Jump to content

Takeaways from the court hearing on releasing more documents from the Mar-a-Lago search


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Here CNN is one of news channels in Thailand. I click on it to see what's new. Just like I catch the Gutfeld show for a laugh. Always funny stuff.

Watched 5 minutes today. I accept it is a small sample but had to turn it off. Firstly, I get that not every individual decision that democrats make at all levels of government, are good and correct. To me though he is simply using cherry picked examples, not looking at context, adding some obvious weak humour, and then worst of all, concluding  with some childish statement like  'Democrats are going to take away your rights and freedom'.

No subtlety. No humility or sense of being fair.  Bill Maher he is not. 

Edited by Fat is a type of crazy
Posted
14 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

All we have to do is wait for the latest bombshell report. The walls are closing in on former President Trump. Some explosive testimony is in the offing.  This must be the beginning of the end..... gee, havent we all heard that some time in the past?

 

The only happy people are CNN and the rest of the democratic-cultural complex. Their ratings are up every time The Donald is mentioned. It has been boring trying to cover Biden for the past 18 months and not fall into a coma. But anything Trump says is instant ratings.

I think being caught in possession of TS/SCI documents relating to national security is as bad as it gets.

 

But hold.

 

Trump has a habit of accusing others of that which he himself is up to.

 

By all means stick with Trump, get the hat, the T-shirt, get the tattoo - somewhere we can all see it.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, LosLobo said:

Giuliani while defending Trump on having classified document, he dropped this gem!

 

"Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani on Thursday appeared to admit that Mr Trump had classified documents that are the property of the US government, during an appearance on the right-wing Newsmax television network".

 

Rudy Giuliani gives new excuse for Trump holding onto classified documents at Mar-a-Lago | The Independent
 

We know he had them, the FBI recovered them from his home.

 

But nice to see even Giuliani can occasionally return to the reality based universe.

  • Like 2
Posted
46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So let’s game this out.

 

A Federal Judge (not the DOJ, not the FBI) will review the affidavit and decide what information may and may not be released to the public.

 

The information that is not released will be ‘blacked out’.

 

Be ready for the outrage that the DOJ/FBI (not a Federal Judge) is withholding information.

 

What matters to Trump’s supporters is the constant outrage.

 

 

From what I understand, the unredacted parts may be about the history of contacts with Trump previous to the seizure, I.e. how many times he's been asked to return documents, his replies, etc...

I guess Trumps supporters will describe it as harassment! ????

  • Like 2
Posted
50 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

I'm worried about the security of my local bank.  I think I'll steal all their money and preserve it under my bed.  I might even put a lock on the door if someone asks me to.

You're not stealing the bank's money. You're just relocating it to a more secure place. Just be sure to get a padlock.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
On 8/19/2022 at 9:38 AM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Its an unwritten rule that ex Presidents are left alone and allowed a quiet and dignified life after serving. If other ex-Presidents are left completely alone after making monstrous decisions based on false evidence that literally led to the deaths of millions of people in the middle east, then other ex Presidents will be left alone over paperwork issues that caused zero deaths and zero harm.

 It is all a question of comparative seriousness of the alleged crime. In my mind killing millions of people is worse than possessing some documents in safe storage that may have been reclassified after Trump left office. 

 You "one law and nobody above it" is a troll. You know full well the democrats and republicans are held to different standards. Allegations against Republicans without evidence get major air time and discussion. Allegations against Democrats with mountains of evidence are censored across social media.

Hmmm.

 

Do you believe that Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right, as the saying goes?

 

Apparently you do.

 

Because here you are arguing that because a previous President did something you believe was very wrong, but was not held to account for it......... ("millions dead!")........  that means that Trump should also not be held accountable for what he has [allegedly] done wrong.

 

Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right?

 

Seems to me that you agree that ex-Presidents should be held accountable for their actions............ (one law for everyone)........ because you yourself provided an example of one you believe hasn't been, and your tone suggests you're not very happy about it.

 

So it is confusing why you would then use that as an explanation for why Trump shouldn't  be held accountable.......... when it seems the correct reaction would be to use the previous "failure"........... as added encouragement.......... to do the right thing, THIS TIME!

 

Very baffling. Because I've never believed that just because the last guy managed to get away with it, the next guy ought to be allowed to get away with it, also!

 

So, I'll ask again.

 

Do......... Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right?

 

 

 

 

Edited by KanchanaburiGuy
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm.

 

Do you believe that Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right, as the saying goes?

 

Apparently you do.

 

Because here you are arguing that because a previous President did something you believe was very wrong, but was not held to account for it......... ("millions dead!")........  that means that Trump should also not be held accountable for what he has [allegedly] done wrong.

 

Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right?

 

Seems to me that you agree that ex-Presidents should be held accountable for their actions............ (one law for everyone)........ because you yourself provided an example of one you believe hasn't been, and your tone suggests you're not very happy about it.

 

So it is confusing why you would then use that as an explanation for why Trump shouldn't  be held accountable.......... when it seems the correct reaction would be to use the previous "failure"........... as added encouragement.......... to do the right thing, THIS TIME!

 

Very baffling. Because I've never believed that just because the last guy managed to get away with it, the next guy ought to be allowed to get away with it, also!

 

So, I'll ask again.

 

Do......... Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right?

 

 

 

 


Does a political establishment who has been obsessed with Trump ,provoke and initiate uncharted unhinged  radical never before seen actions against a former POTUS!

 

My takeaway.You will find in litigations going forward what was good for the goose will still be good for the goose ! I think many of Trumps team are going to use past privileges afforded the office as a defense! Imop

 

Whats the trigger word for this constitutional crisis the doj/ fbi has unleashed

“unprecedented” ! 

Close to  250 years  of existence and so close to a election .These are radical over reaching actions imop

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, candide said:

From what I understand, the unredacted parts may be about the history of contacts with Trump previous to the seizure, I.e. how many times he's been asked to return documents, his replies, etc...

I guess Trumps supporters will describe it as harassment! ????

Not exactly what people want to know so they are likely to complain. 

Posted
1 hour ago, riclag said:


Does a political establishment who has been obsessed with Trump ,provoke and initiate uncharted unhinged  radical never before seen actions against a former POTUS!

 

My takeaway.You will find in litigations going forward what was good for the goose will still be good for the goose ! I think many of Trumps team are going to use past privileges afforded the office as a defense! Imop

 

Whats the trigger word for this constitutional crisis the doj/ fbi has unleashed

“unprecedented” ! 

Close to  250 years  of existence and so close to a election .These are radical over reaching actions imop

Not as close to an election as the last “Unprecedented” we were treated to.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, riclag said:


Does a political establishment who has been obsessed with Trump ,provoke and initiate uncharted unhinged  radical never before seen actions against a former POTUS!

 

My takeaway.You will find in litigations going forward what was good for the goose will still be good for the goose ! I think many of Trumps team are going to use past privileges afforded the office as a defense! Imop

 

Whats the trigger word for this constitutional crisis the doj/ fbi has unleashed

“unprecedented” ! 

Close to  250 years  of existence and so close to a election .These are radical over reaching actions imop

Well, personally, I see it going all the way back the the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. As far as I can recall, everything turned rather nasty, thereafter. 

 

Then Clinton got impeached.

 

And the Democrats would have LOVED to return the favor with Bush II, over Iraq. (Only stopped, I believe, because the "optics" would have looked exactly like what it was: petty payback!) ---------- (But look at the BEATING GWBush took in the press for 8 years!) 

 

And then the Republicans would have LOVED to impeach Mr Obama, but he was saved two ways. First, he was black. The FIRST black President. And that was........... er......... problematic! Second, that would have been the second one in a row........... second DEMOCRAT in a row! And that would have looked downright vindictive! ("Optics," again!) ---------- (But Obama got eviscerated on talk radio and TV opinion shows!)

 

* So, the Democrats beat up on Bork.

 

* Then the Republicans retaliate on Clinton.

 

* Then the Democrats would LOVE to get even on Bush, but can't. 

 

* Then the Republicans would love to get even for Bush's bad treatment, but are hindered.

 

And then along come a conman, a serial liar, a classless, no-nothing buffoon: Trump!

 

And the Democrats at this point have STILL never "properly gotten justice"----that is, payback for Bill Clinton's impeachment! They've been waiting a long, long, frustrating time!

 

--------------

 

These things stopped being "politics" a long time ago. This sniping at the President ain't politics.......... It's a feud! It's the Hatfields and McCoys!

 

And not only did Trump walk into the middle of it, he was the Perfect Guy to walk into the middle of it! Because he proved......... again and again......... that he was SO DESERVING of what the Democrats wanted to do!

 

If the Democrats were determined to exorcise their angst on a Republican President........... they couldn't have chosen any better than the one that got elected!

 

I can just picture the Behind-the-Scenes at the DNC: "Sorry Hillary, sorry you didn't get elected. But can you believe we got *heeheehee* DONALD TRUMP instead!!!"

 

-------------

 

So no, I don't see anything unusual, unexpected or unprecedented here. And it makes no difference that he is an "ex-President." 

 

Because what's going on here is a good old-fashioned feud; a feud that's been going on since the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, many moons ago!

 

And when you're talking about a feud, nothing is off the table, and the only thing you should reliably expect........... is that you're going to be hit with the unexpected!

 

 

Edited by KanchanaburiGuy
Posted
2 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

And the Democrats would have LOVED to return the favor with Bush II, over Iraq. (Only stopped, I believe, because the "optics" would have looked exactly like what it was: petty payback!) ---------- (But look at the BEATING GWBush took in the press for 8 years!) 

George W. Bush took a beating from the press for 8 years? Really? He got a free ride after 9/11. It was only after the lies that led to the iraq war became evident and the failures that followed in that war, and also a politically suicidal attempt to privatize social security, did his stock fall sharply.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Well, personally, I see it going all the way back the the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. As far as I can recall, everything turned rather nasty, thereafter. 

 

Then Clinton got impeached.

 

And the Democrats would have LOVED to return the favor with Bush II, over Iraq. (Only stopped, I believe, because the "optics" would have looked exactly like what it was: petty payback!) ---------- (But look at the BEATING GWBush took in the press for 8 years!) 

 

And then the Republicans would have LOVED to impeach Mr Obama, but he was saved two ways. First, he was black. The FIRST black President. And that was........... er......... problematic!

 

Second, that would have been the second one in a row........... second DEMOCRAT in a row! And that would looked downright vindictive! ("Optics," again!) ---------- (But Obama got eviscerated on talk radio and TV opinion shows!)

 

* So, the Democrats beat up on Bork.

 

* Then the Republicans retaliate on Clinton.

 

* Then the Democrats would LOVE to get even on Bush, but can't. 

 

* Then the Republicans would love to get even for Bush's bad treatment, but are hindered.

 

And then along come a conman, a serial liar, a classless, no-nothing buffoon: Trump!

 

And the Democrats at this point have STILL never "properly gotten justice"----that is, payback for Bill Clinton's impeachment! They've been waiting a long, long, frustrating time!

 

--------------

 

These things stopped being "politics" a long time ago. This sniping at the President ain't politics.......... It's a feud! It's the Hatfields and McCoys!

 

And not only did Trump walk into the middle of it, he was the Perfect Guy to walk into the middle of it! Because he proved......... again and again......... that he was SO DESERVING of what the Democrats wanted to do!

 

If the Democrats were determined to exorcise their angst on a Republican President........... they couldn't have chosen any better than the one that got elected!

 

I can just picture the Behind-the-Scenes at the DNC: "Sorry Hillary, sorry you didn't get elected. But can you believe we got *heeheehee* DONALD TRUMP instead!!!"

 

-------------

 

So no, I don't see anything unusual, unexpected or unprecedented here. And it makes no difference that he is an "ex-President." 

 

Because what's going on here is a good old-fashioned feud; a feud that's been going on since the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, many moons ago!

 

And when you're talking about a feud, nothing is off the table, and the only thing you should reliably expect........... is that you're going to be hit with the unexpected!

 

 

What’s unprecedented here is a former President putting US National Security at risk.

 

It has to be assumed that the contents of every single document Trump had in his possession at Mar-a-Largo have been seen by or transmitted to US adversaries.


Once TS/SCI documents relating to National Security are involved it is no longer just about Trump, far far from it.

Edited by Chomper Higgot
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
8 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Perhaps there is a good reason for him not disclosing his sources of information.

 

If it was Fox, I would be reticent too.

 

In the recent past, Fox used the defence that "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching" would no believe the programming in the successful summation of a defamation case.

 

Obviously a lot of viewers believe every utterance of Fox commentators.

 

So what does say about Fox's attitude to their viewers and their viewers ability for critical thinking.

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

Fox news really is not that bad, it is the Tucker Carlson et Al that are not news programs.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, riclag said:


Does a political establishment who has been obsessed with Trump ,provoke and initiate uncharted unhinged  radical never before seen actions against a former POTUS!

 

My takeaway.You will find in litigations going forward what was good for the goose will still be good for the goose ! I think many of Trumps team are going to use past privileges afforded the office as a defense! Imop

 

Whats the trigger word for this constitutional crisis the doj/ fbi has unleashed

“unprecedented” ! 

Close to  250 years  of existence and so close to a election .These are radical over reaching actions imop

The FBI that's always been led by a white Republican male? That FBI?

 

A previous Republican director threw the 2016 election to the Republicans and this is the thanks they get!

Edited by ozimoron
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 hours ago, placeholder said:

George W. Bush took a beating from the press for 8 years? Really? He got a free ride after 9/11. It was only after the lies that led to the iraq war became evident and the failures that followed in that war, and also a politically suicidal attempt to privatize social security, did his stock fall sharply.

The dot-com bubble burst shortly before Bush took office, and there was an 8-month recession from March to November, 2001. Bush took a beating for that, even though he clearly didn't deserve to be blamed for it. Then 9/11 happened and yes, he got a reprieve for a short while. But it was truly only a short while.

 

Not long after 9/11, they started back in with severe criticism of his "tepid recovery" from the recession, much of which, though, was actually a lingering consequence of 9/11 and fear, and had little or nothing to do with his economic policies and efforts!

 

Then, of course, the criticism of his response to 9/11 began to rage in earnest. People complained about what kept getting called "lies," but weren't. And ultimately, far, far, FAR more lies were told ABOUT him, than BY him!

 

So yeah, 8 years of Bush-bashing! Absolutely!

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

The dot-com bubble burst shortly before Bush took office, and there was an 8-month recession from March to November, 2001. Bush took a beating for that, even though he clearly didn't deserve to be blamed for it. Then 9/11 happened and yes, he got a reprieve for a short while. But it was truly only a short while.

 

Not long after 9/11, they started back in with severe criticism of his "tepid recovery" from the recession, much of which, though, was actually a lingering consequence of 9/11 and fear, and had little or nothing to do with his economic policies and efforts!

 

Then, of course, the criticism of his response to 9/11 began to rage in earnest. People complained about what kept getting called "lies," but weren't. And ultimately, far, far, FAR more lies were told ABOUT him, than BY him!

 

So yeah, 8 years of Bush-bashing! Absolutely!

Every president gets bashed when the economy goes sour. Everyone without exception. Just as Biden is getting bashed now. Whether the criticism is deserved or not. Just as every president gets praise when the economy is doing well such as Bill Clinton or Donald trump. Whether the praise is deserved or not. It turns out the press was so much in the bag for George Bush that they massively misreported the grounds for invading iraq. Including the New York times and the Washington post. The Republicans enjoyed a rare midterm blowout.  And two years after that George Bush was reelected.

Edited by placeholder

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...