Trump indicted fopr stealing docs

[silverscreenselect]

How do we know what they are telling us now is the truth? Maybe it's THEIR truth.

How do you ignore that?

It's the truth of the people who testified under oath. The workers and aides who packed and moved the boxes from place to place and took the pictures that were included in the indictment. The people to whom Trump showed the documents. The attorneys he spoke to and tried to order around. Those are the people who testified before the grand jury and will presumably testify at trial, both times under oath.

[Bob78164]

How do we know what they are telling us now is the truth? Maybe it's THEIR truth.

How do you ignore that?

It's the truth of the people who testified under oath. The workers and aides who packed and moved the boxes from place to place and took the pictures that were included in the indictment. The people to whom Trump showed the documents. The attorneys he spoke to and tried to order around. Those are the people who testified before the grand jury and will presumably testify at trial, both times under oath.

Donny's apologists will never, answer the question: "If Donny did what he's alleged in paragraph 6 of the indictment to have done, should he have been prosecuted?"

They can't answer that question because (a) the answer is self-evident, and (b) he was caught on tape doing it. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Quite the coincidence that this indictment comes down at exactly the same time that extremely damning information has come out about Biden and Burisma.

But you usual suspects probably know nothing about a credible, highly used FBI informant reporting that a Burisma executive (probably Mykola Zlochesky) told him he had paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each to help him get rid of the prosecutor that was investigating his company. He also reported this executive has 17 phone call recordings, 2 of them directly with Joe, while he was VP, that he saved as 'Insurance'. This was on the FB1023 form that the FBI tried desperately to hide. And they did NOTHING with that information. Hmmm? Joe BRAGGED about fulfilling his part of the bribe.

Have you guys heard ANY of this? Probably not.

Isn't it funny that the timing of this indictment seems to be timed to when the FBI finally decided to comply with the law and let the committee that OVERSEES their activities see that document? And isn't it funny that they did NOTHING to follow up on this information, when they've had confidence in this informant on many other things in the past? And after we've heard from several brave FBI whistle-blowers documenting the political corruption within the FBI?

I think it is.

[Bob78164]

80% of Republicans think Donny should be able to serve as President even if he did what he's accused of doing and is convicted. Yet another exhibit in my ongoing thesis that what's left of the Republican Party is a danger to the Republic and deserves to be electorally bulldozed. There's simply no reasoning with these people. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Quite the coincidence that this indictment comes down at exactly the same time that extremely damning information has come out about Biden and Burisma.

But you usual suspects probably know nothing about a credible, highly used FBI informant reporting that a Burisma executive (probably Mykola Zlochesky) told him he had paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each to help him get rid of the prosecutor that was investigating his company. He also reported this executive has 17 phone call recordings, 2 of them directly with Joe, while he was VP, that he saved as 'Insurance'. This was on the FB1023 form that the FBI tried desperately to hide. And they did NOTHING with that information. Hmmm? Joe BRAGGED about fulfilling his part of the bribe.

Have you guys heard ANY of this? Probably not.

Isn't it funny that the timing of this indictment seems to be timed to when the FBI finally decided to comply with the law and let the committee that OVERSEES their activities see that document? And isn't it funny that they did NOTHING to follow up on this information, when they've had confidence in this informant on many other things in the past? And after we've heard from several brave FBI whistle-blowers documenting the political corruption within the FBI?

I think it is.

"credible, highly used FBI informant" with hear say. Nothing to see here....but that Steele Dossier. Now THAT was something the FBI and Congress needed to look into. This? Russian misinformation.

[silverscreenselect]

Quite the coincidence that this indictment comes down at exactly the same time that extremely damning information has come out about Biden and Burisma.

Rudy Giuliani brought this information to the Justice Department under Bill Barr in 2020. That's when the FBI spoke to the informant and generated the FD-1023 document. Because Giuliani's claims in the past had been, at the least, somewhat questionable, the FBI UNDER BARR tried to corroborate the information the informant provided. That informant had been reliable in the past, but he never witnessed any bribe. Instead, he claimed a Burisma executive told him that the company had offered Joe and Hunter Biden bribes. There is no evidence of any bribes being paid to Joe or Hunter Biden, although the FBI have gone over Hunter Biden's financial records in detail. As an aside, does anyone think that someone with the track record of Hunter Biden could successfully hide a $5 million bribe from the scrutiny of the FBI? The FBI closed its investigation in 2020 because they could produce no information beyond the informant's initial claim that would warrant further investigation. That's Bill Barr's Justice Department, not Joe Biden and Merrick Garland's.

As far as the phone conversations the source supposedly had with Biden, why didn't the source produce copies of those phone calls? Every time Trump has opened his mouth and gotten in trouble, the recordings of his very own words would be introduced into evidence. If there was even one phone call in which Joe Biden suggested he had taken or might take a bribe, you know Fox News, Newsmax, and the others would be playing it over and over from now till Doomsday.

To put it in simpler terms:

Suppose an informant tells the police that he has information that Flock had illicit relations with Hillary Clinton and a donkey. He didn't witness this happening. He didn't hear Flock, Hillary, or the donkey say so. There's no record that Flock was ever near Hillary or a donkey or that he was anywhere near the location where this rendezvous supposedly took place. Instead, the informant heard a guy in a bar tell him that the incident happened. Further, the informant says he called Flock and that Flock confirmed it but that the informant is holding the tape of that conversation as insurance.

How far do you think this investigation would go?

[Weyoun]

I for one appreciate the attempt to keep them from Biden, meaning keep them from China.

Do you think he has the only copy of these things in existence?

Anyway, you did not answer the question. You never do - you just deflect.

We have more than ample evidence that both the FBI and the Justice Dept have extreme problems with credibility. They brazenly lied to the American public in order to get Biden elected. They committed election interference themselves while accusing others of it. Strzok spoke of an insurance policy, which is now completely obvious to anyone with an open mind. They implemented their insurance policy in spades. And the same people who organized, collaborated and disseminated those lies with the people who were then in power are now in power themselves. How do we know what they are telling us now is the truth? Maybe it's THEIR truth.

How do you ignore that?

You still didn’t answer the question.

We have a bunch of people under oath saying this happen. We are pictures of boxes in the bathroom, etc..

I didn’t ask you about Strozek.

In your defense, you may have some little moral core inside you that recognizes that what he did was wrong. That’s why you’re doing this what aboutism and acting like it somehow made up by dark forces.

Either way, I’m disappointing that someone commits a criminal act and you do whatever you can to explain around it. So much for law and order

[Bob78164]

Either way, I’m disappoint[ed] that someone commits a criminal act and you do whatever you can to explain around it. So much for law and order

So much for the days when there was a consensus in the country that people who held an office of public trust were held to a higher standard. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Either way, I’m disappoint[ed] that someone commits a criminal act and you do whatever you can to explain around it. So much for law and order

So much for the days when there was a consensus in the country that people who held an office of public trust were held to a higher standard. --Bob

I just spit my Dr. Pepper all over my computer!

[Beebs52]

Either way, I’m disappoint[ed] that someone commits a criminal act and you do whatever you can to explain around it. So much for law and order

So much for the days when there was a consensus in the country that people who held an office of public trust were held to a higher standard. --Bob

Snort. Dumbfounded.

[wbtravis007]

Quite the coincidence that this indictment comes down at exactly the same time that extremely damning information has come out about Biden and Burisma.

But you usual suspects probably know nothing about a credible, highly used FBI informant reporting that a Burisma executive (probably Mykola Zlochesky) told him he had paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each to help him get rid of the prosecutor that was investigating his company. He also reported this executive has 17 phone call recordings, 2 of them directly with Joe, while he was VP, that he saved as 'Insurance'. This was on the FB1023 form that the FBI tried desperately to hide. And they did NOTHING with that information. Hmmm? Joe BRAGGED about fulfilling his part of the bribe.

Have you guys heard ANY of this? Probably not.

Isn't it funny that the timing of this indictment seems to be timed to when the FBI finally decided to comply with the law and let the committee that OVERSEES their activities see that document? And isn't it funny that they did NOTHING to follow up on this information, when they've had confidence in this informant on many other things in the past? And after we've heard from several brave FBI whistle-blowers documenting the political corruption within the FBI?

I think it is.

I'll address a couple of things that you've harped on recently.

First, are you seriously buying into that absurd narrative (which, by the way, everyone has heard) about the timing of the indictment being tied to this Biden stuff? Good grief. Man, talk about gullible!

If you seriously think that, then it's obvious that you know nothing about grand-jury indictments in general, or the circumstances surrounding this one in particular. This isn't like a situation where there's tranch of Hillary e-mails that Wikileaks can pull the trigger on at the request of Roger Stone on the day that the tapes are played of Trump bragging that all of the ladies would let him grab them by the pussy.

On the subject of the investigations involving the Bidens, if they are guilty of anything I hope that they'll be held accountable. Guess we'll see, one of these days.

As for your seeming obsession with Shifty Schiff, this will give you an idea of at least some of the things that he was referring to about having proof of Russian interference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWiFpxxWFlQ

I just listened to that again, and am surprised that there was no question about Manafort providing the sensitive polling data to the Russian businessman with close ties to the Kremlin (identified by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committe as a Russian intelligence officer).

No serious person who is even a little informed would deny that Russians sought to influence the election in Trump's favor, and interacted with the Trump campaign.

[BackInTex]

Either way, I’m disappoint[ed] that someone commits a criminal act and you do whatever you can to explain around it. So much for law and order

So much for the days when there was a consensus in the country that people who held an office of public trust were held to a higher standard. --Bob

Snort. Dumbfounded.

Perhaps the Governorsip of California is not an office of public trust. I don't know. They are different.

[flockofseagulls104]

Do you think he has the only copy of these things in existence?

Anyway, you did not answer the question. You never do - you just deflect.

We have more than ample evidence that both the FBI and the Justice Dept have extreme problems with credibility. They brazenly lied to the American public in order to get Biden elected. They committed election interference themselves while accusing others of it. Strzok spoke of an insurance policy, which is now completely obvious to anyone with an open mind. They implemented their insurance policy in spades. And the same people who organized, collaborated and disseminated those lies with the people who were then in power are now in power themselves. How do we know what they are telling us now is the truth? Maybe it's THEIR truth.

How do you ignore that?

You still didn’t answer the question.

We have a bunch of people under oath saying this happen. We are pictures of boxes in the bathroom, etc..

I didn’t ask you about Strozek.

In your defense, you may have some little moral core inside you that recognizes that what he did was wrong. That’s why you’re doing this what aboutism and acting like it somehow made up by dark forces.

Either way, I’m disappointing that someone commits a criminal act and you do whatever you can to explain around it. So much for law and order

You didn't ask ME the question, but I provided you an answer. But you didn't get it. It is quite obvious there is a two-tiered system of justice in this country now. One system for democrats and one for republicans. I have given you plenty of examples. TPTB in Washington have blown their credibility, BIG TIME. They are not even bothering to hide it anymore. Which is a sad, atrocious state for us to be in. But like everything else the democrat party does, they do not think of the unintended consequences of what they do. They just do it to preserve and expand their power. And we're not going to take it anymore. Got it?

[Weyoun]

We have more than ample evidence that both the FBI and the Justice Dept have extreme problems with credibility. They brazenly lied to the American public in order to get Biden elected. They committed election interference themselves while accusing others of it. Strzok spoke of an insurance policy, which is now completely obvious to anyone with an open mind. They implemented their insurance policy in spades. And the same people who organized, collaborated and disseminated those lies with the people who were then in power are now in power themselves. How do we know what they are telling us now is the truth? Maybe it's THEIR truth.

How do you ignore that?

You still didn’t answer the question.

We have a bunch of people under oath saying this happen. We are pictures of boxes in the bathroom, etc..

I didn’t ask you about Strozek.

In your defense, you may have some little moral core inside you that recognizes that what he did was wrong. That’s why you’re doing this what aboutism and acting like it somehow made up by dark forces.

Either way, I’m disappointing that someone commits a criminal act and you do whatever you can to explain around it. So much for law and order

You didn't ask ME the question, but I provided you an answer. But you didn't get it. It is quite obvious there is a two-tiered system of justice in this country now. One system for democrats and one for republicans. I have given you plenty of examples. TPTB in Washington have blown their credibility, BIG TIME. They are not even bothering to hide it anymore. Which is a sad, atrocious state for us to be in. But like everything else the democrat party does, they do not think of the unintended consequences of what they do. They just do it to preserve and expand their power. And we're not going to take it anymore. Got it?

Hey - so if you kept nuclear secrets in your bathroom, and showed those secrets to your friends when they came over, do you think you would be arrested?

[Weyoun]

So much for the days when there was a consensus in the country that people who held an office of public trust were held to a higher standard. --Bob

Snort. Dumbfounded.

Perhaps the Governorsip of California is not an office of public trust. I don't know. They are different.

Hey - so if you kept nuclear secrets in your bathroom, and showed those secrets to your friends when they came over, do you think you would be arrested?

[silverscreenselect]

It is quite obvious there is a two-tiered system of justice in this country now. One system for democrats and one for republicans.

Flock, what you still don't get is that there isn't a two-tiered system of justice in the country. There is a two-tiered quality of evidence presented by Democrats and Republicans in pressing their claims or bringing prosecutions. Democrats' evidence includes sworn testimony of eyewitnesses and documentary evidence. Republicans' "evidence" consists of rumors, innuendo, unsupported claims, speculation, uncorroborated hearsay, debunked hypotheses, and conspiracy theories. Republicans have had the opportunity to present their evidence numerous times and failed every time.

Like the 60 losing lawsuits contesting the 2020 election. Like the claims about all the information Operation Dumbo Drop would provide. Like the four years of investigating Hillary Clinton. Like the four-year Durham investigation that produced two acquittals in an hour's deliberation time.Like the $700+ million Fox News libel settlement when their own personalities admitted the lies they were peddling on-air were just that... lies. Like the latest group of Republican House investigative committees that have produced nothing except an unsubstantiated bit of hearsay that had been dismissed by the Trump Justice Department under Bill Barr in 2020.

Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis. Goose Eggs. Zeeeero.

Whenever it's time for Republicans to put up or shut up, they do neither. Instead, they complain about how the system is rigged against them as you have done over and over again.

It's certainly possible that they may be able to indict and possibly convict Hunter Biden on some charges. He's a pathetic screwup. But as for the rest of the "Biden crime family," the Republicans have produced nothing except pipe-dream fantasies. If you're looking for someone to blame. don't blame Biden, Garland, the FBI, or liberal news media. Blame your own investigators who can't come up with a shred of credible, admissible evidence to back up all their claims. Because the evidence isn't there.

[BackInTex]

Like the four years of investigating Hillary Clinton.

The investgations did uncover crimes, but they were passed on because "she didn't intend to break the law". That is one of the differnces Flock and many of us are frustrated with. With Trump, no grace, with Democrats, nothing but grace.

[jarnon]

Happy birthday Donald!

[flockofseagulls104]

Just another example of the two-tiered system.

CNN not only refused to cover Trump visiting the Cuban restaurant after he was arraigned, but Jake Tapper decided to put in his own biased bullshit (supposedly from an objective news reporter). The outlets that did cover it got overwhelmingly positive coverage of Trump from people who escaped from the communist Cuban regime and his 'truth' of what is happening. CNN is only interested in telling you their 'truth', which is the prosecution's 'truth'.

That was just a few weeks after they made the mistake of hosting a town hall with Trump, which they cut off early when they realized Trump was kicking butt. Can't have that!

That is what they CHOOSE for you useful idiots to see and NOT to see. That is the 'news' you get. Only the negative news about Trump. 24/7/365.

MSLSD is even worse.


https://nypost.com/2023/06/14/jake-tapp ... estaurant/

[flockofseagulls104]

Snort. Dumbfounded.

Perhaps the Governorsip of California is not an office of public trust. I don't know. They are different.

Hey - so if you kept nuclear secrets in your bathroom, and showed those secrets to your friends when they came over, do you think you would be arrested?

SO, if you destroyed 33,000 emails that were subpoenaed, destroyed hard drives, all of which contained classified documents that were probably sent to individuals without clearance, would you be arrested?
If there was credible evidence that you had taken bribes while you were Vice President, AND you had classified documents which were illegal for you to even have as VP and even a Senator, would you at least be investigated?
If you had signed a letter using your authority as a federal 'expert' on the subject that you knew was false in an attempt to sway a Presidential election, would you at least face some kind of disciplinary action?

Sorry for the whataboutism, but this shows how corrupt this weaponization of law enforcement is.

Right or wrong, this is yet ANOTHER attempt to take out the opposition by the swamp and the people in power. Trump will be elected whether they use their corrupt power to put him in jail or not. And if they find a way to steal the election again, there will be hell to pay. 81 million votes my ass.

Just my opinion. What's yours?

[Bob78164]

Like the four years of investigating Hillary Clinton.

The investgations did uncover crimes, but they were passed on because "she didn't intend to break the law". That is one of the differnces Flock and many of us are frustrated with. With Trump, no grace, with Democrats, nothing but grace.

Wrong. Specific intent was an element of the crimes being investigated. If she didn't have that specific intent, she didn't break the law.

In Donny's case, however, it does not appear the prosecution will have any difficulty proving his specific intent. So I'll ask you again: If Donny did what he's alleged to have done, including but not limited to in paragraph 6 of the indictment, should have have been prosecuted? --Bob

[BackInTex]

Like the four years of investigating Hillary Clinton.

The investgations did uncover crimes, but they were passed on because "she didn't intend to break the law". That is one of the differnces Flock and many of us are frustrated with. With Trump, no grace, with Democrats, nothing but grace.

Wrong. Specific intent was an element of the crimes being investigated. If she didn't have that specific intent, she didn't break the law.

In Donny's case, however, it does not appear the prosecution will have any difficulty proving his specific intent. So I'll ask you again: If Donny did what he's alleged to have done, including but not limited to in paragraph 6 of the indictment, should have have been prosecuted? --Bob

Hillary didn't have specific intent to destroy the servers or smash her phones? It was all by accident? RiiiIIIiiiight. Get your head out of your butt. No Trump shouldn't be charged until previous crimes that should have been investigated and the perpetrators charged are prosecuted first. First come first serve. That includes the thousands that illegally enter our country, the thousands who streal and destroy business in your state that are allowed to do so without fear of proscecution by folks you support, and so on. I believe justice should be blind and the fact that the current DOJ has those blindfolds off of her, anything she does is "fruit of the poisoned tree" or whatever term you use to let folks off on technicallities.

[Bob78164]

The investgations did uncover crimes, but they were passed on because "she didn't intend to break the law". That is one of the differnces Flock and many of us are frustrated with. With Trump, no grace, with Democrats, nothing but grace.

Wrong. Specific intent was an element of the crimes being investigated. If she didn't have that specific intent, she didn't break the law.

In Donny's case, however, it does not appear the prosecution will have any difficulty proving his specific intent. So I'll ask you again: If Donny did what he's alleged to have done, including but not limited to in paragraph 6 of the indictment, should have have been prosecuted? --Bobs

Hillary didn't have specific intent to destroy the servers or smash her phones? It was all by accident? RiiiIIIiiiight. Get your head out of your butt. No Trump shouldn't be charged until previous crimes that should have been investigated and the perpetrators charged are prosecuted first. First come first serve. That includes the thousands that illegally enter our country, the thousands who streal and destroy business in your state that are allowed to do so without fear of proscecution by folks you support, and so on. I believe justice should be blind and the fact that the current DOJ has those blindfolds off of her, anything she does is "fruit of the poisoned tree" or whatever term you use to let folks off on technicallities.

Secretary Clinton didn’t have a specific intent to hide her possession of classified documents because she didn’t know or believe that the servers or her phone had classified documents.

If Donny did what he was caught on tape doing, as alleged in paragraph 6 of the indictment, is it your position that he shouldn’t be prosecuted for that conduct? Do you think we should let it slide that he deliberately provided highly sensitive national defense information to people who weren’t authorized to have that information? I guess your answer is yes. If you like someone’s politics enough, we shouldn’t apply the law to him. —Bob

[silverscreenselect]

If there was credible evidence that you had taken bribes while you were Vice President, AND you had classified documents which were illegal for you to even have as VP and even a Senator, would you at least be investigated?

The FBI under Bill Barr investigated the "credible evidence" that Biden had taken bribes. It was actually unsubstantiated hearsay, inadmissible in any legal proceeding, and they felt in 2020 that the matter didn't warrant any additional investigation. Since that time, there has been no additional evidence uncovered.

When Biden's attorney found classified documents in an office, he notified the FBI and Biden agreed to a search of his home that uncovered more documents. AG Garland appointed a special counsel, Robert Hur, to investigate the matter, and that investigation is still open. Hur was the former US Attorney for the District of Maryland, appointed by Trump in 2018, and before that was a special assistant to Christopher Wray when Wray was in charge of the Justice Department's Criminal Division under Bush. Hur is also a Republican. So Biden's possession of the documents is under current investigation by a special counsel who can't be accused of being a Democratic political hack or operative.

Once again, Flock's crying and moaning is unsubstantiated by the facts and evidence.

[wbtravis007]

Just another example of the two-tiered system.

CNN not only refused to cover Trump visiting the Cuban restaurant after he was arraigned, but Jake Tapper decided to put in his own biased bullshit (supposedly from an objective news reporter). The outlets that did cover it got overwhelmingly positive coverage of Trump from people who escaped from the communist Cuban regime and his 'truth' of what is happening. CNN is only interested in telling you their 'truth', which is the prosecution's 'truth'.

That was just a few weeks after they made the mistake of hosting a town hall with Trump, which they cut off early when they realized Trump was kicking butt. Can't have that!

That is what they CHOOSE for you useful idiots to see and NOT to see. That is the 'news' you get. Only the negative news about Trump. 24/7/365.

MSLSD is even worse.


https://nypost.com/2023/06/14/jake-tapp ... estaurant/

You’ve topped yourself with this one. In terms of asininity, I mean.

No easy task.