Tippaporn

Provide links or it's not admissible. I second that. Do provide links, Bkk Brian. When asked you have to respond. Put up on that outrageous unsubstantiated claim.

You make all sorts of assumptions, continue to do so, and refuse to acknowledge any your assumptions as such. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of nonsense.

Okay, now let's pretend that there's never been a single negotiation with any FPOTUS before in the entirety of U.S. history. And let's pretend, too, that the presumption that Trump was illegally in possession of what he had is not a presumption but fact. And let's pretend that no further future information of any specificity about anything will have any bearing on the matter. And let's pretend that Trump didn't have the ability to declassify what he had in his possession. And let's pretend further to forget that no enforcement mechanism exists in this squabble with the National Archives. And above all let's pretend that Trump negotiating with the National Archives is on par with bank robbers negotiating how much money the get to keep.

He was in negotiations. You want to fool people to turn that fact into "not fully cooperating?" Careful when you throw the word "lie" around.

Not in and of itself. You know that but pretend that's not the case here. Leaving some of the truth out is misrepresentation.

Is this what the left actually believes? "This handing over of the self to another in the case of MAGA . . . " ". . . is predicated on a recognition by these folks in Trump of what is in them i.e. xenophobia, racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, fear of never-enough, greed, lust for power, and insatiable need for more and more, sadism, masochism, rage, neurotic needs around control, and a shopping-list of other neuroses, repressions and suppressions." My question is this: How is it possible that a claimed professional mental health clinician could so mangle a diagnosis and mutilate the patient at the same time?

Since you've edited your post since I quoted it . . . "Is everyone who might run for President exempt from criminal investigations, or only Trump?" Criminal investigations, not presumptions of guilt was what you stated. Don't conveniently change the subject.

Oh, let's pretend there are no connections to what's on the laptop and Joe Biden.

Gee I don't know. Perhaps because Newsweek is noted for errors of fact, and has not employed fact-checkers since 1996? Garland sets his own schedule, why should he listen to the bleatings of Fox talking heads and Republican politicians? Why should he answer gotcha questions from a right-wing rump of the media? Is that the way you think the legal process should work? The scientific method teaches respect for facts, evidence, and only accepting hypotheses after they have been tested to destruction. Sadly, I don't see any respect for those attributes from pro-Trump supporters on this thread, it is all what-aboutism, look over there, and it's a lefty conspiracy. Sticking up for Trump is a bit like saying Stalin was good for the Ukrainians in 1931. All the facts and evidence say he has been a disaster for America, except for the very rich. So you're saying that high ranking DOJ officials talking to Newsweek never happened? Or what about their story do you claim they got wrong? And if you say they got it wrong then what reporting tells you that? And how would fact checkers be able to check whether or not Newsweek actually talked to these to DOJ officials? You've had an unprecedented raid on a former U.S. President which has never happened in all of U.S. history, a man who had the record votes of 75 million people, in a hyper political environment where millions believe the government is weaponising it's IC against it's political opponents, and the AG sets his own schedule for addressing the American people by waiting four days after the event? You pass this off as Garland simply not responding to the bleating of Fox talking heads and Republican politicians? Pray tell how should a public servant of the people respond to the people in such a momentous and historical event in your mind? The scientific method should include all facts, not just the ones you want. The latter would be goal seeking. To declare in such absolute terms that all facts and evidence, all mind you, say Trump has been a disaster for America shows extreme bias. Very unscientific in my opinion.

Certain FISA warrants don't come to mind? My memory is not so short.

He's already made a statement on Friday. Trump himself said on his Truth Social platform Friday, "It was all declassified." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

Well, that's an interesting point.

From that article: WASHINGTON — The Republican Party’s post-FBI-raid rally around former President Donald Trump could provide an inadvertent boost to another politician: President Joe Biden. Trump's fundraising is real. Joe Biden's "boost" isn't. No mention of the Dem walkaways in the article.

There's more info. It's coming out by the day.

Since you're on the left and I assume you don't touch base with those on the right then justifiably you would have no idea how this blunder by the DOJ and FBI has galvanised those on the right. I've said it before; I think this is one of the best things that could have happened in a long time. People are fired up like never before. Keep waking up that sleeping giant, I say. You made a claim in your post which I highlighted. Explain this then: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-fundraising-fbi-raid-b2141864.html

It's a logical argument given a small set of facts. But the set is incomplete.

And you know for a fact the status of each document? And whether or not Trump had a right to possess any or all of those docs? I've been asked to provide corroboration to back up my claims. So please do back up your claim of "definitive proof of a felony."

No one other than the MSM is capable of telling the truth in your world? That contention would be too fantastical, and dangerous, to believe. At least for me.

You folks just don't get it that there are people in this world who actually are after the real truth. Whether it goes against Trump or not. Some here believe anything. Anything at all as long as it confirms their Orange Man Bad bias. And if one doesn't agree and doesn't hop on the already overcrowded band wagon then that must mean we're all loony conspiracy theory nuts or Trump sycophants. Much of the world vehemently rejects your false pronunciations. Riddle me this, Lacessit. Why did Newsweek come out with an article quoting two anonymous high level DOJ sources who said they were cleared to state that the DOJ had no knowledge of the raid. https://www.foxnews.com/media/newsweek-blasted-incorrectly-claiming-merrick-garland-didnt-know-about-fbis-trump-raid And Garland doesn't immediately issue a denial. And it took him how long to finally make a public statement? But not answer any questions? Nothing to see here, right? But do give some educated thought to your idea that anyone who sticks up for what they believe is right is automatically a Trump sycophant. Is that the scientific method you've been taught?

Hint: It ain't your precious MSM.

The MSM sure can sound convincing. Especially if you're prone to believe everything they write is gospel. Not all of us suck it up without questioning and willingly ignore so many unaddressed missing pieces. No thanks. I'll wait for the real story. Not the goal sought one-sided version. Most on the left with extreme bias towards Trump have already made up their minds as to the "truth." I'm sure this story will be revisited as more facts come out.

As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but all former Presidents hold security clearances for life. If that is indeed true then that would destroy the theory of your post.

Then deal with my contention that you have nada to say to any poster who makes outlandish claims against Trump with no evidence. Don't be evasive on answering. You can if you want but I know the answer already.

That's an impossibility. Be serious, Chomper.

Your fail in logic is that you conclude that just because the FBI took into possession the items they did means that Trump did not have rightful possession of them. As I remember from the NBC article I posted above Trump was engaged in talks with the DOJ. We don't know yet what he had the right to possess and what he did not. The DOJ can make their claims and Trump can make his. It then gets litigated.