ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
Asks a bunch of questions, spits a bunch of nonsense, misses the point, is completely unable to address the actual issues.
“Do My FaCtS tRiGgEr YoU?”
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
ItS a StAte IsSuE. wE wIlL vOtE tO hArM wOmEn BeCaUsE dEmOcRaCy. I aM a SeRiOuS pErSoN.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
“Oh hey, these laws are poorly written and are having disastrous consequences.”
ItS a StAtE iSsUe. I aM sMaRt
-
1
-
1
-
-
I see Tommy Eyerolls has gotten his marching orders.
-
2
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, BillStime said:
But they didn’t treat her because of the law - own it “Doc”
Discharge paperwork when my wife had to be treated for miscarriages: “Spontaneous Abortion”Discharge paperwork when my wife thought she was having a miscarriage (but thankfully wasn’t): “Threatened Abortion”
Basically every hospital looking at these laws: “life of the mother” means we are potentially liable if we terminate a pregnancy with a “heartbeat” (even if it’s nonviable) when the mother’s life is not at risk.
Basically every lawyer looking at these laws: “life of the mother” means you are potentially liable if you terminate a pregnancy with a “heartbeat” (even if it’s nonviable) when the mother’s life is not at risk.
MAGA: “nuh uh. Everyone is wrong except me, facts and logic be damned.”
-
1
-
1
-
-
I see that the usual crowd has gotten their talking points ready
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
It was revised UP.
Has there ever been a more "glass half empty" pessimist?
Jobs report bad? Biden's economy sucks. Not adding enough jobs.
Jobs report good? Biden's economy suck, more inflation.
They cannot, under any circumstances, say that anything is ever good if a Dem is president.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Which bring me back to my point. If one were to consider reasonable and fair treatment as the goal, and laws that were broken were really only pretend/maybe laws that no one really follows (though Comey did suggest that others in the same situation might face adverse actions), why would it be unreasonable to think a few boxes in the steam room were anything to worry about as it relates to an armed raid, or life in prison?
Remember that for almost a year, there wasn’t a big concern from the government. They found out Trump had the docs and they asked for them back.
Trump wrongfully claimed that they were all his, but the government simply continued to negotiate with him to return the documents.
Eventually, Trump told the government he’d return the documents. He gave them several boxes of documents and his lawyer signed a letter stating that these were all of the documents.
Had that been it, Trump would have been fine. For all of the problems of walking away with the documents and refusing to return them, the government just wanted to get them back. As far as I can remember, the whole thing was still being handled by NARA at this point, not federal law enforcement.
However, the government then learned that Trump had lied. He had removed documents prior to his lawyer examining all of the boxes, causing his lawyer to falsely claim they had returned everything. He had also told his staff to tamper with the security cameras for the room that housed the documents.
It was only at this point that the government decided to take real action, referring the case to the DoJ which then executed a search warrant and later indicted Trump.
If you want to argue that the controls and laws around the handling of sensitive documents by electeds are broken and need fixing, I’m 100% with you.
But it is simply false to paint Trump’s situation as him being treated differently. They gave him every opportunity to avoid trouble (opportunities that everyone else in his shoes gladly took) and he decided to obstruct instead.
Also, I’m no “true believer.” I don’t like Hillary, I didn’t vote for her in 2016 (voted for Gary Johnson). I didn’t want Biden to be the Dem nominee in 2020 and I certainly didn’t want him to be the nominee in 2024. I’m just trying to explain what’s going on with these cases.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
How many times do you think you've spelled this out here? At least 10.
I don’t expect people to understand all of the legal ins and outs so I’m happy to explain it.
But after some point the ignorance goes from understandable to willful.
-
1 hour ago, Doc said:
Initially you said/believed that he never knew he had classified information and it was "spillage" thanks to his underlings. Now it appears you're saying that knowingly possessing classified material and not giving it back is OK because he wasn't asked for it back (which is what is truly nonsense). Is that what you're saying? Because I don't want to put words in your mouth...
I’m saying that if a former elected has government docs in their possession, they do not get charged if they cooperate and turn them over when asked. Like it or not, that’s just how it works.
If you actually read Hur’s report, the evidence they could use to charge Biden for willful possession was a single comment he made. In all of the tapes with his ghostwriter, he never again mentioned them, none of the information ended up in the book. The documents were not even found in the house he was in when he made the comment (and they were in a “badly damaged box surrounded by household detritus”), and he had been out of office for barely a month (while in office, he was permitted to keep such files at his home).
No jury would convict on that fact pattern.
If the Trump case had the same facts, Trump wouldn’t have been charged because there would be no likelihood of a conviction.
He got charged because, unlike Biden or Pence, Trump obstructed the investigation and lied to the Feds. That’s certainly enough to be able to prove intent to a jury.
The thing that has the right so made is that they mistakenly believe the cases are the same and Trump is being treated differently. They are not because Trump ensured his indictment by his own actions after the documents were discovered by the Feds.
-
2 hours ago, Doc said:
And you keep ignoring that Hur found evidence that Biden willfully retained classified information. And shared some with his ghostwriter. And he had that information for many more years than Trump did and stored some in his garage.
I’m not ignoring it. Like I said, electeds get away with a lot around this stuff, likely because the laws were written with the millions of public and private sector employees in mind, not former elected officials.
Had Trump taken the documents and forgotten about them and they were discovered years later, he still wouldn’t get charged *unless* he refused to return them when asked.
That’s the difference. It remains the difference. All of this other nonsense is just to deflect from the fact that it was Trump’s actions *after* he was asked to return them that got him charged.
-
9 minutes ago, Doc said:
Yes on the bolded parts but no on the rest. I've been saying all along that either they both should be charged or neither should be. It's the Dems who are trying to have it both ways.
You keep ignoring that Trump obstructed the investigation. That’s the crucial difference between the two.
Had he just done what Biden did, he wouldn’t have been charged.
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
No I just realize when I'm dealing with people who aren't as smart as they think they are and/or are merely partisan hacks. I deal with far more intelligent people on a daily basis and many have egos the size of Texas.
If you truly believe Biden didn't know he had classified material for years, you're a moron. But I realize that you have to believe it because Biden just has to be different from Trump in your eyes to help you sleep at night.
So go hiding behind your legal standards. I live in the real world, not a courtroom.
I appreciate you proving my point that you are incapable of reading comprehension and instead just pretend you know what people said regardless of the actual text, so long as it meets your preconceived notions.
You don’t live in the real world. You live in a pretend world that brings you comfort and tells you that you were always right all along despite the evidence to the contrary.
I would laugh, but it’s actually quite sad.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Doc said:
I'm sorry you're a partisan hack. The only embarrassment is you continuing to deny Biden knew he had classified material. It says more about you than anything else.
I don’t want to be a jerk, but is English not your native language? Or do you have some learning issue?You keep claiming I said things that I’ve never said and I don’t want to embarrass you if there’s something else going on here.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Doc said:
He returned them in 2017, after showing them to his ghostwriter?
You struggle with the truth. But you're a lawyer so...
I’m sorry you have such reading comprehension problems but maybe take some time to get professional help before continuously embarrassing yourself. -
4 minutes ago, Doc said:
Like I said...
Yes, we all understand that you struggle to grasp basic concepts. You don't need to keep pointing it out to everyone.
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
Even they know Biden willfully took, kept and improperly stored and shared classified material. They have to convince themselves that he's innocent while gaslighting everyone else.
If anyone is looking for a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger, this is it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
No, you’re wrong here.
It borders on the absurd to think that the controls supposedly in place to protect our national secrets in a post 9/11 world are simply broken. It’s infinitely more likely that Biden’s actions (and Clinton’s and Pence) represent the standard, not the exception. That is to say, powerful people are often above the law, and what passes for an explanation to the masses starts with some vague explanation of shrinkage and ultimately morphs into how acceptable it is to reveal classified documents and/or leave top secret info wherever the 🤬you want so long as you’re part of the inside crew.
I’m under no illusion that Trumps case is the same as Biden’s case. I accepted long ago that certain people are in a protected class while others are not. Whether Trump returned material or not, the Biden DOJ was coming for him. All it takes is a novel theory of prosecution, or an aggressive prosecutor, or enough political support and popular support.
All this does is bring me back to the beginning. The government is a very formidable foe, and holds all the cards. It’s nothing new.
This is just factually incorrect.
Instead of taking the very simple and correct explanation (leeway is granted to electeds if they don't obstruct), it paints Trump as a victim of a vast conspiracy that just does not exist.
The idea that there is a "protected class" of powerful people who are above the law that exists but doesn't include the guy with a golden toilet is laughable.
If Trump had intentionally taken the documents, told his people that he did so to sell them to Iran for cash, but the government asked for them before he did so and he returned them all, he'd be fine. It's not some grand conspiracy, it's an idiot being an idiot and causing himself problems.
FYI: If you hire a lawyer, listen to them...
-
1
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
So back to the presidential records act...LOL
Yeah, unfortunately Aileen Cannon seems to have an incredibly poor grasp on the PRA.
Under her theory, the president of the United States can take a sensitive document prepared by the intelligence community as a "personal document" and therefore treat it as if it were a box of White House jelly beans.
That's obviously ludicrous and why Smith replied the way he did.
-
2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
In addition, it seems obvious that there is anarchy when it comes to the handling of classified/top secret material at the highest levels of our government. It seems there are no safeguards, no hard and fast rules on who can do what, and what the punishment might look like for those that stray. That feeds into the narrative in a big way, imo…
While I don’t agree with most of your characterizations (and that’s fine, we can agree to disagree) I do agree with this. The controls around handling of sensitive documents by electeds are seriously broken.
They seem so lax that you’d expect to be walk out of a White House tour with a top secret document unwittingly stuck to your shoe.
Aside from the national security implications, you’re correct that this impacts the narrative for the average person. Does everybody leave the office with national security documents? If so, why punish one guy when everyone does it?
That, combined with how poorly the media covers politics, the law, and especially the intersection of politics and the law, leads to people believe that the facts of the Biden and Pence cases are the same as the Trump case.
The Feds generally seem content to let things slide in these cases so long as the documents are returned. Trump lied to them about returning the documents, lied to his lawyer, causing him to lie to the Feds, and orchestrated several obstructive acts. Had he just done what Biden and Pence did, he’d be fine. We’d still have an issue with document control, but he wouldn’t have an issue with this indictment.
But because of the narrative issues you pointed out, a lot of people are incorrectly conflating his case with Biden’s.
-
5 minutes ago, Doc said:
Just $22M? That's chump change for Nancy...
https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/congress-trading-report-2023Nancy doesn’t hold a candle to Brian Higgins.
Members of Congress should be barred from trading stocks. Though that’s obviously irrelevant to this thread.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Two plead guilty to insider trading related to Trump Media merger
"NEW YORK, April 3 (Reuters) - Two men pleaded guilty on Wednesday to insider trading in securities in the company that ultimately took former U.S. President Donald Trump's media business public.
Michael Shvartsman, 53, head of Miami-based venture capital firm Rocket One Capital, and his brother Gerald Shvartsman, 46, each pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud before U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan.
Rocket One's chief investment officer, Bruce Garelick, is scheduled to face trial on related charges on April 29.
Prosecutors charged the trio last year with illegally trading on inside information about Trump Media & Technology Group's (TMTG) (DJT.O), opens new tab plan to go public through a merger with a blank-check company. TMTG operates Truth Social, Trump's main social media platform.
Prosecutors said the trio signed confidentiality agreements in June 2021 when they were approached to become early investors in Digital World Acquisition, the blank-check company. The agreements required them to keep information they learned confidential and not trade the company's securities in the open market, prosecutors said.
After hearing the company was in merger talks with TMTG, prosecutors said the trio tipped others and bought Digital World securities, selling them after the deal was announced on Oct. 20, 2021, to make a total of $22 million in illegal profit.
Michael and Gerald Shvartsman said in court that they knew what they were doing was wrong when they traded on nonpublic information.
"I've made a terrible mistake," Gerald Shvartsman said at the hearing.
"Insider trading is cheating, plain and simple," U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement after the pleas.
The Shvartsmans are scheduled to be sentenced on July 17. Securities fraud carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, but any sentence would be imposed by the judge based on a range of factors. The average prison sentence in federal fraud cases in the U.S. last year was around two years.
TMTG was publicly listed in late March, and its shares have been on a wild ride fueled by speculators betting on enthusiasm for Trump, the Republican presidential candidate in November's election.
The stock shed early gains this week as Truth Social's parent company disclosed it had lost more than $58 million in 2023.
TMTG shares were trading at around $51.60 on Wednesday morning, making Trump's stake worth about $4 billion, though he is not allowed to sell or borrow against it for six months.
Trump Media is also embroiled in legal battles in Delaware and Florida with co-founders Wesley Moss and Andrew Litinsky, who have accused the company of trying to improperly dilute their stake. Trump Media has argued they failed to earn their shares and seeks to strip them of their ownership."
Man, who could have seen this coming...?
-
1
-
-
Doesn't he have like $30 million dead cap hit on the contract?
Unless this is the first step of a bigger move like trading up in the draft or getting Jefferson or Aiyuk, I don't like it.
-
4 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:
My rule would be if you want to have an abortion then they get to sterilize you as you have clearly shown you can't be trusted with such rights. You can then apply in the future for a reversal once you are married and have a steady income and can show that you can support a family. Fair compromise?
Apparently, abortion opponents will propose absolutely anything unless it addresses the root cause of the issue.
Trump wants to ban ABORTION, IVF, MIFEPRISTONE nationwide and JAIL doctors who provide care.
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Nah man, just laughing at you. So simple, so naive. Like a precious little cinnamon bun.