1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

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

Are you contesting the fact that documents marked TS/SCI were found stored in an insufficiently secure manner on his property?

 

Are you disputing the fact that these documents were government property that he had repeatedly been asked to return?

 

Or are you contesting the fact that it is illegal for anyone, even an ex-President, to steal government property, including documents marked at the highest level of security classification, and store it as casually as some people store their gardening tools?

20 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

So the loaded words are your reason to dismiss the fact that its true?

 

Sources by Washington Post and NYT?

How many Russia, Russia, Russia articles did these outlets print which were ultimately proven false?  WaPo and the NYT are two iconic U.S. newspapers who have sadly soiled their credibility to an unreconcilable point.  To anyone who still maintains a shred of objectivity these two once proud pillars of the fourth estate have ignobly become nothing more than Democrat activist propaganda arms.  As you reject my sources so I reject yours.  But with much more good reason.

On 8/13/2022 at 10:08 AM, ballpoint said:

If Trump is indeed convicted of espionage, then every long term appointment he made while president, including, but not limited to, Supreme Court justices, should be immediately rescinded.  A purge of potential moles put in place by a high ranking traitor is customary, if not mandatory, in such a case.

If

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

But most every leftist here has been saying regarding the negotiations Trump was having that it's all cut and dried.  What's there to negotiate?  Trump retained classified documents which he was not legally allowed to have.  Period.  End of story.  If that's true then they have enough hard evidence to arrest him this very moment.

Isn't it typical for law enforcement to make arrests as soon they have the smoking gun?  What more would they be waiting for?

No, it's not typical at all. Especially in a case like this  with lots of evidence where you want to be very careful about the charges made so as not to give opposing lawyers grounds for a dismissal or later appeal.

 

8 minutes ago, Excel said:

So based upon what is known, not speculated about or dreamed off by certain members, if it turns out that there were some documents Trump should not have had in his possession and the DoJ considers that there is sufficient evidence to move forward with an intended prosecution, how long would the more learned colleagues on this forum suggest it would take to reach the first judicial hearing ?

There is a long list of things which need to be examined and then cross examined in order to find out if the evidence collected is exculpatory or not.  How damning things can become is called for by following the trail of where the items seized had been, who had touched said items, and who may have viewed them out of the officially intended scope.  Finger print analysis takes some time, and then to determine when and how those prints ended up on the documents also takes time.  Exclusionary prints from the data base of employees allowed such purview will be cross checked.  It could be months before enough of a case is built to charge Trump or anyone else who may have viewed those documents.  It is like picking up a stone and watching things scurry in all directions.  Folks who may not currently be in the crosshairs could find themselves being investigated as well and become co-defendants..........this is an investigation where the gift keeps giving.  

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

How many Russia, Russia, Russia articles did these outlets print which were ultimately proven false?  WaPo and the NYT are two iconic U.S. newspapers who have sadly soiled their credibility to an unreconcilable point.  To anyone who still maintains a shred of objectivity these two once proud pillars of the fourth estate have ignobly become nothing more than Democrat activist propaganda arms.  As you reject my sources so I reject yours.  But with much more good reason.

What is a credible source to you? Firstly you claimed I made an  "outrageous unsubstantiated claim"

 

They've been substantiated with credible sources.

 

Let me additionally go through some of your many wild claims in this thread and come back to you soon to ask for links, I'll be back shortly and expect sources.

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

How many Russia, Russia, Russia articles did these outlets print which were ultimately proven false?  WaPo and the NYT are two iconic U.S. newspapers who have sadly soiled their credibility to an unreconcilable point.  To anyone who still maintains a shred of objectivity these two once proud pillars of the fourth estate have ignobly become nothing more than Democrat activist propaganda arms.  As you reject my sources so I reject yours.  But with much more good reason.

So in your defense your saying this OP and the current investigation is all smoke and mirrors and fake just to mislead the public and all a deep fake conspiracy....wow is all I can say.   Stay turned as your hero becomes even more of a zero.

45 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

I don"t agree. Tippaporn has raised some important points which have never been properly investigated. I suggest some introspection by yourself is necessary.

What don't you agree with?? That the title of the thread is "Trump under investigation for potential violations of Espionage Act"? 

 

"Tippaporn has raised some important points which have never been properly investigated."

Tippaporn is talking off-topic rubbish, 'nuff said.

43 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Better ask the poster who started it, I just responded to his comment, but, what if we are?

Well, then we would be off-topic, wouldn't we.

27 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

For your edification having just the papers in his possession is only part of a case for espionage or treason?  There are other factors one must have to put the entire case together.  Do you think that I can obtain a breath test on the spot for driving while drunk and being involved in an accident and arrest and prosecute you the next day?  If you do then you have no idea of what your talking about.  Cases take time, sometimes years to build and then prosecute.  

"Cases take time, sometimes years to build and then prosecute. "

Does that explain the delay in prosecuting Hunter Biden and Hilary Clinton?

Or are  they above  the law?

6 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

There is a long list of things which need to be examined and then cross examined in order to find out if the evidence collected is exculpatory or not.  How damning things can become is called for by following the trail of where the items seized had been, who had touched said items, and who may have viewed them out of the officially intended scope.  Finger print analysis takes some time, and then to determine when and how those prints ended up on the documents also takes time.  Exclusionary prints from the data base of employees allowed such purview will be cross checked.  It could be months before enough of a case is built to charge Trump or anyone else who may have viewed those documents.  It is like picking up a stone and watching things scurry in all directions.  Folks who may not currently be in the crosshairs could find themselves being investigated as well and become co-defendants..........this is an investigation where the gift keeps giving.  

Sounds like the  STASI to me or like the actions of Putin's CHEKA.

The process is the  punishment.

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

How many Russia, Russia, Russia articles did these outlets print which were ultimately proven false?  WaPo and the NYT are two iconic U.S. newspapers who have sadly soiled their credibility to an unreconcilable point.  To anyone who still maintains a shred of objectivity these two once proud pillars of the fourth estate have ignobly become nothing more than Democrat activist propaganda arms.  As you reject my sources so I reject yours.  But with much more good reason.

Actually, allegations about Russian involvement in the Trump campaign were not proven false. What Trump supporters seem incapable of understanding is that the Mueller report came with with ten possible instances where Trump obstructed justice. Most of that to do with witness tampering. But the justice dept's policy is that a sitting President can't be indicted. Then Barr came along and egregiously misrepresented the contents of the Mueller report. For that, he was roundly castigated by a federal judge. 

 

 

A committee of Senate

On 8/13/2022 at 11:07 AM, Tippaporn said:

I highlighted the important part of your post.  Why is there no mention of the fact that Trump was fully cooperating with the National Archives and therefore why a raid was necessary?  Any takers on answering that question?

Provide evidence that Trump was fully cooperating with the National Archives, from credible sources.

4 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

"Cases take time, sometimes years to build and then prosecute. "

Does that explain the delay in prosecuting Hunter Biden and Hilary Clinton?

Or are  they above  the law?

I'm sure you can find topics on Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton.  I suggest you go there with your questions.

43 minutes ago, Rimmer said:

Some off topic posts also replies have been removed

Thanks a bunch.

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

How many Russia, Russia, Russia articles did these outlets print which were ultimately proven false?  WaPo and the NYT are two iconic U.S. newspapers who have sadly soiled their credibility to an unreconcilable point.  To anyone who still maintains a shred of objectivity these two once proud pillars of the fourth estate have ignobly become nothing more than Democrat activist propaganda arms.  As you reject my sources so I reject yours.  But with much more good reason.

Articles on Russian interference in the election that were proven wrong?  I can't recall any.  Can you identify them?

7 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

What don't you agree with?? That the title of the thread is "Trump under investigation for potential violations of Espionage Act"? 

 

"Tippaporn has raised some important points which have never been properly investigated."

Tippaporn is talking off-topic rubbish, 'nuff said.

Calm down. Have a nice day.

7 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

"Cases take time, sometimes years to build and then prosecute. "

Does that explain the delay in prosecuting Hunter Biden and Hilary Clinton?

Or are  they above  the law?

Did I ever say they were above the law anywhere, if so please show me.  This OP is on Trump not Clinton or Hunter.  Yes cases take time and if one thinks they are out of the woods because it has been some time since whatever occurred occurred then people need to always look over their shoulders.  A case, I was a part of investigating, took over 5 years to get all of the ducks in a row in order to prosecute as RICO case at the Federal Level, and then it was continued by the defense for a few more years during which time defendants flipped and became witnesses for the prosecution.  In the end cases do not just disappear no matter how much one thinks they do.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, allegations about Russian involvement in the Trump campaign were not proven false. What Trump supporters seem incapable of understanding is that the Mueller report came with with ten possible instances where Trump obstructed justice. Most of that to do with witness tampering. But the justice dept's policy is that a sitting President can't be indicted. Then Barr came along and egregiously misrepresented the contents of the Mueller report. For that, he was roundly castigated by a federal judge. 

 

 

A committee of Senate

And as I left off noting a Senate Committee with a Republican majority also issued a report detailing lots of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.

2 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Did I ever say they were above the law anywhere, if so please show me.  This OP is on Trump not Clinton or Hunter.  Yes cases take time and if one thinks they are out of the woods because it has been some time since whatever occurred occurred then people need to always look over their shoulders.  A case, I was a part of investigating, took over 5 years to get all of the ducks in a row in order to prosecute as RICO case at the Federal Level, and then it was continued by the defense for a few more years during which time defendants flipped and became witnesses for the prosecution.  In the end cases do not just disappear no matter how much one thinks they do.

Did I ever say you said they were above the law anywhere, if so please show me. 

My comment is to highlight the double  standards  and hypocrisy  of the woke  left.

 

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Are there revised rules on acceptable site links now?

You could report it but it is a video of trump Jr, that isn't contested it it? Are there any claims made in the very short article that you'd like to dispute?

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Provide evidence that Trump was fully cooperating with the National Archives, from credible sources.

Don't bother, ample proof has been provided already he was not cooperating.

42 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

50 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Must be true, then, from the always reliable and honest FBI..  

Yes indeed, from Trump’s own handpicked director whom he described as impeccable character and man of integrity. What change? 

There's, obviously, more to the FBI than the Director, but, so what if Trump appointed him, that doesn't prevent him from turning into another corrupt FBI official, does it?   You think that nothing untoward has ever gone on in the FBI?  

21 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

"Cases take time, sometimes years to build and then prosecute. "

Does that explain the delay in prosecuting Hunter Biden and Hilary Clinton?

Or are  they above  the law?

Are you suggesting sufficient evidence for a case was built but not prosecuted. That would be a conspiracy theory which you should consider substantiating.

49 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

58 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Must be true, then, from the always reliable and honest FBI..  

Are you saying the items taken were not listed on the receipt and the FBI took other things?  Your a little off base with that thinking.

No, I did not say that.

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There's, obviously, more to the FBI than the Director, but, so what if Trump appointed him, that doesn't prevent him from turning into another corrupt FBI official, does it?   You think that nothing untoward has ever gone on in the FBI?  

Well you can look at the evidence they've gathered and wait for the outcome or speculate on the honesty of the FBI director?

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Well you can look at the evidence they've gathered and wait for the outcome or speculate on the honesty of the FBI director?

Speculating on the honesty of an FBI director is a habit of Trump's. That alone undermines his credibility.

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There's, obviously, more to the FBI than the Director, but, so what if Trump appointed him, that doesn't prevent him from turning into another corrupt FBI official, does it?   You think that nothing untoward has ever gone on in the FBI?  

Well you can look at the evidence they've gathered and wait for the outcome or speculate on the honesty of the FBI director?

I did not speculate on the honesty of the FBI Director, I commented based on the fact that the FBI's record on corruption and lying is not good.

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

I did not speculate on the honesty of the FBI Director, I commented on the fact that the FBI's record on corruption and lying is not good.

Oh..............lol

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There's, obviously, more to the FBI than the Director, but, so what if Trump appointed him, that doesn't prevent him from turning into another corrupt FBI official, does it?   You think that nothing untoward has ever gone on in the FBI?  

 

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I did not speculate on the honesty of the FBI Director, I commented on the fact that the FBI's record on corruption and lying is not good.

Really? Compared to which organization?