Longwood50

These are a distinction without a difference. There were classified documents in Joe Biden's garage. Totally unguarded. The law does not give an asterisk for how few they are, how limited the content or the fact they were returned. With Hillary, she not only had classified material stored on a personal server in her bathroom. SHE SHARED ACCESS TO IT. Both are violations of the law Come on Don't Pretend you can't see the difference in treatment. You have had this explained to you dozens of times already. It is purely a case of the law is for "thee and not for me"

As I said, name one person just one who the New York attorney's office has without a complaint of the bank said, I am going to subpoena the records and review let alone prosecute. This is clear targeting of a political opponent and using government funds to pummel. The fact that Cohen may have said something is irrelevant.

I started my post by saying this was political targeting. Weaponizing government to go after only your political opponents and letting your friends go free. I would tell you that the ATF going after Hunter Biden for a gun application permit crime was "politically motivated" Few if any are ever charged with lying on the ATF form. Most prosecuted tend to be people with felony convictions who know they are not supposed to have a firearm. With Trump, 1. Name one just one company or individual that the New York Attorney Generals Office went to a bank without the bank filing a complaint and sought out specifically that person, or company to examine the records. 2. Name one just one company or individual that the New York Attorney Generals Office has brought charges for inflating financial net worth when applying for a loan. If Trump was, and I believe it to be true THE ONLY PERSON the NY Attorney General sought any information on, that is weaponizing. Not any different than if the police say they are stopping drunk driving but only stop your car and not one elses.

You continue to deflect. Tell me why Biden should not then be prosecuted also. My point and I keep repeating it and you keep ignoring it is not that crimes may or may not have been committed. Tell me specifically why Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for sharing classified inforamation with those without security clearance. Tell me why Biden is not being prosecuted for keeping classified information in his corvette in an unguarded garage with access open to his son and others. That sir is weaponizing when you only go after your political opponents and let your friends go off scott free. I will await your repsonse. But I expect more deflection. Since you are such a big one one prosecuting the guilty. Tell me when the trials for the White House Press Secretary begin. She was warned of the violation of the Hatch Act but chose to ignore it. Oh wait. No trial. It says the office chose to not take any disciplinary action. While Jean-Pierre and Bates acted “contrary” to the OSC’s warning and guidance, the office decided against any disciplinary action, Hatch Act Unit Chief Ana Galindo‐Marrone said in a letter sent in October. Galindo‐Marrone said Jean-Pierre and Bates had not appeared to use “MAGA” in an official capacity since their June infractions but that the OSC would keep watch for future violations. Gosh, I wonder what they would do if they didn't take the law and upholding the Hatch Act seriously. Give them a bonus?

Yes the rep said they would send a person out to do the actual measuring. I raised the same issue with them saying that though we had an architect plan there was no guarantee that the actual construction was perfect to the plan.

The SCG system I looked at was Galvanized Steel. It was bolted together. The only welding was there were something called a stud beam. This as I understand it was a beam attached to each pillar and welded. Then the roof assembly is bolted to the stud beam. The remainder of the roof truss assembly would be lifted into place and bolted together.

Again you keep missing the point. Lets say Trump is guilty of everything you say he is. MY POINT SEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. ONLY HE IS BEING SINGLED OUT FOR PROSECUTION I have challenged you on several occasions. I will do it again. Name 1 just 1 other person or company that the NY attorney generals office has gone to a bank, subpoened records and then charged them with inflating the value of supporting documents given to the bank, when the bank did not complain. You talk about Trump and the classified documents. OK lets say he should not have had them. NEITHER SHOULD BIDEN. THEY WERE STORED IN HIS CORVETTE. AT LEAST TRUMPS WERE IN MAR LARGO WHICH WAS SECURED BY THE SECRET SERVCIE. So who who was the most guilty Biden or Trump in mishandling the documents With Hillary, she not only had classified material BUT SHE SHARED IT WITH HUMA ABEDIN AND CHERYL MILLS. Trump did not share the documents so again who is more guilty and who is being prosecuted If you only use the government and its agencies to go against your polticial enemies. THAT IS WEAPONIZING. AND THAT SIR IS WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE. This has been a strategy from the very beginning. Keep prosecuting him, for whatever offenses you can find or dream up like Russia Gate. Make him expend his energy and money fighting the government at every turn.

Now there is truly the most stupid comment I have ever heard on ths forum. 1. Trump was targeted from the moment he started to run for office. 2. They targeted him over the Stormy Daniels issue 3. They falsely targeted him for the Russia Gate which was totally fabricated based on a dossier paid for by the DNC and by Hillary Clinton 4. They targeted him for impeachment for suggesting that Ukraine investigate the Biden/Ukraine arrangement. That despite Biden himself being taped bragging he got the prosecutor fired and that brought no outcry 5. They have attempted to target him for the emoluments clause because some government employees stayed at his resorts 6 They have targeted him for the January 6 incident despite no proof he did anything to incite it. 7. They sued him in New York for Trump University. PS Florida and Texas both investigated the same issue and found no reason to sue 8. Now HE IS THE ONLY PERSON. I REPEAT THE ONLY PERSON that the state of NY has ever deliberately gone after for supplying what has been described as inflated assets. Mind you irrespective of the financials THE BANK WAS BEING PAID 9. They are indicting him for having classified information in his possesion. However with Biden, his family has received money from both Russia and China but no indictments. He got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired that was investigating his son but no charges. He stuck classified documents not inside a residence guarded by secret service but totally accessible to others including his son. No charges. Hillary Clinton broke the law by having a private server. That is against the law. She used personal rather than government email That is against the law. She destroyed records under subpoena that is against the law. She lied to congress and the FBI under oath that is against the law. She failed to turn over all records to the GSA, that is against the law. However, no charges ever brought. I suggest sir, your hatred for Trump has so totally obscured your ability to look objectively.

With SCG were your trusses Galvanized Steel? The quote we had was for galvanized and my understanding is that though it does not rust, it does not have the weight bearing.

I am building a bungalow home. I have come across companies that do pre-engineered roof trusses. They are slightly less expensive and supposedly go up much faster, and are stronger. However, I am a bit concerned since they obviously look at the architect plans and build to that spec. If the home is actually slightly off, I worry the roof wont fit. Here is the checklist that the Truss company gave on the reason for all the advantages. Has anyone had experience with the pre-engineered truss roofs and can advise me as to whether they are a good or bad thing. I would save about 100,000 to 150,000 baht with the pre-enginnered but supposedly they go up in far less time, which is a huge advantage.

Danderman, You are the one that is wrong. 1. There is no determination if Trump did or did not declassify the documents. 2. Trumps attorneys WERE ALREADY IN TALKS WITH THE DOJ regarding the return of documents and there were disagreements over the classificiation. Despite the talks Mar Largo was raided but not Joe Bidens Garage 3. As to your comment about the Secret Service. That is a red herring argument THE ENTIRE FACILITY WAS GUARDED BY SECRET SERVICE Hint: That includes the documents inside of it, irrepsective of whether the secret service knew of their location 4. You convenently omit that the Biden car and garage was not guarded by anyone at all. The crime sir is taking classified documents and not securing them safely. The fact they were returned IS IRRELEVANT. 5. I notice you conveniently omit reference to Hillarly Clinton who not only did not return them but rather destroyed the servers and her phones. Something that Trump did not do 6. You conveniently omit that Hillary was given a pass despite sharing classified material with her computer people and her aides. Again that is a crime and something that Trump did not do. My issue is solely THERE IS AN UNEQUAL TREATMENT BASED PURELY POLITICAL You weaponize the NY attorney generals office to look ONLY AT TRUMP RECORDS AND NO ONE ELSE. You have the DOJ issue a raid on Trump but not on Hillary or Biden. If you can't see that is unequal treatment, I suggest your get a cranial imaging test. Your brain is missing.

No not at all, Perhaps Trump is guilty however 1. name one just one other person the state of NY has gone after for fabricating or inflating assets in a loan application where the bank has not filed a complaint. 2. name one just one where the attorney general has even investigated a person or company without a complaint. If you can't see the difference, it is you that sees the truth but your hatred of Trump says that government can in fact weaponize itself against political opponents and not apply equal treatment and justice. The fact you had Biden, Clinton, and Berger all committ more aggregious violations of mishandling classified docuemnts but not being prosecuted with only Berger who not only stole the material but shredding it being given a misdomener. You liberals like to beat the mantra that No One Is Above The Law but you should put an asterisk by it, that the law does not apply to anyone who similarly is a liberal. Martha Stewart was accused of securities fraud but found not guilty. She was however found guilty of . two counts of lying to federal investigators (a securities fraud charge was dismissed) on March 5, 2004. Who was the prosecuter. James Comey the same James Comey that said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a charge against Hillary despite lying under oath. With liberals the laws are for Thee not for Me.

Just drilled a well a few weeks ago, and I would like to get the water tested for both purity and to determine what I will need for a whole house filtration system. In the USA it is a government requirement that all wells get tested so they provide the testing. I have done a google search but don't find what I think are truly testing centers. A lot of them are pool companies which I suspect do not do a very detailed job of determining what is in the water. Has anyone else used a service whether in Pattaya or mail in and can share that information.

LOL 8 USC § 793(e) deals with the unauthorized possession of sensitive materials with reason to believe it could injure the United States and willfully disclosing to unauthorized person. This statute applies to any person who has unauthorized possession of any information or material that the government has determined to be “related to the national defense.” This includes any information or material that could be used to harm the United States or its interests. If an individual is found guilty of violating this statute, they can be punished with fines, imprisonment, or both. 1. Bidens were "secured" in his car. Hillary Clintons in a bathroom. Trump in Mar Largo surrounded by secret service agents 2. Trump did not destroy any documents. Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton did. 3. Trump has the power while in office to declassfy documents. Hillary Clinton did not. 4. Trump was negotiating with the GSA over the possession of documents. Neither Biden, or Hillary were. 5. Trump did not share access to the classified documents. Biden gave access to the garage to at least his son. Hillary gave complete and unfettered access to those handling her computer server, Huma Abedin her assistant and Cheryl Mills her attorney. Huma Abedin in turn transferred the contents of the computer to her then husband Anthony Weiner. THE FBI GAVE COMPLETE IMMUNITY TO ABEDIN AND MILLS. And you really want to tell me this is not biased.

That is so laughable. Here is a case in point Trump is being prosecuted for possessing classified documents secured in Mar Largo guarded by the secret service, no access to any other people. Joe Biden has them in an unattended garage in his car, that is shared by his son, not guarded and with his son potentially accessble to others No Charges Hillary Clintons server containing classified documents was held in a bathroom closet. No Charges The server when in use had access by the computer people maintaining the server and at minimum two aides, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. Neither had classified clearance _ No Charges Sandy Berger - Went into the national archives, stuffed classified material into his pants and socks. Took them home and cut them up with scissors. - His penalty A MISDOMEANOR This is nto equal treatment and equal justice. It is weaponizing against a political opponent and using the resources of government to pummel a private citizen who despite Trumps wealth can not compete with the resources of the entire State of New York. The case against Trump involves Deutche Bank. Quess what, Deutche Bank is not headquartered in New York. If there was a case it would be brought by Deutche Bank or a complaint filed by Deutche Bank not the State of New York.

This was as quoted in Google as a Democrat. You are correct, I did not verify it. One way or another whether a Republican or Democrat IT IS WRONG TO WEAPONIZE GOVERNMENT The famous Nixon "enemies list" showed the temptation to use the resources of the government to pummel an opponent. The Chinese are neither Democrats or Republican and they would hardly consider Trump to be a friend. They have no political prejudice and even the Chinese can see that Trump indictments are a political strategy to take out an opponent, not a quest for equal justice. ‘Systemic dysfunction’ Following Trump’s first indictments, China’s state-run Global Times wrote in March that US “political and legal tools” were being “weaponized to attack political opponents”, a situation that the news organization said would sow more chaos in an already polarized society.

As I have repeatedly said. NAME 1 JUST 1 INSTANCE Where the AG has deliberately gone after just one person and ignored all others. You can deny it or perhaps you are just intellectually unable to grasp it. This is nothing but a vindictive attorney who specifically targeted Trump and Trump alone. Michael is the one who said he put down the figures. First off I seriously doubt that Trump would have his personal attorney prepare financial records for the bank. His accountants yes. His attorney no. If Michael Cohen did in fact submit false documents to the bank, did the AG's office also go after him for filing false financial information. See what a Democrat said when the Biden administation brought charges related to classified documents only against Trump while not pursuing charges on others who were not political opponents. Elise Stefanik, D-N. Y., who heads the messaging operation, said in a statement that Trump's indictment “is the epitome of the illegal and unprecedented weaponization of the federal government against Joe Biden's leading opponent, Donald J. Trump.”

That may be a future post

Yes he was given "PLEA DEAL' if he gave dirt on Trump As I said, weaponizing government. A person given a plea deal in return for information on another is not a credible source. Such testimony is coerced and not volunteered and is highly suspect since the person getting the deal knows exactly they are trying to induce something giving them cause to go after their true target. Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former attorney, pleaded guilty today to eight charges in federal court. They included tax evasion and bank fraud but also campaign finance violations, specifically for his role in payments made to women to keep them from talking about alleged affairs with Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Michael Cohen would have testified that he had sex and gave golden showers to Trump if it lowered his sentence. Again, I have challenged you repeated times. Name one person, one organization, or one company whose bank records were looked at to see if they similarly submitted documents to the banks for loans. If you cannot, which I know you can't this is no different than Nixon having the IRS target only his political opponents for special scrutiny. It is a "show me the man" " I will find the crime" Hell the person can be totally innocent but pummeled by a government with unlimited funds and manpower at its disposal. Case in point look at the IRS. Why such a high conviction rate. Most plead guilty because they can't afford the cost to fight the IRS. That is true when government weaponizes itself. You can't win because they cherry pick the judge to oversee the case, and even if false flood the court proceedings with "evidence" they filter through to show only the incriminating but not the exculpatory findings.

PM sent

Never underestimate the government to employ some stupid strategy. They are changing the red cars to EV's to reduce pollution but taking no steps to curtail the real cause of pollution in Chaing Mai the farmers with the fires.

No jealousy. Merely a fact. If you have to have the government subsidize something in order to sell it, it is proof that the product on its own merit would not be attractive. The very fact it needs the subsidy proves it to be a faulty idea that without the subsidy would fail. If you subsidize something with enough money, you could get a car that costs $2 million USD to sell. However the problem as Margaret Thatcher once said. Eventually you run out of "other peoples money"

A subsid means that someone else is paying for your EV to make it "cost effective" for you. THE MONEY COMES FROM SOMEPLACE. The study proves that EV's if they had to compete fairly without a subsidy would be less competitive than they already are. A truly great idea does not need a subsidy to make it attractive and wanted. Nobody subsidizes the high cost of an Apple Iphone. EV owners in addition to paying more for a vehicle despite the subsidy are experiencing push back from the insurance companies who now have to pay huge money for battery replacement when a car is involved in just a minor accident. The USA salvage yards are filled with EV's with 10,000 miles or less on them because the battery replacement cost renders the car a salvage. One owner in Scotland faced a 33,000 Euro bill because rain damaged the cars battery. Hint: It rains heavy in Thailand and driving through even slightly flooded streets may cause the battery compartment to be compromised. It’s not abnormal for it to rain in Scotland. It is abnormal, however, for it to rain so heavily your electric car battery gives up the ghost. A couple from Edinburgh was shocked after receiving a £17,374 (A$33,370) bill to replace the battery on their Tesla Model Y, after the vehicle wouldn’t turn on after driving through heavy rain. As EV owners express their problems, demand for EV's is shrinking forcing huge discounts and every manufacturer has announced cut backs in their planned EV expansion due to lack of sales. I am not against EV's but I am against them being shoved down the publics throat. Let them succeed or fail on their own. If they are a great idea they will flourish. If they are a lousy idea they will fail and they should fail. More alarm bells sound on slowing demand for electric vehicles | Reuters

I didn't know this site was not being used to troll for dates but this is exactly what this OP did

The study from the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) found, for example, that the average 2021 electric vehicle “would cost $48,698 more to own over a 10-year period without $22 billion in government favors given to EV manufacturers and owners.” https://t.co/bu1hwp7Sma — Bud Brigham (@bmbrigham) October 27, 2023 The study found that the only thing making electric vehicles cheaper to run than traditional gasoline cars is a "wide array of direct subsidies, regulatory credits, and subsidized infrastructure that contribute to the economic viability of EVs." “Adding the costs of the subsidies to the true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33 per gallon of gasoline," the report stated. "And these estimates do not include the hundreds of billions more in subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act." EV's A solution that doesn't work for a problem that doesn't exist.