazi Gestapo agents were known to smash open doors, crash through then crawl through windows, brutally assault the people in the places they stormed into and were also known to skulk around those properties screaming and yelling slogans. Look it up.

So in effect according to well known facts, the FBI at Trumps house were anything but “strorm troopers”. They were duly appointed law enforcement agents doing their jobs. However the rabid pack of scum that attacked the Capitol last 1-6 acted exactly like Nazi Stormtroopers…..Pretty ironic, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

My day job is teaching music for the top music store in Tampa, Florida. (Sam Ash) + 2 online companies.

A word of advice. Quit forum posting.

hee hee….

Yer a HOOT!

;-)

 

[Mina Park]

You are not able to say that Trump "chose to hold onto" classified documents

As you can see, I am able to say that. What you mean to say is "you hurt my feelings when you said that." That, obviously, is different from "you are not able to say" it.

As for Hillary, she allowed top secret stuff to be passed on the the entire world,

She did not. It turns out her emails were more secure there than if they'd stayed on the government servers, where hacks actually happened.

The case against Hillary is overwhelming, damning.

There was never a case against Clinton. The Republican head of the FBI just pretended there was for a few months directly ahead of the election, in hopes of taking in the credulous. But, eventually even he had to grudgingly admit there was no basis for indictment.

Her claim that she never sent or received anything marked "classified" is merely a word game, because no intelligence is marked "classified."

It's not a word game. The government wasn't able to show she ever knowingly sent or received anything with any of the classified markings with her email account. One thing that propagandists like Comey relied on was the idea that people would leap to conclusions. He said that a small number of emails, out of the tens of thousands they reviewed, had markings indicating classified information. But, they never went into whether there was any reason to think Clinton would have seen those markings.

Here's a simple example, which if you've ever held a job with much authority, will be a very familiar scenario. You're sent an email. Attached to that email is a 100-page document. The email asks you if you can look at the chart on page 15 and confirm it has the most up-to-date numbers. You confirm and reply accordingly. However, on page 72, there's also some social security numbers of customers, which you absolutely shouldn't have been sent. Are you responsible for the presence of that information in your account?

The answer, of course, is no. You never would even have seen that information. If you read every 100-page document that showed up in your inbox when you'd only been asked to look at one specific item, you'd get fired in a hurry, because you'd never get anything done. It's understood that you will never see a lot of what's sitting in your inbox, and that you aren't responsible for the material you wouldn't have seen.

In the same sense, if Clinton gets a 100-page document and is asked to sign off on the executive summary at the front, and somewhere on page 72 is something marked "Top Secret," there's no reason to think she'd even see it, much less that she'd be responsible for it being in her email.

Comey relied on the dummies assuming that those handful of markings were prominent stuff Clinton could be assumed to have seen and ignored. But the government never provided a shred of evidence to make any of the rest of us think that, and the fact even Comey had to advise against indictment sends a pretty strong message about the nature of the markings.

 

[protectionist]

As you can see, I am able to say that. What you mean to say is "you hurt my feelings when you said that." That, obviously, is different from "you are not able to say" it.



She did not. It turns out her emails were more secure there than if they'd stayed on the government servers, where hacks actually happened.



There was never a case against Clinton. The Republican head of the FBI just pretended there was for a few months directly ahead of the election, in hopes of taking in the credulous. But, eventually even he had to grudgingly admit there was no basis for indictment.



It's not a word game. The government wasn't able to show she ever knowingly sent or received anything with any of the classified markings with her email account. One thing that propagandists like Comey relied on was the idea that people would leap to conclusions. He said that a small number of emails, out of the tens of thousands they reviewed, had markings indicating classified information. But, they never went into whether there was any reason to think Clinton would have seen those markings.

Here's a simple example, which if you've ever held a job with much authority, will be a very familiar scenario. You're sent an email. Attached to that email is a 100-page document. The email asks you if you can look at the chart on page 15 and confirm it has the most up-to-date numbers. You confirm and reply accordingly. However, on page 72, there's also some social security numbers of customers, which you absolutely shouldn't have been sent. Are you responsible for the presence of that information in your account?

The answer, of course, is no. You never would even have seen that information. If you read every 100-page document that showed up in your inbox when you'd only been asked to look at one specific item, you'd get fired in a hurry, because you'd never get anything done. It's understood that you will never see a lot of what's sitting in your inbox, and that you aren't responsible for the material you wouldn't have seen.

In the same sense, if Clinton gets a 100-page document and is asked to sign off on the executive summary at the front, and somewhere on page 72 is something marked "Top Secret," there's no reason to think she'd even see it, much less that she'd be responsible for it being in her email.

Comey relied on the dummies assuming that those handful of markings were prominent stuff Clinton could be assumed to have seen and ignored. But the government never provided a shred of evidence to make any of the rest of us think that, and the fact even Comey had to advise against indictment sends a pretty strong message about the nature of the markings.

What kind of ludicrous propaganda idiocy have you been listening to ? (and being DUPED by)

As I said (and say again) > You are not able to say that Trump "chose to hold onto" classified documents. You have no idea what Trump chose.

"It turns out" ? Nothing turned out in any way than what it was from the beginning. Hillary allowed top secret stuff to be passed on to the entire world, by putting it all on an unencrypted insecure server, sitting ducks for hackers, which IT people in Russia, China. Iran, North Korea, etc are experts at. Some people have to be told twice.

The FBI is a subdivision of the DOJ which was the creator of the Durham investigation which reported tons of criminal activity by Hillary et al Democrats, all whitewashed away by the totally biased court of Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee.

UPDATED List of Crimes Hillary Has Potentially Committed

Hillary deserves jail time, no question. Her laundry list of offenses, none of them minor, have been documented well and publicly to boot.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani weighed in on the democratic front runner as well, stating, “Particularly the mention of 18 United States Code Section 1001,” Giuliani added. “That’s a big statute. That’s the statute Martha Stewart was indicted under and it makes it a crime to give a false statement, not just under oath, but a false statement, for example, to an FBI agent or an assistant U.S. Attorney.”

Here’s the list as it currently stands.
18USC§201 Bribery
18USC§208 Acts Effecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations)
18USC§371 Conspiracy
18USC§1001 False Statements
18USC§1341 Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud)
18USC§1343 Fraud By Wire
18USC§1349 Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud)
18USC§1505 Obstruction Of Justice
18USC§1519 Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation
18USC§1621 Perjury (Including Documents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury)
18USC§1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information
18USC§1924 Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material
18USC§2071 Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records
18USC§7201 Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)
18USC§7212 Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)

Using an unsecured private email server for government use, of course, is a crime in and of itself. But in true Nixonian fashion, Clinton took it a step further by covering up the underlying crime. She initially refused to turn over the server in question, even as she used the server’s eventual breach by hackers as supposed “proof” of Russian interference. When the server was finally handed over to the FBI, it was done only after more than 30,000 emails had been erased, with Clinton claiming – without evidence – that all of the deleted emails were “personal.”

When further questioned about deliberately wiping the server, Clinton gave a response that feigned ignorance but reeked of arrogance, sarcastically asking “What, like with a cloth or something?” It’s not hard to imagine that if President Trump had made a similar statement, the media would have an absolute field day with such a response, and use it to call into question his intelligence, integrity, or even his ability to hold the office. But Clinton, as always, got a free pass from the media.

This deliberate obstruction of justice, and subsequent destruction of evidence, was the same crime for which Richard Nixon was ultimately driven out of office. But Clinton’s mass deletion of evidence was on a vastly larger scale than the mere 18 minutes of Watergate tapes that Nixon erased, and the bungled burglary he tried to hide. And furthermore, with a wide variety of matters discussed and shared on Clinton’s private server, it’s clear that far greater national security risks were taken by Clinton than by Nixon, who only sought to cover up a single crime that was relatively petty by comparison.

And Hillary is the queen of all liars The list of things she absurdly claimed she didnt know is long >>

She Didn’t Know About Benghazi….
She didn’t know about Bill’s cheating ways.
She didn’t know about Whitewater.
She didn’t know about Harvey Weinstein…
She didn’t know about Monica.
She didn’t know about sick-pervert Weiner.
She didn’t know about her Emails or how they got Erased….(“Like with a Cloth ?”)…
She didn’t know how her 13 phones got smashed with a hammer…
She didn’t know about looting the White House of $ 200,000 of furnishings….
She didn’t know about File Gate….how the files got in the White House & had her Fingerprints….
She didn’t know about Huma being a Muslim Brotherhood Princess.
She didn’t know about Vince Foster ‘s death.
She didn’t know about Top security insignias. (“What does the C stand for ?”)
She found out about the Fake-Russian-Dossier from…..”Bussfeed”….
The list goes on & on. .
And some how Obama said she was the Most Qualified to be President.

Then there's the infamous Clinton Body Count list of people closely associated with the Clintons who mysteriously died, many of whom were about to testify against the Clintons.

"THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT " (whatreallyhappened.com)

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Right now, especially in big Red State havens like Texas, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Idaho and Nebraska there are small armies of roadside bandits working under the guise of State and Local police agencies routinely stopping motorists for no reason, searching vehicles with NO WARRANT and stealing money from them and or arresting them even though no illegal contraband has been found….Look it up in your Google.

That’s why a guy like Trump who not only supports this kind of crap but is now spouting off about executing these people has no reason to be whining about a legal search warrant being served at his house. Ass holes like DeSantis, Abbott and other phony conservatives have fully supported these roadside holdups. Abbot as AG of Texas supported his police officers who were searching womens vaginas on the side of the road warrantlessly looking for a joint they thought might be stashed up their coochies. Google up on that too.

If you don't see the parallels between that and what the FBI did to Trump wrt "Russian collusion," Jack, you need a new pair of peepers - you ain't seeing straight...

 

[Mina Park]

What kind of ludicrous propaganda idiocy have you been listening to ? (and being DUPED by)

None at all, which is why we're on such different pages here.

As I said (and say again) > You are not able to say that Trump "chose to hold onto" classified documents.

Trump chose to hold onto classified documents.

Gee, looks like you're wrong. I was, as a demonstrable matter of fact, able to say that.

"It turns out" ?

It did, indeed. While we have all manner of evidence that various government data sources have been hacked, as well as various private ones, no evidence ever emerged that Clinton's email was hacked, and we're well past the time the information from such a hack would have been leaked to hurt her if it had happened (the way DNC email was leaked by the Russians to help Trump get elected).

Hillary allowed top secret stuff to be passed on to the entire world

As you know, she didn't.

The FBI is a subdivision of the DOJ which was the creator of the Durham investigation which reported tons of criminal activity by Hillary et al Democrats

It turns out that all the witch-hunting failed to find even a single crime by Clinton... and that's particularly interesting given the extent of that witch-hunt.

You could make a plausible argument that no human in history was ever investigated as much as Clinton, since there was a full-court press on her from about 1992 through 2016, covering absolutely every aspect of her personal and professional life. In all that time they found nothing (despite endless grilling under oath, the extraordinary powers of a Javert-like Independent Counsel, and a line-by-line review of tens of thousands of her emails in the hopes of finding something to use against her).

Who has ever endured that kind of scrutiny for so long? I can't think of anyone. Yet, with all that, she came away looking squeaky clean. All the investigators managed to do, inadvertently, is to convince any fair-minded observer that she was almost pathologically honest and law-abiding.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

What deadline have you established for DOJ indictments of Trump and his cronies for heisting the documents?

Weeks not months. And they need to share the predicate immediately.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I would like to see a lot of things regarding the process change Raoul. I think that federal and state law enforcement agencies have been given way too much power over these past 5-6 decades as it pertains to search and siezure laws, confiscation of one’s money and property without even charging one with a crime etc.

However I don’t think it’s fair to treat the general public one way and rich, famous, powerful pricks like Trump another way. Those who say stuff like, “if they can do it to Trump, they can do it to you” but the real deal is the other way around. They are using these laws to fvck every day Americans around on a daily basis and have been for decades. Now all of a sudden, these phony conservatives are all up in arms because they are using those laws they fought for and supported against one of their boys. Hypocrisy, you bet…

Funny how you are only okay with them using the same shitty tactics on Republicans.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Jack.