Trump criticizes end of White House cocaine probe

[stoner]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Since they didn't find out who was flushing documents down the toilet during the Trump administration (an act that would have been much more obvious than dropping a small bag of cocaine) it's safe to assume that there aren't cameras covering everything. 

ok lets go with that theory. smh. and can you please stay on topic and not reply with.... but the other guy.

 

i am talking about the security at the white house. i am not talking about one side or the other. 

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

My money is on the coke belonging to the VP harris. Could explain the weird cackle.

And the explanation of AI.

[stoner]

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

So for all we know, it could just as easily have been a visiting Republican politician who left it there?

absolutely. the same logic must also be presented for the other side too no ? a democrat politician could of easily been visiting and left it there. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, stoner said:

ok lets go with that theory. smh. and can you please stay on topic and not reply with.... but the other guy.

 

i am talking about the security at the white house. i am not talking about one side or the other. 

And I pointed out that there was an incident earlier that showed that security cameras don't cover everywhere all the time.

 

So in summary, the cocaine was found in a high traffic area not fully covered by security cameras and without adequate fingerprints, DNA evidence or witnesses to tie it to anyone.

 

Unless additional evidence is found (unlikely) there is nothing more to do.  Well, nothing other than the wild speculation many people enjoy engaging in.

[stoner]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

And I pointed out that there was an incident earlier that showed that security cameras don't cover everywhere all the time.

you can point out all you like. security incidents at the white house are unacceptable. 

 

period. 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, stoner said:

you can point out all you like. security incidents at the white house are unacceptable. 

 

period.

You must be a serious anti-Trumper.  He was a nonstop security incident.

[stoner]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

You must be a serious anti-Trumper.  He was a nonstop security incident.

i do not support either old fool. but please keep bringing up trump it always helps. twice now you have brought up trump. 

 

let it go. 

[Skipalongcassidy]

8 minutes ago, stoner said:

i do not support either old fool. but please keep bringing up trump it always helps. twice now you have brought up trump. 

 

let it go. 

It's the only way that lib democraps can talk... it's schoolyard deflection.

[sirineou]

22 hours ago, Social Media said:

Former President Trump criticized the Secret Service Thursday for ending its investigation into the cocaine

Big surprise there. 

[heybruce]

52 minutes ago, stoner said:

i do not support either old fool. but please keep bringing up trump it always helps. twice now you have brought up trump. 

 

let it go. 

 

43 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

It's the only way that lib democraps can talk... it's schoolyard deflection.

Merely pointing out the absurdity of the assumption that security cameras cover everywhere all the time, and the situational ethics of some posters here; if it happens under Biden's watch it's bad, if it happens under Trump's watch it's no big deal.

[stoner]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Merely pointing out the absurdity of the assumption that security cameras cover everywhere all the time

i find this absurd. it's 2023 we have amazing tech out there now. shoot they even have facial recognition cameras.

 

point being in 2023 if every single square inch of the white house cannot be covered 24/7 (which i do not believe for 1 minute)....... this is a major security problem. 

 

all of the other stuff is noise. 

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, stoner said:

i find this absurd. it's 2023 we have amazing tech out there now. shoot they even have facial recognition cameras.

 

point being in 2023 if every single square inch of the white house cannot be covered 24/7 (which i do not believe for 1 minute)....... this is a major security problem. 

 

all of the other stuff is noise. 

Bearing in mind that in order to have such coverage one would need multiple cameras covering every cubic cm of every part of the White House in order to prevent someone from discretely dropping a very small package while standing in between the camera(s) and the drop point....

 

The number of cameras involved would be ridiculous.

[stoner]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Bearing in mind that in order to have such coverage one would need multiple cameras covering every cubic cm of every part of the White House in order to prevent someone from discretely dropping a very small package while standing in between the camera(s) and the drop point....

 

The number of cameras involved would be ridiculous.

more ridiculous than an incident happening at the white house due to lack of coverage ?

 

3d printers can make some serious stuff now that could easily be brought into the white house and used in a dark area to do something unthinkable.

 

and with the size of camera tech now you wouldn't even notice. that reasoning was valid say 20 years ago. now it's not. the tech is there to fix this 100 percent. 

[Bkk Brian]

33 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Bearing in mind that in order to have such coverage one would need multiple cameras covering every cubic cm of every part of the White House in order to prevent someone from discretely dropping a very small package while standing in between the camera(s) and the drop point....

 

The number of cameras involved would be ridiculous.

Here's my take.

 

Its just wishful thinking to think camera's would pick up every tiny action, bit like a needle in a haystack. This baggie was the size of a dime. No finger prints, no or not enough DNA.

 

There's probably only two possible scenarios. It was either dropped (possibly out of someones pocket) or deliberately placed. Its unthinkable that someone would leave it somewhere only to return to pick it up later.

 

The positive from this is that the security did pick it up in their daily sweep by the secret service. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

14 hours ago, stoner said:

absolutely. the same logic must also be presented for the other side too no ? a democrat politician could of easily been visiting and left it there. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

Yes, that's precisely my point - we can't just leap to some totally unsupported conclusion that it must have been one particular person.

[stoner]

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Yes, that's precisely my point - we can't just leap to some totally unsupported conclusion that it must have been one particular person.

i'm totally with you. my main concern is the cracks in security this and previous happenings expose. 

 

they need fixed. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

4 hours ago, stoner said:

i do not support either old fool. but please keep bringing up trump it always helps. twice now you have brought up trump. 

 

let it go. 

Trump is the subject of this thread, the title of which is, "Trump criticizes end of White House cocaine probe."  So mentioning him would seem entirely apropos.

[stoner]

10 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Trump is the subject of this thread, the title of which is, "Trump criticizes end of White House cocaine probe."  So mentioning him would seem entirely apropos.

trump and what he did in the white house is not though. context right. 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, stoner said:

more ridiculous than an incident happening at the white house due to lack of coverage ?

 

3d printers can make some serious stuff now that could easily be brought into the white house and used in a dark area to do something unthinkable.

 

and with the size of camera tech now you wouldn't even notice. that reasoning was valid say 20 years ago. now it's not. the tech is there to fix this 100 percent. 

First, using a 3d printer to do something unthinkable isn't the topic.  I don't what to think about what topic that would apply to.

 

Second, if you think you can design such a security system you should go for it.  However I don't think you'll find it that easy or marketable.

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, stoner said:

trump and what he did in the white house is not though. context right. 

When Trump criticizes what happens in the White House after he left, he opens himself up to comparisons to what happened when he was there.

[johnnybangkok]

On 7/14/2023 at 3:55 PM, JonnyF said:

Could be anyone. A close aide. Another member of the family. Another member of the administration? 

 

Why would you assume I must be referring to Hunter? Is his reputation really that bad now that one mention of a coverup involving Cocaine and you automatically assume it must be him?

Really? Is that the way you're going with this?

 

In this thread alone you have mentioned how Hunter was ommitted from visitor logs, have blatantly pointed out 'Hunter's drug use has been well documented. No need to imagine anything' and continued with 'I am not doubting that cameras picked it up' infering that they know who it was and have therefore covered it up.

 

You may see yourself as some cerebral heavyweight who can 'outfox' us all by not actually saying it's definately Hunters coke but you are agreeing with Trump on this, so it's not a great leap of faith to also assume you are also agreeing when he said "it means they destroyed the tapes & the Cocaine was for use by Hunter, & probably Crooked Joe, in order to give this total disaster of a President a little life and energy!” 

 

If your 'concern' was only about Whitehouse security and in your own words it 'Could be anyone', then why even mention Hunter? You can of course now categorily come out and say you don't believe it was Hunter but sorry, I don't think you're fooling anyone.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Really? Is that the way you're going with this?

 

In this thread alone you have mentioned how Hunter was ommitted from visitor logs, have blatantly pointed out 'Hunter's drug use has been well documented. No need to imagine anything' and continued with 'I am not doubting that cameras picked it up' infering that they know who it was and have therefore covered it up.

 

You may see yourself as some cerebral heavyweight who can 'outfox' us all by not actually saying it's definately Hunters coke but you are agreeing with Trump on this, so it's not a great leap of faith to also assume you are also agreeing when he said "it means they destroyed the tapes & the Cocaine was for use by Hunter, & probably Crooked Joe, in order to give this total disaster of a President a little life and energy!” 

 

If your 'concern' was only about Whitehouse security and in your own words it 'Could be anyone', then why even mention Hunter? You can of course now categorily come out and say you don't believe it was Hunter but sorry, I don't think you're fooling anyone.

Which is why I called out the use of innuendo.